Gustav
 

With Gustav bearing down on the New Orleans area just three years after Katrina left it in near-ruins, I can't help but think it may be time to forget about trying to rebuild that place if Gustav does the same damage that Katrina did.

While attempts at slowing global warming are noble and certainly must be heeded, any such attempts will do just that, [U]slow[/U] global warming. It's impossibly to stop it entirely.

As the warming trend continues these storms will only become more frequent. It seems like some especially bad luck that two storms would hit poor New Orleans within three years, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect it would happen every 5-10 years.

Why keep rebuilding an area below sea level that lies in the path of hurricanes so often? Pray for those people, but it's time to let New Orleans - the city - fade away.

Re: Gustav
 

I heard that the mayor is upset that more people are not evacuating (spelling) NO. These are probably the same people we saw on the news crying, bitching, and demanding more help three years ago and will do the same again if Gustav hits.

Re: Gustav
 

I'm not sure it's fair to assume that everyone has the means to evacuate or have a place to evacuate to. That was the problem the first time around.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;469778]I'm not sure it's fair to assume that everyone has the means to evacuate or have a place to evacuate to. That was the problem the first time around.[/quote]
The city is providing transportation for people with needs and without transportation. If I heard correctly they have shelters away from the coast where they will take people and I don't think it will be the Saints stadium.LOL

Re: Gustav
 

Might want to clear Florida and tornado country too. Yes, people should pickup and move whenever nature strikes their area twice.

Re: Gustav
 

This time round, NO ONE has an excuse not to evacuate. This is probably as prepared and organized as you're going to see a city evacuation, given the Katrina fiasco.

As for having a city below sea level surrounded by the Mississippi river and Lake Ponchartrain (sp?) in a major hurricane zone, yeah, it's never been that great an idea. Doubt it's going anywhere, though.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;469780]The city is providing [B]transportation for people with needs and without transportation.[/B] If I heard correctly they have shelters away from the coast where they will take people and I don't think it will be the Saints stadium.LOL[/quote]
including their pets!
at no cost!
it doesn't get any better.....i wonder if they will still try to cap the rescue helicopters?

Re: Gustav
 

Just recently they said on CNN that they estimate 90% of N.O. has evacuated. I'd call that fairly successful given some people's reluctance to leave no matter what. Honestly, right or wrong, if I lived there I'd feel that I could weather any storm and would probably choose to stay. I still have that 18-year old "I'm indestructible" confidence/stupidity.

Re: Gustav
 

Gustov weakens a bit, GOD I hope it continues to weaken! This is a scary SOB! Great news on the people are taking this seriously and evacuating!

[url=http://www.wavy.com/global/story.asp?s=8896016&srvc=developing]WAVY TV 10 : Virginia and North Carolina News -Gustav weakens a little, but still a powerful storm[/url]

Re: Gustav
 

Gustov makes landfall.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/01/gustav/index.html]Water clears levees as Gustav makes Louisiana landfall - CNN.com[/url]

Re: Gustav
 

Well from watching the news it seem that everyone learned from past mistakes. After Katrina the blame went around to everyone and now credit needs to be given to everyone for doing a great job.

Re: Gustav
 

Too bad it only took an epic disaster for everyone to get their shit together.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=saden1;469836]Might want to clear Florida and tornado country too. Yes, people should pickup and move whenever nature strikes their area twice.[/quote]

The problem is that New Orleans is the Mississippi's ocean (okay Gulf) Port. Throw in the local oil and sugar industries and it is a very rich region. Nature make it dangerous, but nature also made it wealthy. This risk/reward issue is going to keep bringing people back.

Re: Gustav
 

Ok, this was a small 3 and those leavies (spelling) had water splashing over top of them so whats going to happen if they get hit with a strong 3, 4 or even a 5.

Re: Gustav
 

the old levies were never meant to handle 4s and 5s, and the "new" ones are still being built, and its f'ing ridiculous expensive. they really should leave the port and move the town a few miles into higher ground.

