Hurrican Sandy Relief Disaster
by Troy Goodman
Site Description:
In late October 2012, Superstorm Sandy made landfall along the New Jersey coastline and, in the years that followed, caused billions of dollars in damage and recovery costs. While most of the state was affected, many low-income and minority groups faced some of the greatest obstacles to recovery because their homes were more likely to be in a high-risk flood zone. In this project, I want to examine the social inequalities these residents experienced as they navigated state and federal recovery programs. I hope to answer questions such as: What made it so difficult for these groups to return to their homes? What was the public’s response once these inequalities became public? How and to what extent did federal or state recovery programs change in response to the inequalities following Superstorm Sandy? Understanding the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy is important because it shows us how natural disasters can expose existing social inequalities. By studying how these recovery programs changed, we can learn which reforms worked and use that knowledge to build fairer recovery systems before the next disaster strikes.
Final Report WIP
Primary Sources:
Sandy Recovery Programs
https://www.nj.gov/dca/ddrm/programs/sandy.shtml
This source lists and describes several recovery programs that were implemented following Superstorm Sandy. I’m going to be using this source as a hub where I can then discuss and talk about different programs. The two programs I know that I’m going to talk about the most are RREM and LRRP, but I’m listing this reference so that when I need to talk about any other programs, I can easily navigate.
Rutgers Report: Superstorm Sandy Recovery Short $28.3 Billion; Pain Spread Across New Jersey
This is a report dated a year after Superstorm Sandy hit that highlights the lack of proper recovery assistance. There is a full report with statistics linked at the bottom of the page, however, you need Rutgers access to see it, so on Monday I plan to visit the Rutgers library and see about getting access so I can save the report and use it. My plan is to use that data in my final report to show how low-income families didn’t receive full recovery funding.
Six months after Hurricane Sandy, thousands are still homeless
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/04/27/six-months-after-hurricane-sandy-thousands-are-still-homeless/
This is a news article from April 2013, 6 months after Superstorm Sandy hit, and it talks about the slow recovery process, which is perfect because it’s something that I want to discuss in my report. It’s also useful because towards the middle of the article, they provide statistics on the current number of displaced families as of April, which I can use as part of a possible data analysis to show how slow progress was being made.
Floor statement on Sandy Supplemental
https://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/floor_remarks_on_sandy_jan_2_2013.pdf
This excerpt is from Congress member Christopher Smith’s floor remarks during a House of Representatives meeting on January 2, 2013. This source will be useful for two reasons: first, it provides extensive statistical data on total damage across New Jersey that I can use to show how destructive the storm was. Second, he makes an argument showing that the government was slow to provide proper resources to the state in order to help the recovery process. I can use both of these facts to show the damage, and then also show that there was a lack of funding being provided.
Shock Lingers in Battered New Jersey as Residents Assess Damage
This source talks more about the total damage across the state. I really want to use multiple sources and data just to highlight the damage for any readers who may not be familiar with Superstorm Sandy.
Secondary Sources:
Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation Program (RREM)
This source looks like it’s an informative pamphlet that explains one of the recovery programs implemented after Superstorm Sandy.
Since my paper is talking about the unfair distribution of recovery funding, in order to understand why it was unfair, you first need to understand the program itself. I want to use this information to introduce one of the programs I’ll be covering and just give the reader some base-level knowledge on the programs that were implemented.
Hurricane Sandy and New Jersey’s Fight For Equitable Disaster Relief
This is a report from the Fair Share Housing Center that looks at how New Jersey mishandled the Superstorm Sandy recovery funds. It talks about a lawsuit that was filed against the State arguing that the distribution of funding was discriminatory and unlawful.
I’m going to use this source primarily to discuss the lawsuit and the data it provides showing that certain demographics didn’t receive equal relief following Superstorm Sandy. Another thing in the source that I’ll be using is the two interview-style blocks, where we read about a specific person’s struggles to get the proper recovery they needed. Ideally, I want to find other people that I could interview to see how they dealt with the storm, but in case I’m unable to meet with someone else, having these two stories could be useful to show direct impacts that the community felt.
After the Superstorm
https://www.prrac.org/after-the-superstorm/
This source again discusses New Jersey’s failure to properly distribute Superstorm Sandy relief funding.
