posted
I was born in New Orleans, and most of my mother's family comes from there. As someone who lived much of her youth in that unique city, it has broken my heart to see what has happened there this year. I live in Florida, so I didn't go through Katrina, but I went through three hurricanes last year, and I went through Betsy and Camille when I lived in the New Orleans area.
New Orleans is only part of the problem: The infrastucture in many areas is destroyed as completely as if they'd been bombed to oblivion. The hurricanes cut a swath of destruction through the lower third of three states, for hundreds of square miles. Businesses are relocating. If the people do not have carpentry skills, there are few jobs. There are few houses without damage, in some areas no houses are left at all. People are living in tents, without money to buy basic needs like groceries. Food stamps are being cut. FEMA has dragged their feet in releasing needed trailers and supplies.
I'm appalled at the inaction on the part of our government in making concrete steps toward putting into action the promices it has made for rebuilding, and protecting our people. We did more for Southeast Asia after the Tsunami.
Yes, we have thrown money at the problems there, but it is all for naught if the wetlands are not rebuilt. The wetlands are the real protection for the city, since the Hurricanes used to spend their energy there, and enter the city only after being weakened by the barier islands and the Atchafalya basin's wetlands. At this time the wetlands part of the rebuilding project is being dumped.
We can rebuild Iraq (of course we DID break it), we can send foreign aid across the world, without expecting anything back, but we are doing so much less for the American Cities that went through this years Hurricanes. Gulf coast communities from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are going bankrupt from lack of revenue, and are slowly dying.
What are your thoughts on this?
quote:Death of an American City
The New York Times | Editorial Sunday 11 December 2005
We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum.
We said this wouldn't happen. President Bush said it wouldn't happen. He stood in Jackson Square and said, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans." But it has been over three months since Hurricane Katrina struck and the city is in complete shambles.
There are many unanswered questions that will take years to work out, but one is make-or-break and needs to be dealt with immediately. It all boils down to the levee system. People will clear garbage, live in tents, work their fingers to the bone to reclaim homes and lives, but not if they don't believe they will be protected by more than patches to the same old system that failed during the deadly storm. Homeowners, businesses and insurance companies all need a commitment before they will stake their futures on the city. At this moment the reconstruction is a rudderless ship. There is no effective leadership that we can identify. How many people could even name the president's liaison for the reconstruction effort, Donald Powell? Lawmakers need to understand that for New Orleans the words "pending in Congress" are a death warrant requiring no signature.
The rumbling from Washington that the proposed cost of better levees is too much has grown louder. Pretending we are going to do the necessary work eventually, while stalling until the next hurricane season is upon us, is dishonest and cowardly. Unless some clear, quick commitments are made, the displaced will have no choice but to sink roots in the alien communities where they landed.
The price tag for protection against a Category 5 hurricane, which would involve not just stronger and higher levees but also new drainage canals and environmental restoration, would very likely run to well over $32 billion. That is a lot of money. But that starting point represents just 1.2 percent of this year's estimated $2.6 trillion in federal spending, which actually overstates the case, since the cost would be spread over many years. And it is barely one-third the cost of the $95 billion in tax cuts passed just last week by the House of Representatives.
Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion. All that money has been appropriated as the cost of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. But what was the worst possible case we fought to prevent? Losing a Major American City
"We'll not just rebuild, we'll build higher and better," President Bush said that night in September. Our feeling, strongly, is that he was right and should keep to his word. We in New York remember well what it was like for the country to rally around our city in a desperate hour. New York survived and has flourished. New Orleans can too.
Of course, New Orleans's local and state officials must do their part as well, and demonstrate the political and practical will to rebuild the city efficiently and responsibly. They must, as quickly as possible, produce a comprehensive plan for putting New Orleans back together. Which schools will be rebuilt and which will be absorbed? Which neighborhoods will be shored up? Where will the roads go? What about electricity and water lines? So far, local and state officials have been derelict at producing anything that comes close to a coherent plan. That is unacceptable.
