So I finished watching...

[LSU]

Finished the Katrina documentary tonight. The Spike Lee joint on HBO. Shit man. I didn't realize how bad Louisiana's been screwed. I don't mean by Bush, Blanco, or Nagin (allow they have screwed the state as well), but I mean by the government in general. Something like 20% of the petroleum used in the US is retrieved offshore of Louisiana. Yet, unlike other states such as Texas, we see very few royalties from said energy. The reason? Most of the platforms are more than 3 miles offshore. So, the money goes straight to the feds. Louisiana sees little if any. Said money would have been enough to strengthen the levees to cat 3 or above (thanks army corps of engineers) before the storm, thus preventing all this. It could have helped rebuild the city after the storm. It perhaps could have aided in a better evacuation and/or recovery plan. It may have helped alleviate some of the poverty problems that led to people being stranded. In short, it could've done a lot of things.

And now because of my knowledge of this money running through Louisiana, but not into Louisiana, I have no remorse saying the feds should be pumping billions upon billions of dollars to rebuild not only the city, but also the natural wetlands that surround the coastline.

Hell, even the energy companies agree those wetlands need to be fixed.

I could go on a big thing about money here and money there that could be used to help US citizens, but it's all been talked about before. We all know the money that should be used somewhere is used elsewhere, usually in a wasteful manner.

But I just had to talk about this stuff, because it STILL pisses me off to no avail.

[Vegas]

The deal with federal money is deceptive. As William Buckley says, over 100% of the money that comes from the federal government comes from the citizens. The Washington DC "brokerage" fees are ridiculously high.

But there is a lot (and I mean a lot) of federal money being pumped in to LA now.

[LSU]

The deal with federal money is deceptive. As William Buckley says, over 100% of the money that comes from the federal government comes from the citizens. The Washington DC "brokerage" fees are ridiculously high.

But there is a lot (and I mean a lot) of federal money being pumped in to LA now.


Oh, I know there's money coming in. But you'll be the first to say that since the government is in charge of it, it's pretty much useless.

And it is.

One of the big lies the media reported was that the people that were displaced were poor and penniless. Well yes, they may have been poor, but many were property owners. Paid their taxes, worked hard for what they had. Obviously not all did that, there were some bad eggs. But there's some movement in NO to not allow the areas to be residential. Probably because it's a hazard to live there, right?

Not so fast. People are trying to buy the land. Not the government to turn it back into natural wetlands. Big real estate people. Trying to get the land cheap. What the hell good is land that should be wetlands? Well, it's near waterways. Think of the easy access to barge traffic there. Yes, turn that land into industrial land.

Now this is just my opinion, but think of how fast those levees would be improved when there were businesses there instead of people.

Just a thought.

Anyway, there's a lot that was in that documentary that was an eye opener for me. Some of it's probably exaggeration. Some may just be flat out wrong. But I would imagine most is based in some pretty strong facts.

You know all those fields of FEMA trailers?

Some people that apply for them aren't getting them. Wha???

[Vegas]

Oh, I know there's money coming in. But you'll be the first to say that since the government is in charge of it, it's pretty much useless.

And it is.

One of the big lies the media reported was that the people that were displaced were poor and penniless. Well yes, they may have been poor, but many were property owners. Paid their taxes, worked hard for what they had. Obviously not all did that, there were some bad eggs. But there's some movement in NO to not allow the areas to be residential. Probably because it's a hazard to live there, right?

Not so fast. People are trying to buy the land. Not the government to turn it back into natural wetlands. Big real estate people. Trying to get the land cheap. What the hell good is land that should be wetlands? Well, it's near waterways. Think of the easy access to barge traffic there. Yes, turn that land into industrial land.

Now this is just my opinion, but think of how fast those levees would be improved when there were businesses there instead of people.

Just a thought.

Anyway, there's a lot that was in that documentary that was an eye opener for me. Some of it's probably exaggeration. Some may just be flat out wrong. But I would imagine most is based in some pretty strong facts.

You know all those fields of FEMA trailers?

Some people that apply for them aren't getting them. Wha???

