Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470830]I'm not saying they need to rebuild everything to where it was previously, I'm just saying I think more could be done and the progress that has been made over the last 3 years probably isn't sufficient.[/quote]

You're starting to sound like Barack Obama, incredibly vague.

:)

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470828][B]In my opinion, the results - [I]to date[/I] - in NO have been adequate.[/B] The results in Iraq, prior to the troop surge, were woefully inadequate.[/quote]

Well I guess that's where we agree to disagree and move on.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470834]Well I guess that's where we agree to disagree and move on.[/quote]

You're right, it comes down to a fundamental disagreement as to what the federal government is responsible for providing to its citizens in a time of need.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470832]You're starting to sound like Barack Obama, incredibly vague.

:)[/quote]

Without properly reseaching the issue I'm not going to sit here and try to say that X and Y must be done. I'm not pretending to be an expert. Not that you are... I'm just saying.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;470822]And that's an area we agree on.[B] If it's profitable to live and work there (even with the storms), then the people who wish to make a living there will make it work.[/B] If it's not, even with government assistance as to the levees, then the business will migrate upstream.[/quote]

I think that's the most important thing. The problem in NOLA isn't universal. It's a rich vs. poor situation. New Orleans, like most cities has a pretty visible class system. And the people who are still without help are the ones who do not have a lot of money. Most of the rich people live either on the outskirts like uptown or in the more touristy version of the city. Each of which are better protected that places like the 9th ward.

That said, I have a friend from Slidell (a district of NO that was hit hard). He told me that they are back in their home. He didn't say when, but he gutted what needed to be gutted with a couple of his friends and they rebuilt what needed rebuilding. He didn't say whether he had trouble, but I know many people had issues getting their power turned on in their homes. Many of the electric companies tried to charge citizens for the time that they were out of power, that's flat out wrong.

I am personally considering moving to New Orleans because I've never to be any place like it in my entire life. The French Quarter, uptown, Garden District, all of that is amazing. You just can't move that to some other location. I would be heart broken if they just decide to abandon the city of New Orleans. The levees are federally built, and they're only built to stand up to a Cat 3. The federal government needs to do a better job. There are federally built levees all across the country and I don't hear anyone suggest that because some of middle America has levees around their homes, that they should move.

As for the suggestion that people who are hit by multiple natural disasters should abandon their homes...that's just retarded. That would constitute the majority of the United States. The majority of the southern U.S. is hit by Hurricanes or threatened by tornadoes, California is always experiencing earthquakes, hell we face hurricanes and tornadoes where we live. It's naive to think that we should all just move to somewhere where nothing can possibly happen. It's not naive however, to assume that when the government institutes a system to protect you, you should hold them to their word. I'm not saying that the government should rebuild homes, but they should make strong levees.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=jdlea;470844]There are federally built levees all across the country and I don't hear anyone suggest that because some of middle America has levees around their homes, that they should move.[/quote]

They used to do this all the time. A city would flood because it is ina flood plain and the federal gov't would come in and tell them to move the town.

The problem with NO isn't that it is prone to natural disasters in a simlar way to other US cities. It is prone to natural disasters because it is part of the ocean that we have decided to convert to developed land. That will never change. We can build better and bettet buildings to withstand earthquakes and tornados. We can't drain the ocean which w'd need to do since water is the most destructive force on earth.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=jdlea;470844]I think that's the most important thing. The problem in NOLA isn't universal. It's a rich vs. poor situation. New Orleans, like most cities has a pretty visible class system. And the people who are still without help are the ones who do not have a lot of money. Most of the rich people live either on the outskirts like uptown or in the more touristy version of the city. Each of which are better protected that places like the 9th ward.

That said, I have a friend from Slidell (a district of NO that was hit hard). He told me that they are back in their home. He didn't say when, but he gutted what needed to be gutted with a couple of his friends and they rebuilt what needed rebuilding. He didn't say whether he had trouble, but I know many people had issues getting their power turned on in their homes. Many of the electric companies tried to charge citizens for the time that they were out of power, that's flat out wrong.

