Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 17 2021 08:05pm)
Again, not a natural disaster, and could have been mitigated and managed at that time via the utilization of federal resources at that time.
The largest disaster was the local and state response to civil unrest. Again, not a natural disaster of any form, and given the lack of requesting federal response immediately during the events, my understanding is that it really fell to, "Does the state have the resources to recover from it's damages?" and the answer was yes, so FEMA aid was denied. That's still open for discussion though. Minnesota rep... Emmet, was it? Promised a clear explanation of what occurred, how it occurred, and how it can be prevented in the future in return for reconsideration of the aid. My understanding is, this was accepted, and the explanations have not yet been presented. It's entirely possible that Minnesota could still receive federal aid. I don't think states like Oregon or Washington would, as they're on the record as refusing federal assistance and citing state's jurisdiction for doing so.
O.o I didn't realize FEMA was limited to natural disasters?
stafford-act_2019 313.b.2.c/d (page 96)
"(C) develop a Federal response
capability that, when necessary
and appropriate, can act effectively and rapidly to deliver assistance essential to saving lives or
protecting or preserving property
or public health and safety in a
natural disaster,
act of terrorism,
or other man-made disaster;"
Also, of course Minnesota has the resources to cover emergencies, we plan for this shit. That shouldn't be a reason to bar federal aid when there is a disaster. That incentivizes piss poor planning by states.
This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Feb 17 2021 08:56pm