This source was written in 2017 after several hurricanes and wildfires across the country, and looks at how New Jersey handled Sandy almost as an example for others on what New Jersey did wrong and how they can do better. I’m going to use this source to again show how poorly New Jersey dispersed the relief funds and show direct actions and policies that let this happen.
Image Analysis:
Focal Point: The very first thing I see is the man in green standing directly in the center of the image.
Direction of Movement within the Picture Frame: My eyes start at the man and then travel upwards, first seeing the bright yellow Fun Town stand, then the rollercoaster in the background. They then start moving down along the colorful umbrellas until I get to the bottom row and see all the debris and damage. Something I note is that the man has his back to the rollercoaster, facing the damage in front of him. Using a concept of color, you could say he’s walking away from the bright happiness that the boardwalk once was, and is now walking towards the darker debris, which can symbolize all the bad that has happened, and him accepting the work that needs to be done.
Spatial Relationships: I mentioned one possible spatial division above through color. The divide of a bright, colorful background versus the darkened and depressing shades of brown and gray helps show separation in the image.
Color: Color is a big thing I notice in the image, and it’s one of the reasons I selected this picture. When I see the bright colored umbrellas and red rollercoaster in the background, it instantly brings me feelings of happiness and memories of spending time with friends and family from my youth. The darkened sky and destruction of wood and debris instead bring feelings of sadness and depression. A lot of the emotions I feel when looking at it come from my own personal memories; however, anyone who has been to a boardwalk or carnival will probably have similar feelings.
Scale/Size: The rollercoaster is the largest thing in the image and goes to show just how powerful the storm was that it could destroy something so massive. Another thing I noticed is that the debris is all along the bottom of the image. If all the debris were in one pile on the side, and the other side was clean, it would portray the damage as not that severe. However, because the damage is across the whole bottom of the image, it forces the reader to imagine how much damage isn’t being shown in the picture. It immediately makes the reader feel as though the damage shown is only a small percentage of the total damage in the area.
Contrasts: There are two contrasts I see, first is the contrast of color, which I already mentioned, and the other is the contrast between the man and the damage around him. While everything in the image looks dirty and destroyed, the man doesn’t; instead, he appears unharmed with a clean set of clothes on. You can think of this almost as a symbol for the human spirit. No matter what happens, in times of need, people will always come together and work to restore things.
Individual Actors & Details: One detail that doesn’t fit the image at all is the sign on the yellow stand in the middle. The sign reads “Fun Town,” which heavily contrasts the rest of the image, as we can obviously see there is nothing fun happening. I think it makes the image even more depressing than it already is, because we can assume that this was once supposed to be a ‘fun’ place, but now it’s in ruins.
Absences: The image feels lonely, and I think that’s due to the fact that there is nobody else in the image, just the one man. I think if there were other people, maybe workers helping to clean up the damage, it would give the image more of a feeling of community and hope. Instead, the man seems alone in the damage, making everything feel abandoned.
Values & Meanings: I think the photographer is trying to show how fragile everything is when compared to forces of nature. It shows that even something as strong as a rollercoaster, or some place with emotional attachment, can all be taken away in the blink of an eye.
Where to go Next: The first place to go to find more about this image would be the page and photograph I directly got it from, David Gard at the Star-Ledger. Along with the picture is a brief description of the man, the location, and the time period the picture was taken. Next, I would look up news articles from October/November of 2012 covering Hurricane Sandy and its impact on Seaside Heights and other coastal towns. You could also look up the history of Fun Town Pier, as well as some of the things that happened in the following years to help restore the boardwalk.
The image shows the damage left behind by Hurricane Sandy, and demonstrates that natural disasters do more than just physical damage; they also leave an emotional impact on the community and those who lost something that was important to them.
Evidence:
- The Fun Town Amusement Pier sign is clear and visible despite the surrounding destruction. It can be used as a reminder of what used to be there and all the memories people may have made at the Pier, but because of the storm, it’s all destroyed, which only adds emotion to the already physical damage.
- The picture only has one person, which is a contradiction because you would expect the boardwalk to be filled with people having fun. You could argue that the emptiness shows how the storm left an emotional hole in the community by taking away a place where people once gathered and created memories.
- All the damage in general, from the boardwalk planks to the rollercoaster in the back, just shows the physical damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. It shows how a single disaster can instantly change the landscape of a community and poses new challenges for those who live there.
