Rebuilding with no assets is more difficult than if you have some. A house destroyed by hurricane or tornado can be rebuilt because the land is there, if the land is there and is owned by the would-be rebuilder. Trailer destroyed and all is destroyed, what foundation for rebuilding is there and the same goes for rented property? Also am I not right in thinking that areas of New Orleans have been sequestrated so cannot be rebuilt on and isn't there controversy over compensation?
It is not unreasonable to expect help from the Government when disaster strikes, after all the Government claims ultimate control up to and including conscription over the people so there is a quid pro quo of expectation in extremis.
There's always controversy over compensation after a hurricane (I'm presuming you mean from the insurance companies) And yes, even trailers are usually insured. The controversy arises from whether the damage was caused by hurricane or related storm damage (winds, lightning, etc.) or from accompanying floods. Flood damage generally isn't covered. That gets even more complicated because water damage from leaks in the roof or structure caused by the storm IS covered. Confusing isn't it.
But apart from the time the Air Force saw fit to station me elsewhere, I've always lived in a hurricane zone and been through over a dozen hurricanes (four of which were major) and NO ONE ever thought to ask for federal government recompense or assistance for disaster damage. here along the Gulf Coast, that mindset's totally restricted to the New Orleans bunch. The rest of us take care of ourselves and each other in rebuilding.
We do however expect federal government assistance in "recovery" and rescue; such as Coast Guard patrols to rescue survivors. And of course LOCAL government assistancesuch as the National Guard (which for some unknown reason, the Louisiana governor didn't activate) to patrol and prevent looting.
I guess what I'm trying to say (poorly) is our expectations from different levels of government are different largely because our concept of the individual levels themselves are different. Let me try to explain that. To us, state government is generally the level where the rubber hits the road. I would expect almost all of the day to day functions of government (police, fire protection, education, etc.) to be regulated at the state level and provided by the state or even more locally. Whereas the federal level should mostly be hands off on these matters unless they somehow involve a national issue.
To compare it to there, it would be as if a disaster such as an earthquake devastated London and the residents expected the rebuilding efforts to be funded and overseen by the EU. Of course their help would be appreciated (and probably even expected) but no one would expect the EU to be the main driving force.