For those who see Franz Kafka as a creator of nonfiction, a public meeting held Tuesday evening in Barre provided plenty of evidence. The title of the event was pure nectar for bureaucracy devotees: “Substantial Damage Informational Meeting.”

City officials held the event, attended by dozens of homeowners, to clear up abundant confusion around the rebuilding process after the July flood. Because Barre was so hard hit, the response has been slow, glitchy, confusing, and full of obstacles for property owners. The meeting featured a parade of people struggling to negotiate federal, state and local regulations, insurance coverage, property tax abatements, and the possibility that a flood-prone section of the city might be completely redeveloped in a few years’ time even if the houses therein are repaired. The situation puts the city’s finances in a perilous, uncertain condition — as reflected in City Council’s recent decision to postpone municipal elections from early March to early May.

The woman pictured above who, like most of the commenters, didn’t give her name, said that it would be impossibly costly to elevate her house as required for flood-proofing.. She closed with the quote that became this post’s headline, stood up, and walked away.

She was far from the only person who was at sea over how to rebuild or whether to even try. “The cost today to repair stuff is astronomical,” said a man named Gordon. “You’d be puttin’ into them houses two times what it could even sell for. And who’d want to buy ‘em now after this last flood?”

City Manager Nicholas Storellicastro said that 40 properties had already applied for buyouts, meaning the owners have no intention of rebuilding. “To be candid,” Storellicastro said, “the city can’t afford to buy out 40 homes both from a financial standpoint because we have to front all the money and then get it reimbursed, but also from a tax base standpoint, that would just be debilitating to the city.”

From the tenor of this meeting, I’d say it’s almost certain that more people will seek buyouts or simply walk away.

In December, a solid five months after the flood, the city sent “Substantial Damage Letters” to homeowners whose properties suffered the worst. This meeting was designed to clear up the resultant confusion and encourage people to work with city officials as the best way to move forward. “Substantial damage” is a Federal Emergency Management Agency term meaning that the cost of restoring a structure would be 50% or more of the building’s pre-flood assessed value.

The letters gave a deadline of December 31 for owners to contact the city to begin the process of confirming or reversing a “substantial damage” declaration. Most recipients did not respond, so the city extended the deadline indefinitely.

Many homeowners have found the recovery process to be a case of adding insult to injury. City officials pleaded the sheer burden of the work brought about by the magnitude of the flood. By the state’s reckoning, Storellicastro pointed out, Barre was hit harder than any other community in Vermont. Montpelier issued its “substantial damage letters” in September, two months after the flood, he said, but only had to send six to eight of them. Barre issued 84.

Meanwhile, many homeowners were doing their best to expedite repairs before the onset of winter. Turns out that some failed to obtain building permits from the city. In fact, even some construction contractors skipped this necessary step. One homeowner said he spent nearly $30,000 on repairs that will now have to be redone because his contractor failed to secure permits.

Another financial uncertainty facing owners of damaged homes: the cost of insurance in a flood-prone community. (One homeowner noted that he’s lived in Barre for less than 15 years and suffered flood damage three times.) “What will this mean for my flood insurance?” asked one woman who’s wrestling with the costs of trying to rebuild. “How do we know what kind of an increase I’m facing?”

City Clerk Carol Dawes simply replied, “I can’t answer that.”

Here’s another big unanswerable. Remember when Gov. Phil Scott walked into a City Council meeting in October and unveiled a plan to redevelop a big swatch of the city’s north end, removing many structures to create a flood plain and building housing on higher ground? It will take years for that plan, or something like it, to come to fruition — and it now hangs like a cloud over those who live in or near the area. “I don’t see putting $100,000 into a house and then have it torn down,” said a woman named Linda.

City officials called the meeting to encourage people to communicate their needs and concerns. During the hour-long event, officials repeatedly urged people to get in touch. They offered all the help at their disposal. But as Dawes said at one point, “You might hear something you don’t want to hear.”

Many already have.