Data Analysis:
Following Superstorm Sandy, a massive storm that destroyed communities along the Jersey Shore, the initial release of federal and state funding to begin the recovery phase was slow to start, getting stuck in Congress for several weeks. As the benefits slowly started to be rolled out, certain groups were noticing that they weren’t receiving as much funding as they should, or not receiving any at all. This group consisted mostly of renters, who in large part are formed primarily by low-income and minority families. I’ll be comparing the town of Toms River to the coastal island town of Seaside Heights. To gather my data, I used an area tool, drawing boxes specifically around the township’s coverage, making sure I tried to stay near the water in Toms River since those are the areas that were most affected, and staying within the Seaside Heights district, as it borders two other towns that have a much different demographic. I want to use this data to identify some similar risks both communities face, and then identify what makes them different and could lead to why they were treated differently during Superstorm Sandy’s recovery period.
Toms River and Seaside Heights are neighboring towns, only separated by a bridge that connects the island town to the mainland. Because of how close they are to each other, we can expect some similarities to the struggles they face. Both towns overlap completely with Impaired Waters, water that is too polluted to meet quality standards, and non-attainment areas, areas where air quality doesn’t meet national standards. With the topic of hurricanes, another issue both communities are prone to is flooding. Seaside is higher than Toms River (7.9 and 3.4 times the state average, respectively); both are at significant flooding risks every year due to their close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. Both communities also have similar transportation disadvantages, which EJScreen defines using metrics such as transportation cost burden, national walkability index, percentage of households with no vehicle, and mean commute time to work. Because the disadvantage value is calculated using these metrics, we don’t know the root cause; however, it’s clear both communities have some struggles with vehicles and traveling. Another similarity is the racial distribution of both communities, both having around 20% of the community identify as non-white, with 15% identifying as Hispanic. This shows that the discrimination faced from Sandy relief programs is likely not due to race, instead pointing to another reason for it happening. The last similarity is the per capita income metric, where Toms River is slightly higher at $48,914, only $2,400 higher than Seaside, which averages around $46,540. Although the direct income average may look similar, the breakdown of how the money is distributed is much different, which I will highlight next.
Although the two towns share many environmental risks, and the initial review of their average income may look similar, the economic profiles of these two towns are very different and could explain why they were treated so differently following Superstorm Sandy. The biggest indication of this is the low-income percentage, where Toms River is at 16%, while Seaside Heights is at 37%. This shows that the distribution of wealth is vastly different depending on the town we’re talking about. The next stat would be the percentage of households below the poverty line, where again Toms River is only 8%, while Seaside Heights is at 23%. Another reason for the discrimination could be seen using the owner-occupied metric, which shows the percentage of houses that are owned versus houses being rented. In Toms River, 85% of housing units are owned, meaning that 15% are rented, whereas in Seaside Heights only 51% are owned, meaning the other 49% are rented. When recovery aid was being distributed, it was much harder for a renter to get funding, as the state prioritized owners’ homes first. This could point to a reason why Seaside Heights didn’t receive the same funding that other towns got. Residents of Seaside Heights likely also faced more barriers to navigate the recovery aid process as well; 15% of adults in Seaside Heights lack a high school diploma, and 21% of households have no broadband internet. Meanwhile, in Toms River, only 3% of adults don’t have a high school diploma, and only 8% of homes have no Internet. This shows that it was more difficult for individuals to receive aid in Seaside Heights since applying for relief often required filing online applications, and then properly reading through all the regulations to make sure you were applying for the proper coverage you would be grouped into. The lack of education, as well as standard Internet access, definitely made it harder for residents to receive the help they needed.
By comparing Toms River and Seaside Heights, it suggests that environmental inequality in the postwar United States has less to do with who is exposed to hazards, and more with who has the proper resources to recover from them. The two towns face nearly identical environmental struggles, have similar racial profiles and close average incomes, yet they differ in how income is distributed across the community and the access to tools which would help them get the recovery they would need. This pattern matches another situation I read about earlier this year, titled “The Case For Letting Malibu Burn” by Mike Davis. Davis shows that the two communities in California who were facing the same level of wildfire threat didn’t receive the same protection, media coverage,ge or recovery funds, and that’s the same situation that happened in New Jersey following Superstorm Sandy. When disaster aid is built around property ownership, as many of Sandy’s recovery programs were, it rewards people who were already in a position to rebuild and leaves renters and low-income families with fewer options.