Gustav

[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.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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

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

[Monkeydad]

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Buster

And?

[Monkeydad]

You don't see any problems there?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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 good reason why some didn't have it or were underinsured.

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Buster

You don't see any problems there?

enough with the games what are you saying exactly?

[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?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

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.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Exactly. It's common friggin sense.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do you carry adequate insurance? Why?