Dear Editor,
The answer to that has to be nobody and everybody. You want to say “the poor” and the uninsured, but if you own a home, any type or size of home, you cannot be considered “poor” – you own a home; and if you are going to reward the uninsured how will this encourage anyone to insure in the future?
As a homeowner, you should be able to put up your home as security to replace or rebuild your roof. If you have no insurance or the insurance funds are not enough because you want to build back a stronger or concrete roof, then monies from the recovery fund of Holland could very easily lend you those funds secured by a first (or second) mortgage over five, 10 or 20 years, at a very low one per cent annual interest rate.
Authorization of these loans could be fast tracked in days through local banks and notaries much the same way as the normal procedures for a mortgage; at reduced fees which would also be paid by the recovery fund and added to the balance outstanding. Repayments can be postponed 18–24 months based on an as need basis, and of course the funds would have to be paid directly to the contractors on a draw- down basis to avoid any suspicion of misappropriation of funds.
Now, take this same procedure and apply it to small business (as long as the business owns the real estate to guarantee the repayment by mortgage). Step this up to the major hoteliers, who are in a greater predicament because they drive our economy; everybody is in the same situation.
So, can we all agree that everybody is entitled to a roof big and small, rich and poor, and nobody is asking for it to be free. They all just need help. If Holland is providing $500m, and we can show them how they would receive their money back, who is to say they wouldn’t lend us more? Or help us again in a future catastrophic event.
Name withheld at author's request.
