Why is 60 percent the magic number?

Time now to toot my little horn -- something I don't like to do -- but I find it curious, as did oyster that the Times-Picayune opinion pieces are starting to sound more like local blog posts, or, as he said, we're sounding more like Times-Picayune opinion pieces.

On the Baker bill, I think I was out there before the Times-Picayune (or Lolis Eric Elie at least). My thinking has always been that the Baker bill was a start in the right direction, but I've objected to it because it didn't provide enough compensation to owners. I always wanted to know why 60 percent was the magic number to compensate owners for homes damaged by federal levees. Why not 100 percent compensation? You can go back to read my posts made in November and December for more of my arguments on the Baker bill.

To me it seemed like a boondoggle for developers courtesy of taxpayers and former homeowners. I've been offered the rebuttal that 60 percent is the best we can realistically expect to get from Congress. Really? What car dealer starts by telling you the lowest price he can offer you?

I've also been promoting the idea that the federal government should accept its legal responsibility for damages -- it's not an issue of charity. It's an issue of owners' right to compensation for damages.

Now, Lolis is on the same wave length, but that's not the end of the story. Lolis quotes local pundit and blogger C.B. Forgotston for the thrust of the piece:

C.B. Forgotston, an independent government watchdog, says the federal government is getting off easy. The failure of the levees, not the strength of the hurricane winds, destroyed New Orleans. Those levees were built by the Army Corps of Engineers.

"The federal government destroyed my house and possessions. Why should I accept 60 percent?" Forgotston said.

"If you left your house this morning and returned this evening to find that the Corps of Engineers, by mistake, incompetence or negligence, had bulldozed your house to the ground, would you accept 60 percent payment for your loss?

"The only difference in that scenario and what happened was that the damage was done with water instead of a bulldozer," he said. "Legally I would be entitled to pain, suffering and living expenses for the last five months. But as a compromise, all I want is to be put back financially where I was in August." ...

The Baker bill sidesteps the question of who is responsible for the destruction of New Orleans. It seeks to ensure that neighborhoods as a whole will be rebuilt, instead of a piecemeal rebuilding in which residents who can afford to pay for the work on their homes will come back. ...

Currently, the Baker bill may be our best hope for rebuilding. But it shouldn't be confused with a just settlement.

By the way, it's a powerful post by oyster I linked to above. I strongly recommend you read it.

Ahem ... I won't take down the link to C.B. Forgotston's site in the sidebar, but I'm not linking to him in this post because he doesn't reciprocate for other local bloggers.

2/01/06 update: A spectacular lightning storm tonight has me out of bed thinking about this a little more. Until now, most of the press reported the Baker bill as the only plan out there to help homeowners, describing the 60 percent solution as the best homeowners could expect, rather than asking how the 60 percent number was determined, or why it couldn't be increased. Before the bill goes back out to the White House and Congress, we ought to try to improve it. I have to say, I've tried to contact Baker's office a number of times to get an answer to the 60 percent question without reply -- kind'a makes me wonder ...