I haven't seen the show. I'll probably keep an eye out for it now.

Yes, federal monies tend to have long strings attached. It's sometimes good and usually bad. The government should ensure that money is spent wisely (that's the good), but too often it's tied to special interests only. That sounds like a lot of what's wrong with the LA situation.

[LSU]

I haven't seen the show. I'll probably keep an eye out for it now.

Yes, federal monies tend to have long strings attached. It's sometimes good and usually bad. The government should ensure that money is spent wisely (that's the good), but too often it's tied to special interests only. That sounds like a lot of what's wrong with the LA situation.


Set aside a block of time for it. Or record it. It's 4:15 long, and it's been on HBO recently. It tugs at the heartstrings with some of the stories of people that got out, lost everything, etc. Follows a few people going to their house for the first time and such.

It's called "When the levees break: a requiem in four acts"


http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/whentheleveesbroke/

[Vegas]

Set aside a block of time for it. Or record it. It's 4:15 long, and it's been on HBO recently. It tugs at the heartstrings with some of the stories of people that got out, lost everything, etc. Follows a few people going to their house for the first time and such.

It's called "When the levees break: a requiem in four acts"


http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/whentheleveesbroke/

I'll let you know when I catch it.

I have met a few people who ended up here in Las Vegas after the disaster. Their stories vary widely, but they tend to be very angry.

[LSU]

I'll let you know when I catch it.

I have met a few people who ended up here in Las Vegas after the disaster. Their stories vary widely, but they tend to be very angry.


Yeah. There's a lot of to be angry about. It was a complete failure on all levels. And, IMO, it continues to be a complete failure despite all the talk about how everything will be back.

That's not to say NOLA isn't coming back. But the people make up a city, not the buildings. And those people got a one way ticket out of there. Not a round trip.


Oh, and no rush for watching it. It ended up taking about a month for me to watch it completely. It was tough to watch all at once.

[ryr8828]

Another look:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/8199.html

[pnkpanther]

Another look:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/8199.html

a lot of people dropped the pooch on both sides on this one.

Bush Sr took a lot of heat for making a politcal appointee to head FEMA and got screwed during Hurricane Andrew, but for Bush sr it wasnt in as a populated of an area...but clinton learned from that, and put someone worthwhile in charge, James Witt

Dubya put a guy who oversaw pony show's in charge

[LSU]

Another look:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/8199.html


That's not "another look". That's another "blame one side only," and that is despicable.

I'm not disagreeing that the local and state governments didn't fail. I've been pretty repetitive at placing blame on them, too. But to insinuate Bush can wash his hands of any responsibility is simply partisan FUBAR.

Spin at its finest.

[ryr8828]

That's not "another look". That's another "blame one side only," and that is despicable.

I'm not disagreeing that the local and state governments didn't fail. I've been pretty repetitive at placing blame on them, too. But to insinuate Bush can wash his hands of any responsibility is simply partisan FUBAR.

Spin at its finest.

I'm not saying Bush is perfect.

I do ask, what should he have done? Take over the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans against local leader's wishes?

[Vegas]

That's not "another look". That's another "blame one side only," and that is despicable.

I'm not disagreeing that the local and state governments didn't fail. I've been pretty repetitive at placing blame on them, too. But to insinuate Bush can wash his hands of any responsibility is simply partisan FUBAR.

Spin at its finest.

So what facts are you disputing in that article?

[LSU]

I'm not saying Bush is perfect.

I do ask, what should he have done? Take over the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans against local leader's wishes?


I know you're not saying Bush is perfect.

What should he have done?


Put someone in charge of FEMA with disaster management experience.
Done more visiting than just for photo ops.
Step foot in New Orleans sooner than 14 days after the storm.


My contention is not that it's Bush's fault. It's the state, local, and federal governments inability to manage the situation. I believe the federal government is led by Bush, ergo, it's his responsibility if something goes wrong. Same for Blanco and Nagin on their levels.

[Vegas]

I know you're not saying Bush is perfect.

What should he have done?


Put someone in charge of FEMA with disaster management experience.
Done more visiting than just for photo ops.
Step foot in New Orleans sooner than 14 days after the storm.


