WEBSTER GROVES — The city’s decision to reject buyouts for homes damaged by last year’s floods was misguided and fueled by unfounded fears, experts who specialize in the issue said this week.
City officials could have agreed to help cover the costs without setting a legal precedent going forward, the experts said.
“Legally, I just can’t see it,†said Shelley Ross Saxer, a professor of law at Pepperdine University, which runs a relief clinic for homeowners hit by natural disasters. “If the government treats one property different from another property owner, all they have to do is show a rational basis for doing that.â€
Webster Groves worked with owners of flood-damaged properties for months and applied for state and federal financial help to buy out the homeowners. But when the Federal Emergency Management Agency finally agreed and said it would pay 75% of the cost, city leaders this month declined to cover the balance, worried they’d be on the hook for future requests.
People are also reading…
It was a rare chance to use a tool that flood policy experts consistently tout as one of the best ways to reduce flood risk, by purchasing and razing flood-damaged buildings, experts say. Buyouts can be elusive, given limited funding and long, uncertain waits. Competition for dollars can be fierce.
Attorneys and law professors who specialize in the subject say Webster is passing up an opportunity.
“This funding is hard to get, and it’s likely going to be harder to get in the future,†said Stephanie Stern, a University of Arizona professor who has focused on buyout issues.
On Nov. 7, Webster Groves’ mayor and city council voted 5-2 against accepting the state-approved buyout funding for four properties near Deer Creek severely damaged in the flash flooding that struck the region in July 2022. Webster Groves’ share would have been between $79,000 and $95,000 per house, including demolition costs.
Councilmembers called it a hard vote.
“It looks like a callous decision, but it certainly wasn’t,†said Emily Hixson Shepherd.
‘No! Don’t give that up!’
Some on the council said they did not want to put public money toward buying out homes that were known to be in the floodplain at the time of their purchase.
But perhaps their biggest concern: a fear that going through with the buyouts would establish a legal precedent that would put the city on the hook for similar deals in the future — with no specific revenue stream to pay for them.
“We can’t do it for everybody,†said Councilmember Karen Alexander. “Is it fair to expect the other taxpayers to bear the costs of what was an informed decision that just didn’t work out well?â€
“We were setting a precedent,†said Mayor Laura Arnold, “that we would have to fulfill with future flooding that we have no means to fulfill.â€
But multiple legal experts who specialize in disaster relief, land use and climate change said that the city’s concerns about setting a legal precedent do not hold up to scrutiny.
“There’s no right to a buyout, so there wouldn’t be any legal obligation to offer other homeowners a buyout,†said Stern, the professor in Tucson. “These are discretionary funds and programs.â€
Jeff Baker, another law professor at Pepperdine, noted the buyout program is voluntary for homeowners and governing bodies alike.
“Opting into the FEMA buyout program for specific approved houses does not create a future legal obligation for state or local government to opt in again on other properties,†he said. “No homeowner could force the state or a local government to buy their house through the FEMA program.â€
Saxer, Baker’s Pepperdine colleague, pointed to a legal precedent established through a Supreme Court ruling that would defend the city’s right to decline future buyouts “as long as they’ve got a rational basis,†she said.
Saxer said it hurts to see the funding opportunity slip away, particularly given the urgency to help communities brace for a hotter climate and more dangerous extremes.
“We’ve just got to figure out how to pay for this,†said Saxer. “That’s why my initial reaction was, ‘No! Don’t give that up!’â€
‘I feel like I’ve been hung out to dry’
Tim Quinn, whose property on East Pacific Avenue was among those rejected for a buyout, asked the council at a meeting this week to reconsider its decision.
The city’s rejection felt like a betrayal, he said in an interview. He worked with officials for 15 months to figure out what to do with his house.
“To go through all this and then get sticker shock and bail on your people is not right,†Quinn said.
He described the steep toll of the flood’s aftermath, economically and emotionally. He declined to sell the flooded property — others have sold — and, earlier this year, paid for flood insurance so he would remain eligible for a buyout.
“I feel like I’ve been hung out to dry,†Quinn said. “The city has not only not helped me but they have harmed me in a big way.â€
Another flooded-out homeowner turned down by the city, Bridget Moran, also spoke at the Tuesday meeting.
Yes, Moran said, she realized when she moved in 2012 to the home on Kuhlman Lane that it was in a floodplain. But she said up to that point, it had flooded only once in 70 years, in 2008, and the water then hadn’t gotten into a living space.
“To victim shame me is wrong, very wrong,†she told the council.
“I really don’t get it,†she said. “I don’t understand how you could do this to your residents.â€
And, Hicks and Moran complained, Webster Groves has agreed to help pay for purchasing two other properties damaged in the 2022 flood.
FEMA was only requiring the city to pay 10% of the cost of those, city officials said, because the homes had been damaged in previous floods. Arnold, the mayor, said there were only two properties in that category.
“In the long run,†she said, “that is something that we believe financially we can absorb.â€
Webster officials said they expect to formally decline the other four FEMA buyouts this week.
Mark Schlinkmann of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.