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.