I am personally considering moving to New Orleans because I've never to be any place like it in my entire life. The French Quarter, uptown, Garden District, all of that is amazing. You just can't move that to some other location. I would be heart broken if they just decide to abandon the city of New Orleans. The levees are federally built, and they're only built to stand up to a Cat 3. The federal government needs to do a better job. There are federally built levees all across the country and I don't hear anyone suggest that because some of middle America has levees around their homes, that they should move.

As for the suggestion that people who are hit by multiple natural disasters should abandon their homes...that's just retarded. That would constitute the majority of the United States. The majority of the southern U.S. is hit by Hurricanes or threatened by tornadoes, California is always experiencing earthquakes, hell we face hurricanes and tornadoes where we live. It's naive to think that we should all just move to somewhere where nothing can possibly happen. [B]It's not naive however, to assume that when the government institutes a system to protect you, you should hold them to their word. I'm not saying that the government should rebuild homes, but they should make strong levees[/B].[/quote]

I agree and that's basically what I was trying to say here. NO is the way it is because of an inadequate levee system, which can be directly attributable to the Fed. Providing a strong levee system in a high risk area shouldn't be too much to expect.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470832]You're starting to sound like Barack Obama, incredibly vague.

:)[/quote]

Making an informed decision on this topic is just above Matty's pay grade, that's all. :D

Re: Gustav
 

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/New_Orleans_Levee_System.svg/538px-New_Orleans_Levee_System.svg.png[/IMG]

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Buster;470864][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/New_Orleans_Levee_System.svg/538px-New_Orleans_Levee_System.svg.png[/IMG][/quote]

And?

Re: Gustav
 

You don't see any problems there? :D

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470814]Funny how we can fund billions of dollars in a war effort but we've got people still living in trailers 3 years after a national emergency. Something about our gov'ts priorities just doesn't sit right with me. The Fed oversaw an inadequate levee system that they clearly knew was at risk for an epic disaster, and when that disaster strikes some trailers and basic necessities is the satisfactory response for you? Really?

Go get some flood insurance? Apparently there's [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601209.html"]good reason[/URL] why some didn't have it or were underinsured.[/quote]
So your opinion is that if your bank does not force you to buy the protection then its not needed. If you own a home I hope you did not by a policy that just coveres what the mortgage Co says they require because if you have a loss your in for a big surprise. Also by the fact it was considered a lower risk area would make the flood ins policy run around $300.00 in premium per year.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Buster;470893]You don't see any problems there? :D[/quote]

enough with the games what are you saying exactly?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=jdlea;470844]I think that's the most important thing. The problem in NOLA isn't universal. It's a rich vs. poor situation. New Orleans, like most cities has a pretty visible class system. And the people who are still without help are the ones who do not have a lot of money. Most of the rich people live either on the outskirts like uptown or in the more touristy version of the city. Each of which are better protected that places like the 9th ward.

That said, I have a friend from Slidell (a district of NO that was hit hard). He told me that they are back in their home. He didn't say when, but he gutted what needed to be gutted with a couple of his friends and they rebuilt what needed rebuilding. He didn't say whether he had trouble, but I know many people had issues getting their power turned on in their homes. Many of the electric companies tried to charge citizens for the time that they were out of power, that's flat out wrong.

I am personally considering moving to New Orleans because I've never to be any place like it in my entire life. The French Quarter, uptown, Garden District, all of that is amazing. You just can't move that to some other location. I would be heart broken if they just decide to abandon the city of New Orleans. The levees are federally built, and they're only built to stand up to a Cat 3. The federal government needs to do a better job. There are federally built levees all across the country and I don't hear anyone suggest that because some of middle America has levees around their homes, that they should move.