My contention is not that it's Bush's fault. It's the state, local, and federal governments inability to manage the situation. I believe the federal government is led by Bush, ergo, it's his responsibility if something goes wrong. Same for Blanco and Nagin on their levels.

What can a president do by just being there?

And the fact remains that the timing of the response is limited by law. Bush wasn't responsible for that.

[LSU]

So what facts are you disputing in that article?

"Democrats who caused the majority of the problems with the relief effort, and they're scrambling to hide that fact."



"two days before the hurricane hit. Mrs. Blanco delayed making the order until August 28th, robbing those involved of valuable time to effect a proper evacuation."

people that stayed stayed because they wanted to, not because they didn't have time to leave.

"Both Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco asked residents who were unable to evacuate to go to the Louisiana Superdome,"

This is a complete lie, or at best a fabrication of the truth. The SD was and always was a shelter of LAST RESORT. It was reported widely on TV and radio BEFORE the storm hit that the SD would not have relief aid...it was a shelter ONLY.

"Numerous reports of violence and even rapes have since been reported inside the Superdome as people became frustrated and angry at their situation."

Most of which was media sensationalization. At least, rampant violence and rape. There may have been isolated cases, but not to the degree in which was reported.

"Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin sent their people to the Superdome with the full knowledge that it was an unsuitable shelter."

See above. Shelter of LAST RESORT.

"Further evidence of hypocrisy can be found in the venemous criticism of FEMA by congressional Democrats, even going as far as demanding the resignation of Director Michael Brown."

Very venomous considering Bush himself decided he wasn't right for the job. Let's not forget that this is the guy that 4 DAYS after the storm, said he didn't know people were at the convention center. CNN had reporters there with cameras. The same guy that, in an email, said he didn't have time to talk about things because he was getting ready for a big meal at Ruth's Chris. And now, if you hear Michael Brown's side of the story, it was the federal government that was holding him back from doing things (and the state, too, specifically Blanco). So, either Brown has sour grapes after the admin forced his resignation or he's a scapegoat for the admins failures in the situation.


"The Red Cross was also well positioned to provide needed supplies to the city, but the state refused to let them deliver, claiming that the Red Cross was not needed at that time."

My recollection was that they wouldn't let them in because at that point, they couldn't guarantee the safety of the convoy (roads washed out, blocked, etc).



That's that.

The rest of the article, I really don't have much of a problem with. I agree. The thing that sticks in my craw about this is the underlying theme that Bush has no fault and did everything right (and by "Bush" I mean his administration, appointments, etc).

[LSU]

What can a president do by just being there?

And the fact remains that the timing of the response is limited by law. Bush wasn't responsible for that.


What can he do? See the devastation first hand. Let the people know he's there, he's seen it, smelt it, felt it. It's perhaps symbolic at best. He flew over in a helicopter a few times, saw some stuff on TV, but anyone that I've heard from says the images onscreen aren't the same as the images directly in front of your face. Basically a sense of caring for the people affected, other than a few photo ops and rah rah speeches.

Bush and Blanco had differences in how they wanted things run. Neither would budge. It's BOTH THEIR FAULTS for being stubborn. It took Nagin to drop a few damns and pisseds on the radio before ANYTHING substantial happened. Then they got together and ironed out the differences. It's not a unilateral problem.

[LSU]

Oh, and this little snippet leads me to believe that it wasn't written with "objectivity" in mind, although he's welcome to his opinion on the situation...


"Alan Burkhart is a freelance political writer, cross-country trucker, and proud citizen of the reddest of the Red States - Mississippi."

[Vegas]

That's that.

The rest of the article, I really don't have much of a problem with. I agree. The thing that sticks in my craw about this is the underlying theme that Bush has no fault and did everything right (and by "Bush" I mean his administration, appointments, etc).

As Ronald Reagan used to say, "Personnel is everything." Bush and his appointments are essentially synonymous. It's also one of the biggest beefs I have with Bush (and remember I have several). He has hired a lot of bad people. He has also hired a lot of really good people, though.