The city must rise to the occasion. But it will not have that opportunity without the levees, and only the office of the president is strong enough to goad Congress to take swift action. Only his voice is loud enough to call people home and convince them that commitments will be met.
Maybe America does not want to rebuild New Orleans. Maybe we have decided that the deficits are too large and the money too scarce, and that it is better just to look the other way until the city withers and disappears. If that is truly the case, then it is incumbent on President Bush and Congress to admit it, and organize a real plan to help the dislocated residents resettle into new homes. The communities that opened their hearts to the Katrina refugees need to know that their short-term act of charity has turned into a permanent commitment.
If the rest of the nation has decided it is too expensive to give the people of New Orleans a chance at renewal, we have to tell them so. We must tell them we spent our rainy-day fund on a costly stalemate in Iraq, that we gave it away in tax cuts for wealthy families and shareholders. We must tell them America is too broke and too weak to rebuild one of its great cities.
Our nation would then look like a feeble giant indeed. But whether we admit it or not, this is our choice to make. We decide whether New Orleans lives or dies.
posted
What part of Florida are you in? I grew up there, but I live in New Orleans now. Er, actually, I'm in Chicago NOW, but I'll be back in New Orleans in January.
What part of Florida are you in? I grew up there, but I live in New Orleans now. Er, actually, I'm in Chicago NOW, but I'll be back in New Orleans in January.
-pH
I live in Central Florida, near the Wekiva River. I relocated to Florida when I married a man who was from here, going on 20 years ago.
We have some interesting parallels. I lived in the Gurnee area during part of my childhood. I have relatives in both areas, though most of my New Orleans relatives are now scattered across the country because of the 'diaspora' caused by evacuation.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Orange_ Order: im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
The only thing I can come up with, Orange, is that it is either a matter of priorities, or that those in charge are so confuzzled they couldn't get their act together to respond appropriately to a real disaster.
I am also baffled at why the Bush Administration is now backing away from the Wetlands Renewal Project. We are already spending at least what that project would cost in a Euphrates flood project in Iraq. Why are we leaving our own without?
The geologists and environmental scientists that were consulted recommend it, and even the Oil companies from that region are in favor of renewing the wetlands, since it will protect their interests in the area as well. If it is NOT done, all of the Levees and rebuilding would be for nothing. New Orleans needs that buffer zone the wetlands used to provide, to protect it from the forces of nature.
If nothing else, it doesn't make fiscal sense to rebuild without doing a thorough job of it!
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone see the Katrina Senate panel on CSPAN today? It was very disturbing to hear the New Orleans survivors and community leaders talk about everything from the the use of force on evacuees to the fact that the rebuilding contracts are being given to companies like Haliburton and not local contractors.
There also seems to be a big questions about whether or not one of the levees in the poorer area of the city was bombed.
I'm glad to see this becoming so public. Hopefully it will prevent similar mishandling in the future.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Orange_ Order: im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
Well, I would say there's a difference between moving a well-trained military, in a military operation, than moving a city full of bewildered and scared people... and there are limits to how much the US military can be used, and when. The local leaders have plenty of blame to share, too.
As to the rebuilding effort, I love NO, and plan on visiting it again for a wedding in February - I hope things do start moving a little smoother. No surprise, but I've heard a lot of the insurance companies are balking on payments, or trying to find the cheapest possible solution, even if it's not very feasible. (A that has month-long water damage, plus a plethora of nasty chemicals? New paint and it'll be fine!)
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There also seems to be a big questions about whether or not one of the levees in the poorer area of the city was bombed.
This surprised the hell out of me when I first read it. I'd heard accusations that the federal government is neglecting black communities, but actively TRYING to kill them seems just too evil. Even for this administration, it really seems just stupidly evil. As in outside-the-bounds-of-reality-evil.