Re: Gustav
 

I hope everyone is safe and dry somewhere.

I also hope they've learned their lesson down there and realize that living in a city shaped like a toilet bowl or bathtub DOES NOT WORK and put their rebuilding money and effort to better use elsewhere in a safer place to live. If a Cat 2/3 can flood the city, they better realize that it is impossible to be safe there.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=That Guy;470383]the old levies were never meant to handle 4s and 5s, and the "new" ones are still being built, and its f'ing ridiculous expensive. they really should leave the port and move the town a few miles into higher ground.[/quote]

The ones they have shown on TV over and over again are the new sections and from what I gathered they are done.

Re: Gustav
 

Well I cut on the News tonight and what do I see. A bunch of people bitching and complaining about how goverment is taking care of them and where they are staying. They don't say thank you for helping me out of NO but just bitching about everything and are saying it just as bad three years later.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470644]Well I cut on the News tonight and what do I see. A bunch of people bitching and complaining about how goverment is taking care of them and where they are staying. They don't say thank you for helping me out of NO but just bitching about everything and are saying it just as bad three years later.[/quote]

You do realize that people are still living in those FEMA trailers in NO. I think a lot of those people have good reason to still be ticked off 3 years later as not much has changed for them.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470761]You do realize that people are still living in those FEMA trailers in NO. I think a lot of those people have good reason to still be ticked off 3 years later as not much has changed for them.[/quote]

Fuck that, the government (ie the taxpayer) is not responsible for helping people living in a coastal area, below sea level, who didn't have flood insurance. Seriously, how retarded is that?

Why do they deserve better than a FEMA trailer?? A FEMA trailer is shelter isn't it? What, are we supposed to get them into a 3 bedroom condo??

Shelter, food, and water. That's all the taxpayer is morally obligated to provide. Anything beyond that is an excessive handout.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470772]Fuck that, the government (ie the taxpayer) is not responsible for helping people living in a coastal area, below sea level, who didn't have flood insurance. Seriously, how retarded is that?

Why do they deserve better than a FEMA trailer?? A FEMA trailer is shelter isn't it? What, are we supposed to get them into a 3 bedroom condo??

Shelter, food, and water. That's all the taxpayer is morally obligated to provide. Anything beyond that is an excessive handout.[/quote]


It's got nothing to do with giving them a handout, but doesn't the gov't have to bear a large part of the blame for what happened in the first place? Katrina was a classic cluster F from the start and 3 years later NO is still a mess. So the gov't dropping off some basic shelter absolves them of any continued responsibility? "Hey everyone here are some lovely trailers, have fun rebuilding your city. Sorry about those shitty levees we knew would crumble eventually from a big enough storm. See ya in 3 years!"

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470761]You do realize that people are still living in those FEMA trailers in NO. I think a lot of those people have good reason to still be ticked off 3 years later as not much has changed for them.[/quote]

No they should be happy to have shelter on the tax payers sense they decide not to carry ins. These people where complaining about where the city had them staying while waitin out Gustav. Not sure what they expected with the hugh amount of people they had to find shelter for. It just seemed these people where not grateful for anything that has been done for them.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=firstdown;470782]No they should be happy to have shelter on the tax payers sense they decide not to carry ins. These people where complaining about where the city had them staying while waitin out Gustav. Not sure what they expected with the hugh amount of people they had to find shelter for. It just seemed these people where not grateful for anything that has been done for them.[/quote]

They're in a stressful situation. They are displaced from their homes and communities and I'm sure the shelter they are being provided with is pretty basic. I'm sure most of us in that situation might be a tad grumpy. You can't keep everyone happy, I wouldn't assume that everyone is ungrateful there though.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470781]It's got nothing to do with giving them a handout, [B]but doesn't the gov't have to bear a large part of the blame for what happened in the first place[/B]? Katrina was a classic cluster F from the start and 3 years later NO is still a mess. So the gov't dropping off some basic shelter absolves them of any continued responsibility? "Hey everyone here are some lovely trailers, have fun rebuilding your city. Sorry about those shitty levees we knew would crumble eventually from a big enough storm. See ya in 3 years!"[/quote]

Quite frankly, no, they don't.

