Gustav

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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??

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. (See http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/a...rs/RS22297.pdf) (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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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. (See http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/a...rs/RS22297.pdf) (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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jdlea

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.

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jdlea

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.

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.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by jdlea

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.

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?