According to my roommate who majored in psych, blaming conspiracies is a common way to deal with the apparant meaninglessness of tragedies like natural disaasters. Really, Bush has enough to answer for. We don't need to make stuff up.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
[snip] As to the rebuilding effort, I love NO, and plan on visiting it again for a wedding in February - I hope things do start moving a little smoother. No surprise, but I've heard a lot of the insurance companies are balking on payments, or trying to find the cheapest possible solution, even if it's not very feasible. (A that has month-long water damage, plus a plethora of nasty chemicals? New paint and it'll be fine!)
Yeah, I know what you mean about the Insurance companies.
"Never mind if the house blew down - it flooded afterward so you aren't covered."
They are much better at taking your money than at paying a claim. American businesses are becoming takers and users, letting go of the ideal of building a better America for Americans.
The chemicals are supposedly not as bad as was thought - though I will believe George Bush's EPA only when an independent survey has been done. The air was "OK" in New York after 9/11, but MANY of the clean-up workers from 9/11 are finding out how political that pronouncement was.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are much better at taking your money than at paying a claim. American businesses are becoming takers and users, letting go of the ideal of building a better America for Americans.
Wow, I always thought the ideal of a business was to turn a profit. I never knew they used to be so noble. This must have been before recorded history, how did you find out about it?
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding - when exactly was this magical era?
Rebuilding New Orleans will take a great deal of money, more money than is currently covered by insurance. I like the idea of New Orleans coming alive again, but where is that money supposed to come from?
I think of Detroit, which is run down and has been destroyed another. As long as we are shelling out tax dollars to rebuild broken cities, why not Detroit?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are much better at taking your money than at paying a claim. American businesses are becoming takers and users, letting go of the ideal of building a better America for Americans.
It's probably a Democratic thing...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insurance is a racket. "What? You want us to live up to our end of the agreement? Fine, we'll raise your rates so that still come out ahead." Considering it's a service you HAVE to have, if you drive or buy a home on credit, it should probably be regulated...
(waiting on the insurance hit men to take me out...)
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know: There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Insurance is a racket. "What? You want us to live up to our end of the agreement? Fine, we'll raise your rates so that still come out ahead." Considering it's a service you HAVE to have, if you drive or buy a home on credit, it should probably be regulated...
(waiting on the insurance hit men to take me out...)
Again, the entire point of an insurance company is to turn a profit. What will happen to your insurance if the company goes belly-up because it was paying out more than it was taking in?
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush shouldn't have promised to rebuild New Orleans completely. There are needs all over the place. Detroit's need is not less because their disasters didn't have a girl's name.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Av, my point was, let's say I pay $250 a month for auto insurance. Let's say in a year's time, I have a $1000 claim, of which, I have to pay $500. I'm fairly certain they can pay the claim without raising my rate to $300 a month.
Katrina was in the spotlight - Bush had to do *something*. The gov tends to step in and act the hero in an emergency, not in long term decay.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not upset by a promise not being kept that never should have been made in the first place.
As much as I dislike insurance and think the companies that jacked up the prices like crazy after mold started permeating Texas, I'd rather live in a world with it. I'd like to see it better regulated, however.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if the US gov is going to step in for all the big emergencies, maybe it should be part of our taxes... Hmmm.... wait....
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that was supposed to be snarky, but I am unclear as to what you are proposing or suggesting.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that vague and soothing promises that never should have been made should be kept, despite their deleterious consequences?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't a single natural disaster, but Detroit is still a mess that would love to be rebuilt.
It took a couple decades for it to fall apart. Is New Orleans more deserving because it took only a week?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you remember all the threads on this topic back when the hurricane first hit, the argument was that the government uses federal aid money to rebuild after earthquakes and tornados, why not a hurricane.
It has nothing to do with the timeframe. Detroit's falling apart because of natural urban decay, and cheap production plants overseas which killed the job market.
Your analogy doesn't hold up beyond the fact that they both happen to be American cities in bad shape. And if you go visit New Orleans, or look at pictures of it, you'll see that it's still devastated. Like ground zero on 9/12, but about 20 times as large an area.