[LSU]

But aside from all this stuff now, the governments are off the hook at the moment (aside from fixing the levees).

The main devil now is Allstate, State Farm and all those other companies that are dicking people out of their claims for absurd reasons. 35 years of premiums for hurricane and homeowners insurances, and the get essentially bupkiss for insurance lingo technicalities.

[LSU]

As Ronald Reagan used to say, "Personnel is everything." Bush and his appointments are essentially synonymous. It's also one of the biggest beefs I have with Bush (and remember I have several). He has hired a lot of bad people. He has also hired a lot of really good people, though.


No, I realize you've said many times that you have problems with Bush (strange thing though, I don't remember hearing you complain about particular subjects much...).


Heh. Yeah, he's hired a lot of good and bad people. The way it sounds, he's also now fired a lot of good people. Oops.

[ryr8828]

What can he do? See the devastation first hand. Let the people know he's there, he's seen it, smelt it, felt it. It's perhaps symbolic at best. He flew over in a helicopter a few times, saw some stuff on TV, but anyone that I've heard from says the images onscreen aren't the same as the images directly in front of your face. Basically a sense of caring for the people affected, other than a few photo ops and rah rah speeches.

Bush and Blanco had differences in how they wanted things run. Neither would budge. It's BOTH THEIR FAULTS for being stubborn. It took Nagin to drop a few damns and pisseds on the radio before ANYTHING substantial happened. Then they got together and ironed out the differences. It's not a unilateral problem.

If it's unsafe for the Red Cross to deliver aid, as you stated in a previous post, I don't think we want the leader of the free world wandering around patting people on the back and telling them everything will be ok. You seemed to insinuate that it was dangerous.


What of Blanco denying Bush access to the National Guard?

What of Blanco needing a day to consider an evacuation?

What of Blanco waiting until the buses were underwater to issue an order to use them?

What of the debit card relief which was cashed at casinos?

While I know these are isolated incidents, as a midwesterner who is smart enough to live on a hill a long way above sea level, should I feel compassion for some son of a bitch who's walking through chest deep water with a heisted tv or case of Keystone Light instead of getting his dumbass to a safer place?
Or running through stores looting instead of seeing himself and his family to safety?

I can't help stupid, and there's plenty of stupid going on in New Orleans.

While I'm on my rant, I could give a rat's ass what Nagin says, wanted, or said, or wanted. He's a racist son of a bitch. "This will one again be a chocolate city" 's ass.

I don't know if you replied about the levee corruption either, what about that? Should we just keep pumping money down there so the dumb thieving sons of bitches can throw it away on their friends and families?

[LSU]

If it's unsafe for the Red Cross to deliver aid, as you stated in a previous post, I don't think we want the leader of the free world wandering around patting people on the back and telling them everything will be ok. You seemed to insinuate that it was dangerous.


What of Blanco denying Bush access to the National Guard?

What of Blanco needing a day to consider an evacuation?

What of Blanco waiting until the buses were underwater to issue an order to use them?

What of the debit card relief which was cashed at casinos?

While I know these are isolated incidents, as a midwesterner who is smart enough to live on a hill a long way above sea level, should I feel compassion for some son of a bitch who's walking through chest deep water with a heisted tv or case of Keystone Light instead of getting his dumbass to a safer place?
Or running through stores looting instead of seeing himself and his family to safety?

I can't help stupid, and there's plenty of stupid going on in New Orleans.

While I'm on my rant, I could give a rat's ass what Nagin says, wanted, or said, or wanted. He's a racist son of a bitch. "This will one again be a chocolate city" 's ass.

I don't know if you replied about the levee corruption either, what about that? Should we just keep pumping money down there so the dumb thieving sons of bitches can throw it away on their friends and families?


My statement about danger for the Red Cross was in relation to them having to drive from their staging areas to New Orleans. Nothing about violence. Bush flew in. The Red Cross would have driven in.


As for your statements regarding Blanco, please reference where I said Blanco had no fault in the situation. Anywhere.

Debit card relief cashed at casinos? That's a new topic to this thread, but I'll go ahead and say the debit cards were one of the worst ideas ever.