As for the suggestion that people who are hit by multiple natural disasters should abandon their homes...that's just retarded. That would constitute the majority of the United States. The majority of the southern U.S. is hit by Hurricanes or threatened by tornadoes, California is always experiencing earthquakes, hell we face hurricanes and tornadoes where we live. It's naive to think that we should all just move to somewhere where nothing can possibly happen. It's not naive however, to assume that when the government institutes a system to protect you, you should hold them to their word. I'm not saying that the government should rebuild homes, but they should make strong levees.[/quote]

The problem is the city or much of the downtown area is below sea level. It's not like a secret. It has a pump system that pumps out the downtown in event of water intrusion, and since water does not run uphill....this happens often.
So the question is, you have a city and it's residents living for generations with full knowledge that this is a...........problem, and can get serious, quick.
How much commmon sense is the Fed responsible for?
I don't have an exact number, but the Fed purchased 10's of thousands of mobile homes for displaced residents. Relocated at no charge many thousands more to other cities. Blank checks for a couple of thousand dollars for displaced residents...10's, if not hundreds of thousands of checks
What's the limit of the Federal responsibility?
What level of hand holding is adequate?
Where are the mayor, and Governor in this equation?
Point is.....how much is enough?

BTW, to my knowledge, power companies charge on a usage basis only, so no use, no charge?
NO is a cool ass place, (some of the best times I cannot remember happened there) and I would hate to see it go. at what cost?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470895]So your opinion is that if your bank does not force you to buy the protection then its not needed. If you own a home I hope you did not by a policy that just coveres what the mortgage Co says they require because if you have a loss your in for a big surprise. Also by the fact it was considered a lower risk area would make the flood ins policy run around $300.00 in premium per year.[/quote]

They weren't legally required to have coverage and they were deemed to be in a low risk area... you see no problem with that? In the end it's up to the homeowner to evaluate their own risk level but I just have a hard time passing the buck completely to them based on the bad info they were basing their decision on.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470899]They weren't legally required to have coverage and they were deemed to be in a low risk area... you see no problem with that? In the end it's up to the homeowner to evaluate their own risk level but I just have a hard time passing the buck completely to them based on the bad info they were basing their decision on.[/quote]

Well when you stand in your street and you have to look up to see a ship going by then its within good reason that you should buy flood ins.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470899]They weren't legally required to have coverage and they were deemed to be in a low risk area... you see no problem with that? In the end it's up to the homeowner to evaluate their own risk level but I just have a hard time passing the buck completely to them based on the bad info they were basing their decision on.[/quote]
I have lived on the Gulf Coast for ......Many years in several locations in Texas, and Florida. I have also spent much time in LA.........it LOOKS like it's ready to flood!
I have never bought a house that lies in "flood plain", although there are probably several million homes that are built in the flood plain on the GC. I have 100% had flood ins. Weathered many tropical storms and H-canes. To date no water in the house.
People have to make better decisions, or deal with the consequences. Sad, but true.
Do you change the oil in your car? Why? It might not cause any problems.....or maybe....
This is the gulf coast....it floods...everywhere

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470900]Well when you stand in your street and you have to look up to see a ship going by then its within good reason that you should buy flood ins.[/quote]

Exactly. It's common friggin sense.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470900]Well when you stand in your street and you have to look up to see a ship going by then its within good reason that you should buy flood ins.[/quote]


So... why is it not legally required as it is in so called high risk areas?

Not having insurance isn't the entire issue either, the main problem seemed to be people who were underinsured. So they had it, just not enough coverage for a disaster the size of Katrina. But of course they were told they didn't need it.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470908]So... why is it not legally required as it is in so called high risk areas?

Not having insurance isn't the entire issue either, the main problem seemed to be people who were underinsured. So they had it, just not enough coverage for a disaster the size of Katrina. But of course they were told they didn't need it.[/quote]
At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do you carry adequate insurance? Why?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470908]So... why is it not legally required as it is in so called high risk areas?