The federal government should not be responsible for maintenance of the levees. The local state or city government should be responsible. Those levees are located in Louisiana, not in Virginia, not in Pennsylvania, not in California. I see no reason why funds from the federal government should be used to support that levee system. What logical argument is there suggesting that the federal government should??

Because Katrina was a "cluster F", that means the federal government is responsible? Why??

The federal government failed to provide adequate relief immediately following the storm. They failed to get food and water and medicines into those affected, which is in fact the purpose of FEMA. But once the federal government did provide the trailers, the water, the food through FEMA, why in the world are they responsible for doing more than that??

When did the federal government become a flood insurance underwriter? The government's job is not to put your life back together when a disaster strikes. It is to give you the bare essentials for survival, the rest is up to you.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470788]Quite frankly, no, they don't.

[B]The federal government should not be responsible for maintenance of the levees.[/B] The local state or city government should be responsible. Those levees are located in Louisiana, not in Virginia, not in Pennsylvania, not in California. I see no reason why funds from the federal government should be used to support that levee system. What logical argument is there suggesting that the federal government should??

Because Katrina was a "cluster F", that means the federal government is responsible? Why??

The federal government failed to provide adequate relief immediately following the storm. They failed to get food and water and medicines into those affected, which is in fact the purpose of FEMA. But once the federal government did provide the trailers, the water, the food through FEMA, why in the world are they responsible for doing more than that??

When did the federal government become a flood insurance underwriter? The government's job is not to put your life back together when a disaster strikes. It is to give you the bare essentials for survival, the rest is up to you.[/quote]

Even though the levee system in NO is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_Control_Act_of_1965"]Federally built flood protection system[/URL]?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470788]Quite frankly, no, they don't.

The federal government should not be responsible for maintenance of the levees. The local state or city government should be responsible. Those levees are located in Louisiana, not in Virginia, not in Pennsylvania, not in California. I see no reason why funds from the federal government should be used to support that levee system. [B] What logical argument is there suggesting that the federal government should??[/B][/quote]

While I agree with most of your points, the fact is that the port of New Orleans is part (and a significant part at that) of the Mississippi river economic system and is a key entry/exit port for the national economy. Pre-Katrina, New Orleans was the countries 3rd largest export port and 8th largest import port. Further, in 2005, between 55-70% of the total grain exports Baton Rouge, South Lousianna, and New Orleans. ([I]See [/I][url]http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22297.pdf[/url]) (it'sfrom 2005, I didn't see a more current reference, but would assume the ratios are similar if somewhat depressed post-Katrina).

Much like interstate roadways, given the extensive national system of which New Orleans is a part, the Federal government has a strong interest in maintaining the feasability of New Orleans as a working port.

Re: Gustav
 

Yeah in 3 years they should have had everything rebuilt already. That type of stuff doesn't take too long.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470792]Even though the levee system in NO is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_Control_Act_of_1965"]Federally built flood protection system[/URL]?[/quote]

I'd like to see local governments assume the maintenance of stuff like this, but I recognize that's not the way it is.

Even still, just because a federal levee system breaks does not mean the federal government is responsible for underwriting what essentially amounts to flood insurance for all New Orleans residents.

A hurricane is a force of nature. As a homeowner, you can't have a reasonable expectation that:

A) any man-made levee system will hold up to a boat that breaks loose and crashes into it, and

B) the federal government will pay to rebuild my house

You need to have flood insurance in that situation. If you don't, too bad.