Again, your rant as you put it seems to be based on me saying Nagin and Blanco are saints. That premise is wrong. Nagin is a slimeball. So is Blanco (and you might be happy to know that I voted for Jindal in that election...the Republican).


As for the chocolate city comments...yes, very dumb. But about 60-70% of that city was black, and a lot of the history of that city is based on blackness...it was a large hub for the slave trade, but the slavery history in Louisiana is much different than that of the rest of the country.

As for your question about a midwestern boy that lives on a hill. Count your blessings. I can't expect you to have compassion for people in a city 800 miles away. A city that has stood 100s of years, protected by natural wetlands from the gulf (that is until channelization so that commerce could take place on up the river...say, does Illinois have any business that relies on MS river traffic? Traffic that reaches the rest of the world by the Port of New Orleans?). I can't expect you to understand the ties that people have to the place they were born, grew up, got married, had kids, bought houses, worked, retired, and where their parents, grandparents, and perhaps great-grandparents did the same thing. But I understand that link. These people have known nothing BUT New Orleans for a long time.

Just a difference of philosophy, I guess. I don't expect you to have any sort of sympathy or thought for these people (some of which looted to...you know...survive, whereas some are complete assholes for taking advantage of the situation, no doubt). But I do expect the government to care for the people of their country. American citizens. Taxpayers. People. This country is built on history, pride, and its people. New Orleans is a part of that.


I know there's been corruption in New Orleans. It was made New Orleans what it was. Hell, it's what's made Louisianawhat it is. Poor and ass backwards. But it's still home. And that's enough for some.

[Vegas]

But aside from all this stuff now, the governments are off the hook at the moment (aside from fixing the levees).

The main devil now is Allstate, State Farm and all those other companies that are dicking people out of their claims for absurd reasons. 35 years of premiums for hurricane and homeowners insurances, and the get essentially bupkiss for insurance lingo technicalities.

Insurance companies can drive me crazy. They have armies of people whose sole purpose for getting a paycheck is to screw people out of legitimate claims. It's shameful.

[LSU]

Insurance companies can drive me crazy. They have armies of people whose sole purpose for getting a paycheck is to screw people out of legitimate claims. It's shameful.



Yep, some of the big things have been flood waters are not covered under "hurricane" insurance. You need flood coverage for that. And even some people that were "lucky" enough to have flood coverage are still getting screwed. Even if the hurricane came through and blew your roof off (thus hurricane damage) the levees breaking and flooding ixnay that one. Need flood insurance for that.

And when you take out "flood" insurance, do you insure the entirety of your home? No. Probably try to get by to have enough insurance to cover the things a foot or two from the floor. Not the second flood or third floor.


Then take out the deductibles. Some people simply broke even after paying the deductible, then getting the check for the amount insurance would cover.

Sad.

[ryr8828]

My statement about danger for the Red Cross was in relation to them having to drive from their staging areas to New Orleans. Nothing about violence. Bush flew in. The Red Cross would have driven in.


As for your statements regarding Blanco, please reference where I said Blanco had no fault in the situation. Anywhere.

Debit card relief cashed at casinos? That's a new topic to this thread, but I'll go ahead and say the debit cards were one of the worst ideas ever.



Again, your rant as you put it seems to be based on me saying Nagin and Blanco are saints. That premise is wrong. Nagin is a slimeball. So is Blanco (and you might be happy to know that I voted for Jindal in that election...the Republican).


As for the chocolate city comments...yes, very dumb. But about 60-70% of that city was black, and a lot of the history of that city is based on blackness...it was a large hub for the slave trade, but the slavery history in Louisiana is much different than that of the rest of the country.

As for your question about a midwestern boy that lives on a hill. Count your blessings. I can't expect you to have compassion for people in a city 800 miles away. A city that has stood 100s of years, protected by natural wetlands from the gulf (that is until channelization so that commerce could take place on up the river...say, does Illinois have any business that relies on MS river traffic? Traffic that reaches the rest of the world by the Port of New Orleans?). I can't expect you to understand the ties that people have to the place they were born, grew up, got married, had kids, bought houses, worked, retired, and where their parents, grandparents, and perhaps great-grandparents did the same thing. But I understand that link. These people have known nothing BUT New Orleans for a long time.

