"(He) was satisfied with one answer he heard: If you build now, you will be reimbursed, Christie said. So Appleby, who is unemployed, went ahead with rebuilding his home.
But now, more than three months later, reimbursement for Appleby is no longer the case, and in fact it never was. Money already spent on work on homes such as Appleby’s cannot be recouped under the $600 million Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation program set up after the town hall meeting and administered by the state Department of Community Affairs."
And some people like him as a Presidential candidate?
If we eliminate everyone who ever makes a statement in error, or correct but based on information that changes, the list of candidates is going to be pretty short. Particularly in this case, which you didn’t adequately summarize (the article points out that there were additional steps to be taken, which the homeowner didn’t).
Plus, I bet all the news coverage makes reimbursement show up in short order.
Thinking it over “lied” is the wrong phrase. Probably he didn’t have a clue what the regulations were and made no attempt to find out and simply pumped out some bullshit which sounded good to the media.
Obviously he couldn’t care less that this caused people substantial losses.
There’s some things about this story that don’t seem to jive:
Where does an unemployed person get $70k? Is panhandling that lucrative in New Jersey?
I’d also like to see some cite from the OP that Christie lied about this. From the article it isn’t clear at all that Christie knew (or should have known) that what he was telling the town hall meeting was false.
Plus, and this is prolly a personal failing on my part, it’s hard for me to feel much sympathy for a guy with a 3000 sq. ft. home on the beach of a barrier island (where the median home price seems to be more than $500,000) who, while jobless, still has more than $70,000 sitting around that he can use to initiate home repairs.
ETA: I see the OP has retracted his accusation of lying. What’s the problem that is being decried, then?
Again, I find it hard to conjure up much more than the barest sympathy for someone with $70,000 in savings who lives in what is likely a $750,000+ home on the beach.
I happen to agree with the OP that what Christie did is deserving of a lot of criticism. I just don’t understand the need to attempt to disqualify him as a Presidential candidate, as if any Presidential candidate in history has been without sin. Unless the OP has never supported an actual Presidential candidate, ever, then he’s throwing stones while supporting sinners, so to speak.
I don’t think this is Christie’s fault but the rebuilding maze following Sandy has been a nightmare and very hard to follow. The guy probably has most of his net worth tied into a house that without fixing up means he jobless and without his main investment. He has to fix it to prevent more damage and preserve his investment. He is an older man probably with poor employment prospects and thought he would get money back based on what Christie said. Hopefully he will.
The various State & Federal agencies need to make this simpler. If Christie can do something to help out, he should but but it seems like FEMA has been the single biggest obstacle. Even the regs on who needs to raise their houses is still up in the air and it 9 months later.