Should we not have repaired NYC? After all, these things happen, right?
Just because it happened quickly doesn't make NYC more deserving than, say, Oakland of being rebuilt.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel the same way about NYC as about New Orleans. The money has to come from somewhere. Money from the nation for the nation should be parceled out according to need and careful thought, not according to who has the most spectacular sob story.
Detroit has plenty of need of its own. Should we ignore them because it's not exciting enough to be on the news? Do you want to set priorities according to what makes the headlines?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, you seem to missing a key difference.
Detroit - in bad shape through their own mismanagement and poor luck
NO - levelled by what my insurance policy refers to as an "Act of god". Not that I think God sent the hurricane to punish the city or anything so OT.
If you disagree with federal aid in general, that's a different issue. If you agree with federal disaster relief but don't think it applies here then I'd just like to hear why.
And can you cite an example of tax money being parceled out according to need anywhere in this country? It seems to me that my tax dollars are spent haphazardly on anything and everything the government feels like spending it on. Rebuilding New Orleans is estimated to cost about 32 billion, spread over 3-5 years (I'd guess). Our 'war' effort in Iraq is now up around the 300 billion dollar mark. Should we be spending all that money out of town when our front door is falling off the hinges?
We could fix NO, Detroit, and every other disaster site and have enough left over to build a fence around Texas for what we poured into the sand across the ocean.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the point - I think it was worth saving before the hurricane. I also think Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston are worth saving, and since there is so much need, the federal government shouldn't swear to rebuild all of one city while ignoring the rest.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But were it not for a natural disaster, New Orleans wouldn't need saving at all.
Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston need saving (if they really do) because of things that are (or used to be) within their control, to a certain extent. I mean, I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but I think there are huge differences between these cases.
New Orleans had really started to turn itself around. It makes me sad.
quote:Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston need saving (if they really do) because of things that are (or used to be) within their control, to a certain extent. I mean, I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but I think there are huge differences between these cases.
If you're not saying it's their fault, what are you saying?
I don't believe that help should be doled out according to the past virtues of the receiver.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Detroit - in bad shape through their own mismanagement and poor luck
I think part of kat's point may be that New Orleans just happened to have the poor luck of a hurricane combined with ill-preparedness and their own local (as well as federal) mismanagement.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: And can you cite an example of tax money being parceled out according to need anywhere in this country? It seems to me that my tax dollars are spent haphazardly on anything and everything the government feels like spending it on. Rebuilding New Orleans is estimated to cost about 32 billion, spread over 3-5 years (I'd guess). Our 'war' effort in Iraq is now up around the 300 billion dollar mark. Should we be spending all that money out of town when our front door is falling off the hinges?
We could fix NO, Detroit, and every other disaster site and have enough left over to build a fence around Texas for what we poured into the sand across the ocean.
You got that right 'de Spang. Our most recent budget had a bridge to nowhere in Alaska included in it. Louisiana lost two major bridges through the action of the storm, the I-10 bridge in Slidell plus the Lake Ponchartrain Causeway Bridge which was seriously damaged. But a bridge to nowhere was more important to the Senator from Alaska. It was proposed that we cut the Alaska bridge, instead of cutting Food Stamps and School programs, and direct the money toward Louisiana.
Well, the old Senator from Alaska raised quite a stink. He threatened to quit if "his bridge" was cut, so they gave him the money instead of the bridge, and cut Food Stamps.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's the point - I think it was worth saving before the hurricane. I also think Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston are worth saving, and since there is so much need, the federal government shouldn't swear to rebuild all of one city while ignoring the rest.
The current Congress doesn't give a rat's backside about taking care of New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, OR Houston. They DO take VERY good care of the special interests groups and their campaign donors. Those promices to New Orleans were made because of the international outrage, and the outrage of caring people who watched the disaster unfold on their televisions.