What exactly are you proposing the federal government should be responsible for? If trailers, food, and water are not enough, what in your opinion is enough?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=FRPLG;470803]Yeah in 3 years they should have had everything rebuilt already. That type of stuff doesn't take too long.[/quote]

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic.

So are you saying they have made satisfactory progress to date?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;470800]While I agree with most of your points, the fact is that the port of New Orleans is part (and a significant part at that) of the Mississippi river economic system and is a key entry/exit port for the national economy. Pre-Katrina, New Orleans was the countries 3rd largest export port and 8th largest import port. Further, in 2005, between 55-70% of the total grain exports Baton Rouge, South Lousianna, and New Orleans. ([I]See [/I][URL]http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22297.pdf[/URL]) (it'sfrom 2005, I didn't see a more current reference, but would assume the ratios are similar if somewhat depressed post-Katrina).

Much like interstate roadways, given the extensive national system of which New Orleans is a part, the Federal government has a strong interest in maintaining the feasability of New Orleans as a working port.[/quote]

Good point. That's a strong argument for the taxpayer's obligation to fix the levees and keep the ports open.

But not for rebuilding homes.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470804]I'd like to see local governments assume the maintenance of stuff like this, but I recognize that's not the way it is.

Even still, just because a federal levee system breaks does not mean the federal government is responsible for underwriting what essentially amounts to flood insurance for all New Orleans residents.

A hurricane is a force of nature. As a homeowner, you can't have a reasonable expectation that:

A) any man-made levee system will hold up to a boat that breaks loose and crashes into it, and

B) the federal government will pay to rebuild my house

You need to have flood insurance in that situation. If you don't, too bad.

What exactly are you proposing the federal government should be responsible for? If trailers, food, and water are not enough, what in your opinion is enough?[/quote]

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.

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. [B]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? [/B]

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]

You didn't answer my question. What would constitute an adequate response from the federal government?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470814]Funny how we can [B]fund billions of dollars in a war effort[/B] 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]

Not to change the subject, but it's a war effort we're now winning, and which has progressed far enough along for the government to begin brokering deals with the Iraqi's to bring the troops home.

And what brought about the change from dismal failure and floundering to success?

More troops, not less.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470807]Good point. That's a strong argument for the taxpayer's obligation to fix the levees and keep the ports open.

[B]But not for rebuilding homes[/B].[/quote]

And that's an area we agree on. 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. If it's not, even with government assistance as to the levees, then the business will migrate upstream.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470805]I'm assuming you are being sarcastic.

So are you saying they have made satisfactory progress to date?[/quote]

I am saying the expectations need to be reasonably aligned. I am not there and don't know what it is like firsthand. I do know plenty of progress has been made. Maybe not enough but again I don't know. I do know expecting our government to undertake a project like this and achieve marketable success in 3 years is ridiculous. The bigger question is whether there is a good plan and whether they are sticking to it.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470817]You didn't answer my question. What would constitute an adequate response from the federal government?[/quote]

I don't know exactly but what's been done to date hasn't been enough IMO.

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470819]Not to change the subject, but it's a war effort we're now winning, and which has progressed far enough along for the government to begin brokering deals with the Iraqi's to bring the troops home.

And what brought about the change from dismal failure and floundering to success?

More troops, not less.[/quote]

Interesting concept. So by dumping more money and resources into something you get better results? Go figure. How about trying that out in NO? ;)

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470825]I don't know exactly but what's been done to date hasn't been enough IMO.[/quote]

OK, but I guess since you say you're not sure, you're not suggesting the federal goverment rebuild the homes and businesses?

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Mattyk72;470826]Interesting concept. So by dumping more money and resources into something you get better results? Go figure. How about trying that out in NO? ;)[/quote]

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

Re: Gustav
 

[quote=Schneed10;470827]OK, but I guess since you say you're not sure, you're not suggesting the federal goverment rebuild the homes and businesses?[/quote]

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.