Not having insurance isn't the entire issue either, the main problem seemed to be people who were underinsured. So they had it, just not enough coverage for a disaster the size of Katrina. But of course they were told they didn't need it.[/quote]
Flood ins is required for a loan if it is determined to be in a high risk area so by law they have to buy flood coverage along with their homeowners policy. One reason why allot of people were underinsured was because they carried what the law required. For example. If a person owns a $200,000 home and they owe $100,000 and are in a high risk area the law states they have to carry $100,000 the balance of the loan. It also does not require the insured to cover contents as that is a option they must choose.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Hog1;470903]I have lived on the Gulf Coast for ......Many years in several locations in Texas, and Florida. I have also spent much time in LA.........it LOOKS like it's ready to flood!
I have never bought a house that lies in "flood plain", although there are probably several million homes that are built in the flood plain on the GC. I have 100% had flood ins. Weathered many tropical storms and H-canes. To date no water in the house.
People have to make better decisions, or deal with the consequences. Sad, but true.
Do you change the oil in your car? Why? It might not cause any problems.....or maybe....
This is the gulf coast....it floods...everywhere[/quote]

Its called a flood zone and not a flood plain. Everyone is located in a flood zone but it varies to their risk of flooding. If you purchased a home and flood ins was not required that does mean your not in a flood zone rather its not one which requires you to purchase flood ins. to obtain a loan.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470916]Flood ins is required for a loan if it is determined to be in a high risk area so by law they have to buy flood coverage along with their homeowners policy. One reason why allot of people were underinsured was because they carried what the law required. For example. If a person owns a $200,000 home and they owe $100,000 and are in a high risk area the law states they have to carry $100,000 the balance of the loan. It also does not require the insured to cover contents as that is a option they must choose.[/quote]

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article.

[quote]
NEW ORLEANS -- Many of the thousands of homeowners in the Lower Ninth Ward, one of the hardest-hit areas in the city, lacked flood insurance because the neighborhood in theory was supposed to be relatively safe, local insurance agents and residents said.


Most of the area sits outside the "high-risk" flood districts designated on federal maps used for insurance, and so, [B]unlike homeowners elsewhere in this low-lying city, most in the Lower Ninth Ward were not legally required by lenders to buy flood coverage.[/B]

Those federal insurance maps, however, were based on a vastly mistaken assumption: that the levees and flood walls protecting the neighborhood from inundation would remain intact. When the levees breached near the Lower Ninth, the floodwaters ravaged countless homes unprotected by flood insurance, and many neighbors wonder whether anyone will have the wherewithal to rebuild.
[/quote]

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470918]Its called a flood zone and not a flood plain. Everyone is located in a flood zone but it varies to their risk of flooding. If you purchased a home and flood ins was not required that does mean your not in a flood zone rather its not one which requires you to purchase flood ins. to obtain a loan.[/quote]
I can only tell you the object I have personally viewed on several occasions with my ins agents is a map they called a "Flood Plain" map.
???????

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Hog1;470911]At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do you carry adequate insurance? Why?[/quote]

I've said that ultimately people are responsible for evaluating their own risk level, BUT, if I'm given bad info and make a decision based on that bad info... shouldn't there be some recourse?

If a bank tells you that you don't need flood insurance because you lived in a low risk area... is it so unreasonable to think that some people might decline the coverage?

We sure are quick to bail out bad decisions made by big corporations, but when the little guy makes a bad decision all bets are off it seems.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Hog1;470920]I can only tell you the object I have personally viewed on several occasions with my ins agents is a map they called a "Flood Plain" map.
???????[/quote]
Ok, but that flood plain is broken down into flood zones which determine the premium and risk factor. I sell flood ins.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470922]I've said that ultimately people are responsible for evaluating their own risk level, BUT, if I'm given bad info and make a decision based on that bad info... shouldn't there be some recourse?

If a bank tells you that you don't need flood insurance because you lived in a low risk area... is it so unreasonable to think that some people might decline the coverage?

We sure are quick to bail out bad decisions made by big corporations, but when the little guy makes a bad decision all bets are off it seems.[/quote]

No its not unreasonable to think that when banks say they are in a low risk area people tend to not buy flood ins. AS I stated earlier I sell flood ins and have to deal with people daily who had a bank, realator, or someone say that they are not in a flood zone or that they are in a low risk zone. I do believe the bank notice does state that you may want to check with your agent and that you may still need coverage.