Just a difference of philosophy, I guess. I don't expect you to have any sort of sympathy or thought for these people (some of which looted to...you know...survive, whereas some are complete assholes for taking advantage of the situation, no doubt). But I do expect the government to care for the people of their country. American citizens. Taxpayers. People. This country is built on history, pride, and its people. New Orleans is a part of that.


I know there's been corruption in New Orleans. It was made New Orleans what it was. Hell, it's what's made Louisianawhat it is. Poor and ass backwards. But it's still home. And that's enough for some.

I didn't mean to sound so heartless (although I may well be) and I recall saying at no time that you thought Blanco and Nagin were saints.

I just believe that the majority of the blame lays on Blanco and Nagin, and they've spent more time trying to shift blame to Bush than they have rectifying the situation. They made major fuckups and to my knowledge have not admitted any fault, none whatsoever.

[LSU]

I didn't mean to sound so heartless (although I may well be) and I recall saying at no time that you thought Blanco and Nagin were saints.

I just believe that the majority of the blame lays on Blanco and Nagin, and they've spent more time trying to shift blame to Bush than they have rectifying the situation. They made major fuckups and to my knowledge have not admitted any fault, none whatsoever.



Yes, they have tried to shift the blame, both to Bush and to each other. It makes me more than sick. And, to my knowledge, nobody has admitted fault. Many times it's been said that thing didn't go right and it makes them mad (all 3 amigos), but to my knowledge no one has flat out said, "this is completely my fault."

No, you didn't say that I said Blanco and Nagin were saints, but my understanding was that my posts were being taken to say that Bush should be blamed without any sort of fault of Nagin or Blanco, and that is nowhere near true. So, I feel that I need to contradict any thought that I'm defending Nagin or Blanco and just going after Bush.


But perhaps in the same respect of them spending more time trying to shift the blame, they're also dealing with this everyday, and therefore still working to get things right, while Bush has been pretty much removed from the situation. They're both dealing with it daily. Unfortunately, Nagin got reelection. That's bad. But the good new is (and I don't know if this has made national news) Blanco is not seeking reelection. She's done...

[Vegas]

But the good new is (and I don't know if this has made
national news) Blanco is not seeking reelection. She's done...

I read about that in several places, but I read more news than most folks. It was abundantly clear in every article I read that Blanco knows that the chances of reelection are essentially zero.

[LSU]

I read about that in several places, but I read more news than most folks. It was abundantly clear in every article I read that Blanco knows that the chances of reelection are essentially zero.



Yeah. The cajuns are none too happy. I couldn't believe she got elected. She had no plans, just ideas. She always talked like she had a wad of gum in her mouth. Jindal had plans on how to do things and was very well spoken.

I just didn't get it, especially for how red this state is.

[LSU]

OK, so after all of this back and forth, regardless of what you think of what Blanco or Nagin did or is doing, do YOU think the federal government, under the direction of Bush, did everything possible (within reason) in regards to the Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts...including pre-, post-, and during the storm?

[Vegas]

OK, so after all of this back and forth, regardless of what you think of what Blanco or Nagin did or is doing, do YOU think the federal government, under the direction of Bush, did everything possible (within reason) in regards to the Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts...including pre-, post-, and during the storm?

I think they did too little at first and have spent too much money afterwards.

[ryr8828]

OK, so after all of this back and forth, regardless of what you think of what Blanco or Nagin did or is doing, do YOU think the federal government, under the direction of Bush, did everything possible (within reason) in regards to the Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts...including pre-, post-, and during the storm?
That's almost too loaded for me to answer. Nobody ever does enough, fault can always be found in any action.
Especially if government is involved.

[LSU]

I think they did too little at first and have spent too much money afterwards.



I would agree, but would put a qualifier on the second part. They've spent too much money in relation to what they've gotten in return, i.e., they've wasted a lot of money.

That's not to say the money isn't needed, particularly to get the levees to at least cat 3 level (which they were supposed to be before the storm, but the ACE mucked up).