You know, it isn't JUST New Orleans, katharina. The lower third of Louisiana and Mississippi (and part of Texas) looks like Banda Ache, Indonesia did after the Tsunami. For miles inland, EVERYTHING was wiped from the face of the earth. What wasn't washed out to sea was deposited in piles of rubble that is for the most part still there, except for streets cleared through the rubble.
While I am sure Detroit deserves Federal help - just as every other nearly bankrupt city in our country does, after the Federal cuts of these past several years - I don't think they are quite as devastated as that.
quote:Originally posted by pH: But were it not for a natural disaster, New Orleans wouldn't need saving at all.
Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston need saving (if they really do) because of things that are (or used to be) within their control, to a certain extent. I mean, I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but I think there are huge differences between these cases.
New Orleans had really started to turn itself around. It makes me sad.
-pH
Exactly, pH. New Orleans was doing just fine. Just like every big city, it had it's problems, but it was doing just fine. That changed, through an 'Act of God.'
While many of it's people WERE poor, they had homes, and jobs and a life. Most people there were born there, or left and returned, because we have - or shall I say HAD - a heritage of strong family ties. While Dubya played on a country western guitar, people were in Attics, waiting for a rescue that didn't come in time, and dying.
That didn't happen in Detroit.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was implying that the government does act like a big insurance agency for disasters, and it IS part of our taxes. I was also imagining how much worse the process would be if I was filing a claim... FEMA can be pretty demanding.
We all know that aid is going to flow where it can make the biggest political impact. It kind of makes me wonder how much of the reconstruction budget is going to the rest of the affected areas.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FEMA is pretty ridiculous, from everything I've heard. I posted something earlier about them denying aid to people who lived with roommates if the roommates had already filed claims.
You have no idea how grateful I am that I didn't have to deal with that.
posted
I am in favor of a fair profit: that is what makes businesses work. What I am not in favor of is greed.
I worked as a temp for an Insurance agency a while ago. I saw the excessive profits that they make. I also worked for a drug distribution company, and saw the amazing profits they make. We all witnessed the 'record profits' of the oil companies, after the hurricane damage. Then the public investigation in Congress somehow coincided with the prices suddenly dropping. The Senator from Alaska wouldn't allow his Oil cronies to be sworn in. So they aren't liable to prosecution as the Tobacco giants were "way back when" there were Tobacco hearings. Those hearings were for show, IMHO, due to the public outrage - after all, the mid term elections are around the corner.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, I have a bud down there that FEMA paid to relocate... of course, he had just moved into town, and was just living with some friends.
In the dealings my company has had with FEMA, every investigator has a different interpretation of what is reimbursable. And you have to keep an insane amount of paperwork, along with a few other things that tend to slide in emergencies.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can keep saying you're not missing anything all day, but as long as you keep comparing cities levelled by natural disasters with cities that peaked and have been spiralling downward since you just disprove your own claim.
I'm not missing anything -- the guy who gets drunk and falls into an open electrical panel should get the same treatment as a guy who gets struck by lightning. They both need the help, and just because one of their injuries were self-inflicted doesn't mean that they shouldn't be equally helped, right?
Wrong. Accountability does matter. In this, and in everything. That's why the penalties are different for premeditated murder and negligent homicide. You kill someone either way, but the manner in which it happens and personal accountability have a large influence on the appropriate punishment.
Like pH said, New Orleans didn't need saving until it got washed away. It wasn't perfect, and in fact it could have gone in that Detroit/Oakland category. But no one then was saying, "Fix us!"
It's noble (to use your word) of you to consider everyone worth saving. What it's not is practical. There isn't an endless amount of money for stuff like this, and it's going to be doled out (rightfully) in order of need.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But beyond the historic architecture, the spice-laden cuisine and the beguiling voodoo underground, live close to 500,000 people, mostly poor (more than a quarter live in poverty), mostly black (more than 66 percent), clustered into 73 distinct neighborhoods.
