positive side-effects of hurricane aftermath? - Page 3

Mule · 09-04-2005, 01:07 PM

The New Orlenians I've talked to are starting to see some bright spots in this. If 150,000 ghetto residents are moved to other cities and however many gang banging thugs are killed, the prospects for the future go way up.

vash · vash's Garage

i scanned this thread. lots of low income neighborhoods got destroyed right? is there a law that makes developers put back cheap homes? if not, i see nice lofts, homes, etc coming up and things get valuable fast.

from a civil engineering point of view, it is amazing that levees and drainage can keep a city between the sea and river from flooding more often. it will only take $$$ to build a better system.

i read in the news, that this could put us back into a recession? low interest rates? i think the main positive side effect is the "can do" human spirit that will rebuild this region of the US. mother nature just gave us a humility check.

tabs · 09-04-2005, 01:29 PM

Lot of money to rebuild is a stimilus to the economy..think of all the House Hold Goods and Building materials that are going to be needed....

Now the Insurance Co's are going to be hit hard....that State Farm man is going to be crying every time he writes a check...

1973911s · 09-04-2005, 02:55 PM

We are currently working on housing 10 families in Arkansas, and 19 Seniors in South Carolina. It will be interesting to see who moves back.

Michael

CamB · CamB's Garage

i scanned this thread. lots of low income neighborhoods got destroyed right? is there a law that makes developers put back cheap homes? if not, i see nice lofts, homes, etc coming up and things get valuable fast.

Just because the houses are high income doesn't mean the occupants magicallly become high income too. Generally the housing is there to meet the income level - it won't work the other way.

Instrument 41 · 09-04-2005, 03:32 PM

Living in Baton Rouge we are seeing both positive and negative. negative first-the scum as Johnco mentioned. The numbers of carjackings have more than doubled. Robbery's have also increased, but here is already talk of making more jail space! positive-Baton Rouge is now the largest city in the state with the majority of residents that have the financial where-with-all to afford housing. the real estate market is unbelievable here. The Times Picayune is moving to BR and promptly bought 40 houses sight unseen. Numerous engineering firms have already relocated along with their higher than average paying jobs. the flip side-what happens when NO gets back on their feet and these folks move back? then BR will get hit hard. On Monday Jefferson Parish are allowing residents to go back in to examine their properties. I think on Tues we will hear a number of stories that some are just not going back. The other side of all these people is supplying the things that they will need. Our town was not designed to handle this many people moving about. We only have one major mall for the entire city. Traffic was a nightmare before this happened , now I can only imagine how it will be. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and as for residents there are still over 60,000 still there by choice, living in their unflooded, undamaged homes, just no power. Its not as bad as the media has painted it to be. I do think it will be better place in the years to come, simply, as others have said, the majority of the welfare folks are now gone and will not return. As far as the levees are concerned. The only reason they were breached is that barges got loose and broke through the cement barriers. If there had not been the barge incidents the levee's would not have broken and a large part of this misery would not be.

johnco · 09-04-2005, 03:39 PM

I was told by a delivery guy yesterday that he had talked to a person that lived right next to the break. He was told by the guy that it was 2 large loose grain barges that hit the levees and started their collapse. haven't seen that on the news though.

1973911s · 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamB
i scanned this thread. lots of low income neighborhoods got destroyed right? is there a law that makes developers put back cheap homes? if not, i see nice lofts, homes, etc coming up and things get valuable fast.

Just because the houses are high income doesn't mean the occupants magicallly become high income too. Generally the housing is there to meet the income level - it won't work the other way.

The property is zoned residential most likely, but each city is required to have some portion of low income housing.

Is there really a need for high or moderate income housing in NO?

Michael

skipdup · 09-04-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamB
...Just because the houses are high income doesn't mean the occupants magicallly become high income too. Generally the housing is there to meet the income level - it won't work the other way.

Cam- It happens all the time here. If higher income housing is built, the lower income people can't afford to live there, so they live somewhere else. Really, it's quite simple... nothing magic about it.

We have been revitalizing downtown areas, with great success, for some time in this country.

- Skip

island911 · 09-04-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamB
. ...
Just because the houses are high income doesn't mean the occupants magicallly become high income too. Generally the housing is there to meet the income level - it won't work the other way.

Are ya sure Cam?

. . .what if its a really nice house? . . .and just 2 meters cough_belowcough the ocean . . . near the BEACH

I mean we are talking nearly beach-front property here! .. e easy water access! Bring your jetski . . the adventure is about to begin!

CamB · CamB's Garage

Is the jetski part of the emergency evacuation kit?

Skip - I agree with gentrification of inner city lofts/etc - what I'm disagreeing with is the (possible) contention that NO could be rebuilt (as I read it) without poor areas. Never been to NO - maybe the poor areas were in a (geographically) good part of town, although since there has been such widespread damage and will be such widespread rebuilding (assuming it happens), the "good" parts of town are whereever the money gets spent.

(edit) Apologies for excessive use of parantheses (sp?).

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by CamB
Never been to NO - maybe the poor areas were in a (geographically) good part of town, although since there has been such widespread damage and will be such widespread rebuilding (assuming it happens), the "good" parts of town are whereever the money gets spent.

NO, as I understand it, is to a large extent segregated on an elevation basis: the better neightborhoods are higher (and didn't get flooded) while the lowest are/were the poorest.

Instrument 41 · 09-04-2005, 06:36 PM

The major flooding occurred in the 9th ward, which is welfare, junkie,drug head, criminal town. And not all of it flooded. there is a section thats close to the French quarter that did not flood. All the national media shows are the massive amount of blacks that are being evacuated. But in reality there are many more whites that are still in the city that never got flooded. They chose not to go to the Superdome.

Hugh R · 06:47 PM

I'm sure that the average citizens of Houston see bringing in 250,000 poor, poorly educated, unemployed, low skill people with no assets whatsoever as a good thing for their local economy.

VaSteve · 09-04-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh R
I'm sure that the average citizens of Houston see bringing in 250,000 poor, poorly educated, unemployed, low skill people with no assets whatsoever as a good thing for their local economy.

I think one of the worst parts of this tradgedy is finding out that we as a nation have that many "poor, poorly educated, unemployed, low skill people with no assets whatsoever" in the nation. In every large city in the nation.

It has been eye-opening to me, the sheer numbers that is.

Victor · 09-05-2005, 12:07 AM

There are 37 million Americans living below the poverty line.

island911 · 09-05-2005, 01:26 AM

we set the bar high.

dd74 · 09-05-2005, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
we set the bar high.

Meaning what?

Victor · 09-05-2005, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
we set the bar high.

From the U.S. Census Bureau: "In 2004 the American government defined poverty as a family of four living with an income below $18,810."

Seems high alright...

Most of us spend more than that a year on holidays / beer.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor
From the U.S. Census Bureau: "In 2004 the American government defined poverty as a family of four living with an income below $18,810."

Seems high alright... Most of us spend more than that a year on holidays / beer.

The figures are a bit misleading. First of all, they are US dollars. Secondly, The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). It also does not include barter, exchanges etc. or account for assets. One could very easily be retired and live in a million dollar home and have a collection of classic porsches...and still be considered below poverty. The folks who are below the poverty level do not actually have to live on that amount, because they would most likely receive public housing, medicaid, foodstamps, earned income credit, etc.