But essentially, I agree.

[LSU]

That's almost too loaded for me to answer. Nobody ever does enough, fault can always be found in any action.
Especially if government is involved.


Well, that's why I put the "within reason" part in there. In a perfect world, there would've been no problems, but it's not perfect, and I don't expect a perfect plan and outcome.

It was more, 'given the situation' type thing. But I see your point as well.

[Vegas]

I would agree, but would put a qualifier on the second part. They've spent too much money in relation to what they've gotten in return, i.e., they've wasted a lot of money.

That's not to say the money isn't needed, particularly to get the levees to at least cat 3 level (which they were supposed to be before the storm, but the ACE mucked up).

But essentially, I agree.

Then we agree completely. I should have been more clear in the 'wasted money' part.

[Bang]

Insurance companies can drive me crazy. They have armies of people whose sole purpose for getting a paycheck is to screw people out of legitimate claims. It's shameful.

My homeowner's policy may not be renewed by Allstate. Due to being in a hurricane zone, and I live 25 miles from Long Island Sound. And they made it very clear that flood insurance is not included and to make sure that I lived outside of a flood zone or purchased flood insurance separately if I did. They wouldnt underwrite renters insurance when I lived within 2 miles of the ocean. Its pretty clear that if you live near sea level, or in a storm surge area, you are going to get screwed if you dont pay boku insurance premiums. Its unfortuneate that people were in the situation where they purchased property below sea level and were underinsured. Maybe selling out to industrial use would be the best thing in the long run, they should take their claim check and buyout and start fresh somewhere.

[LSU]

Maybe selling out to industrial use would be the best thing in the long run, they should take their claim check and buyout and start fresh somewhere.



Perhaps. I know a few people that have decided to leave. When you bought that insurance, was it before or after these storms? I could see the companies being way more upfront about these things after the fact rather than before.

As for the claim checks...well, let's just say they'd be getting a fresh start with the buyout, and that's about it.

Do you think they're getting fair value for their property in this situation? And why would an industry move there if it risked flooding and shutting down operations? Unless there were assurances that flood control would be implemented? So then I ask why the industry would be able to get flood control assurances, but humans cannot?

Just a few questions. Obviously no one here can probably answer for sure...perhaps no one anywhere can.

[Bang]

Perhaps. I know a few people that have decided to leave. When you bought that insurance, was it before or after these storms? I could see the companies being way more upfront about these things after the fact rather than before.

As for the claim checks...well, let's just say they'd be getting a fresh start with the buyout, and that's about it.

Do you think they're getting fair value for their property in this situation? And why would an industry move there if it risked flooding and shutting down operations? Unless there were assurances that flood control would be implemented? So then I ask why the industry would be able to get flood control assurances, but humans cannot?

Just a few questions. Obviously no one here can probably answer for sure...perhaps no one anywhere can.

Allstate was telling me no coastal area insurance in 2000, and we bought our house in 2003. Now its 2007, and they are dropping policies even farther from the coast. I'm not defending them, and they do look for any way out of a claim, but my agents were very up-front about coverage.

As far as fair market value, if the property in those districts was worth much in the first place, there wouldnt be low income families living there. #1 reason to buy somewhere else: you cant get flood insurance! Theres a long line of blame for the situation, goes back to the mortgage lenders that funded houses in this area, knowing it was below sea level and not adequately protected. Local insurance agents not pushing property owners to buy flood insurance, knowing full well how the business works in some cases. Industries have the resources to protect their investments, and BTW they pay property taxes without the same burden on the local services budget (schools, police protection, etc).

Another thing to be stated is that IDK if the Army Corp of Engineers FUNDS projects, but is more of a controlling authority of what gets built and what the specifications are to be for river structures. There's also FERC, FTC, NTSB, EPA, and other authorities to deal with in building river structures. They dont pay for the projects, they just raise the price tag. There's lots of federal agencies to tell you what to do, but none for actually doing them.

New Orleans is the victim of corruption, bad business, and apathy. Lets hope the rebirth is something more positive. There's more eyes watching, maybe that will help.