Goverment bails out very few corporations that fail so thats not a very good example.

Re: Gustav
 

if a bank tells you they've got a great deal that can get you into a million dollar home for only 2200 a month, does that make it a great deal? cause i mean, after all, the bank is the one that said it was, and they should know...

the banks probably waived it to be competitive with lower rates/fees than the "other guys." If it wasn't federally/locally mandated, how can you prove or enforce that they were negligent?

whoever made those flood maps and assumed the structural integrity of the levees screwed up. from what i heard (warning, not proven fact) the army CoE knew those levees wouldn't stand up to a massive storm back when they were built, so i don't know when the locals forgot that information, but it'd be pretty important...

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Hog1;470920]I can only tell you the object I have personally viewed on several occasions with my ins agents is a map they called a "Flood Plain" map.
???????[/quote]

Yes it is universally called a flood plain. Flood zones are techincal terms defined by FEMA I believe. We all live in a flood zone as designated by FEMA but floodplians are more general terms.

Re: Gustav
 

To me if they didn't have enough insurance, for whatever reason, then the blame lays at their feet. If the bank told them they don't need it then sorry but I don't trust a bank to give me advice on flooding. The mentality that it was someone elses fault that they didn't have insurance or enough of it is a mentality that is dangerous. It is a perpetuation of a treand in our nation to pass the buck whenever the going gets tough. I understand that it may seem reasonable that the bank would give them the straight dope but to em those people made dumb decisions. Does that mean I have no compassion for them? NO. Does it mean I don't think we shoudl help them? No. Does it mean I don't think every American tax payer should have to pony up a bunch of money to help them rebuild in a place likely to face similar disasters in the future? You bet.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470919]I'm guessing you didn't even read the article.[/quote]
OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470923]Ok, but that flood plain is broken down into flood zones which determine the premium and risk factor. I sell flood ins.[/quote]
Got it

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470959]OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.[/quote]

Can't say I disagree

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470922]I've said that ultimately people are responsible for evaluating their own risk level, BUT, if I'm given bad info and make a decision based on that bad info... shouldn't there be some recourse?

If a bank tells you that you don't need flood insurance because you lived in a low risk area... is it so unreasonable to think that some people might decline the coverage?

We sure are quick to bail out bad decisions made by big corporations, but when the little guy makes a bad decision all bets are off it seems.[/quote]

I submit the following:
I am all about the little guy! I am one
I don't know what info was disseminated by the banking community to the the residents of NO, thus I am not really qualified to make that call.
I am confident we are multiple Billions in the hole in bailout aid.
How much bailout money is acceptable?
Why do we keep hearing about NO and not the other natural disasters that occur in this country?

I think people have to help themselves, and not depend on the Fed to take care of them. I do not think that happened in this case.
An incompetent mayor, and Governor did not help. And the Fed is dirty as well.
In 1983 Hurricane Alicia cruised through the Houston area at about 130+mph, gusting to 160+, spawning an estimated 220+ tornadoes in the area. It gutted much of the area. I lost half the tree's in my yard (8 oaks). Roof damage, etc. I was lucky. We had no power for 13 days (houston in august, working basically 24/7)
The power company came by one day 12 and told myself and my neighbors it would be 45 days to get the lines clear of trees and restore service. We explained the lines would be clear by daylight. The sound of chain saws went on through the night, but the line got cleared and we got power back (i said htown in august right?) the next day.
We helped ourselves, as many others do as well in such disasters.
I hope you enjoyed my little story!

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470959]OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470959]OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.[/quote]
good post. and i agree it seems like most of the people involved learned. and maybe putting an unqualified " friend" in charge of FEMA, with absolutely no logistics experience, actually added to the problem

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=dmek25;471156]good post. and i agree it seems like most of the people involved learned. and maybe putting an unqualified " friend" in charge of FEMA, with absolutely no logistics experience, actually added to the problem[/quote]
You had to take the jab. I have delt with FEMA and they have had issues ever sense I can remember.

5 hours and 17min tell kick off nope make that 16min.