Crime, even before the hurricane, was high. The murder rate has come down in recent years, but remains 10 times the national average. Last year, researchers had police fire 700 blank rounds in a city neighborhood one afternoon. No one called to report the gunfire.
"Maybe New Orleans should be nicknamed The Big Un-Easy, due to a high violent crime rate and a high unemployment rate. There's also a significant number of suicides and divorces," said Bert Sterling on his Best Places web site.
The city's school system is a shambles. The district almost went broke this past year teachers nearly missed a paycheck and 55 of the state's 78 worst schools are in New Orleans.
Dozens of school employees are under indictment for corruption. But then, corruption in New Orleans is nothing new politicians, judges, the police have all been caught.
That is from the second page of the article.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguably New Orleans was not doing "just fine". The level of corruption was legendary, and no matter where you think the biggest parcel of blame lies, municipal government did not do its job in preparing for a natural disaster in circumstances where obviously a serious hurricane would be catastrophic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why I said you could put in the Detroit/Oakland category. And by "just fine" I meant not covered with silt and all washed away. Compared to how it's doing now, it was Xanadu before the hurricane.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The_Orange_ Order: im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
I can answer that. The relevant military branch for natural disasters here is the National Guard. The U.S. government asked permission to use the National Guard for rescue operations in N.O. before Katrina hit, and the State of Louisiana refused. It's illegal for the U.S. to use the military on a state without its permission; part of federalism.
New Orleans did have an evacuation plan in place, but decided not to use it. The mayor has not explained why. You may have seen the pictures of the flooded lot full of empty school buses, in standing water; they were to be used to evacuate people, but they were not used.
So, yes, it was very possible to evacuate those who wanted evacuation. But the city would not do it, the state would not do it, and the state would not allow the feds to take action until the Wednesday *after* the hurricane.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is plenty of blame everywhere. JT, if you are contending that New Orleans deserves to be rebuilt because they were more virtuous than Detroit, you need to reexamine Louisiana politics.
I think the issue of who is the noble and virtuous poor and who deserves to be poor is completely irrelevant. There are many, many urban areas that could use a renewing, and Americans live in all of them. New Orleans doesn't get to be returned to better than they were and their decades of bad governance ignored before simply because they are on the front page.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, there's plenty of blame everywhere for why New Orleans got wiped out.
Maybe it was because it was poorly governed.
Maybe it was because it was a sinful, hedonistic place.
Maybe it was because George Dubya hates black people.
Maybe it was because people didn't heed the evacuation orders, or weren't able to.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was because it got hit by a Cat 5 hurricane.
Hard to say, what with all the blame going around.
I'm sorry, but taking personal responsibility out of this is irresponsible, at best. I don't know how else to say it. But I won't say it any more, because you're not being rational and that's fine, but I refuse to keep repeating myself.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, clearly cities that have crime and corruption are not worth being rebuilt. Those kinds of problems are SO RARE, after all.
I lump that kind of argument about New Orleans in with the "God smote the city of sin and debauchery" declarations.
Again, I say: the city really was starting to turn itself around. It was making real, honest efforts to improve and change. And what's more, they were working and would have continued to work had a hurricane not hit.
posted
Reading back I find it interesting to see Houston has a city in need of "help." I lived just west of the city, and within limits, for 14 years and have always loved the city. They've had their problems but they've always overcome. I've been gone for 2 1/2 years but I'd have a hard time believing that things have degraded so much. If anything I love Houston more now when I see it in comparision to living on New Orleans North Shore.
I also don't see the point of the "blame game." Looking at the facts...we have a major city with displaced citizens, a tourist capital for the state, a big port stop, and a historical site in the nation's history. Regardless of its state before or during the disaster, it deserves state and federal attention. Just like any other city would in the face of a freak tragedy. Stop blaming and let's get things done. I would forget that this administration abandoned us if they would step up and do something. Everyday is a chance to make-up for the mistakes following Katrina. Yet everyday, I still see no progress.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It makes me sad.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