[LSU]

Allstate was telling me no coastal area insurance in 2000, and we bought our house in 2003. Now its 2007, and they are dropping policies even farther from the coast. I'm not defending them, and they do look for any way out of a claim, but my agents were very up-front about coverage.

As far as fair market value, if the property in those districts was worth much in the first place, there wouldnt be low income families living there. #1 reason to buy somewhere else: you cant get flood insurance! Theres a long line of blame for the situation, goes back to the mortgage lenders that funded houses in this area, knowing it was below sea level and not adequately protected. Local insurance agents not pushing property owners to buy flood insurance, knowing full well how the business works in some cases. Industries have the resources to protect their investments, and BTW they pay property taxes without the same burden on the local services budget (schools, police protection, etc).

Another thing to be stated is that IDK if the Army Corp of Engineers FUNDS projects, but is more of a controlling authority of what gets built and what the specifications are to be for river structures. There's also FERC, FTC, NTSB, EPA, and other authorities to deal with in building river structures. They dont pay for the projects, they just raise the price tag. There's lots of federal agencies to tell you what to do, but none for actually doing them.

New Orleans is the victim of corruption, bad business, and apathy. Lets hope the rebirth is something more positive. There's more eyes watching, maybe that will help.


In regards to the lending agencies and insurance in the poor areas...well, those are old old areas. I don't know the history of it all, but when those houses were built (and potentially paid off), they may not have been in a flood zone. Just thinking in terms of the roots of people there and how hard it would be for them to leave.

Leaving would sound easy to me. I moved from home when I was 8. Lived away from family for 10 years or so. Went to college for 5 years, then moved to Iowa for 2 years, now LA for 5 years. I have no roots. But like I've said earlier, NOLA is all some of these people know. Generations in one house, one neighborhood. That has to be tough to just say, oh yeah, let's just sell it and move to Oklahoma. The culture in NOLA is quite addictive, IMO, and I've only been here 5 years. I can't imagine if I'd been immersed in it a lifetime.


Aside from that, common sense, to me, agrees with you. Take what you can and leave. Something just keeps telling me that is much easier said than done.

Although now, some people may have no choice, and I think that's what probably stings the most. They have no control.

[Bang]

In regards to the lending agencies and insurance in the poor areas...well, those are old old areas. I don't know the history of it all, but when those houses were built (and potentially paid off), they may not have been in a flood zone. Just thinking in terms of the roots of people there and how hard it would be for them to leave.

Leaving would sound easy to me. I moved from home when I was 8. Lived away from family for 10 years or so. Went to college for 5 years, then moved to Iowa for 2 years, now LA for 5 years. I have no roots. But like I've said earlier, NOLA is all some of these people know. Generations in one house, one neighborhood. That has to be tough to just say, oh yeah, let's just sell it and move to Oklahoma. The culture in NOLA is quite addictive, IMO, and I've only been here 5 years. I can't imagine if I'd been immersed in it a lifetime.


Aside from that, common sense, to me, agrees with you. Take what you can and leave. Something just keeps telling me that is much easier said than done.

Although now, some people may have no choice, and I think that's what probably stings the most. They have no control.

Yes there are roots there. I have sampled the culture too, its kinda Sodom-like. That doesnt help the folks who are oblivious to facts. When I was taking swamp tours in the early 90s, and they mentioned how half the city was below sea level, I assumed the residents were also aware of this and thats why there were so jovial and enjoying life that could change for the worse in an instant. I guess they didnt take the tour.

[LSU]

Yes there are roots there. I have sampled the culture too, its kinda Sodom-like. That doesnt help the folks who are oblivious to facts. When I was taking swamp tours in the early 90s, and they mentioned how half the city was below sea level, I assumed the residents were also aware of this and thats why there were so jovial and enjoying life that could change for the worse in an instant. I guess they didnt take the tour.



The city was underwater because of engineering failures in the levee system. They were supposed to withstand Cat 3 storms. Katrina wasn't much more than a 3 when it hit, and it didn't hit NOLA directly. Had the current levee system been up to par (as the residents had been told it was), we wouldn't have this discussion right now.