Must read: "Who Destroyed FEMA?"

[jyl]

I see a couple of conflicting considerations here.

First, it seems that people and communities who choose to live in known dangerous areas should bear the burden of protecting against those dangers (e.g. earthquake zones on the West Coast, hurricane regions in the South-East, blizzard areas in the North.) Individual people should make preparations (e.g. earthquake kits), and cities/states should tax heavily enough to fund the necessary protections (e.g. flood levees) and recovery (e.g. post-hurricane reconstruction). This cost would be added to the price of goods and services produced by the region (e.g. additional taxes on the oil and gas companies in the Gulf Coast).

Second, this society just isn't willing and in fact isn't able to leave a disaster-stricken community to its own resources. When Americans see hundreds of thousands of other Americans in desperate need, we are not going to fold our arms and say "let them be responsible for the choices they made". And considering that people can freely cross state lines, a mass disaster in one state really does become the problem of other states. Even if the stricken community and people failed to take adequate precautions, both compassion and practicality compel other states to help.

Third, sometimes centralized disaster response resources may be more efficient than local. For example, instead of each each state funding emergency personnel, equipment, shelter, cots, medical facilities, etc for millions of people, the federal government can do this centrally. After all, any one state won't have opportunity to use those emergency resources very often - once every couple decades or so (Florida is an unfortunate exception). So it's kind of like the insurance principle - spreading risk and cost.

[techweenie]

I agree.

This whole neocon notion of 'let them simmer in their fecal soup' is a little over the top for most of us.

[speeder]

People need to remember that NO was not built below sea level from what I understand, it has sunk (?)

Are you blaming the people for living there, Fintstone? Or just the ones that could not leave? I have been thinking that they should have made more of an effort to evacuate, (and in hindsight it's easy to say), but the shear number of people left behind makes me tend to believe that many had no way out. It is true that the local/state govt. should have had a massive contingency plan to remove people from NO.

Having an underqualified or unqualified person heading FEMA is just completely unacceptable and irresponsible, it is just too important of a post. Like a firefighter in a sleepy town, they are able to relax most of the time but when you need them, you need them. Bush is burying the GOP party for ages, IMO. People will not forget this one, and one hell of a lot of red state folks are hating him after this. It is a classic case for the Dems, who believe that govt. should provide better services to all people.

[jyl]

Here's a NYT story contrasting two New Orleans families - one middle-class, one poor. The poor family couldn't leave because they lacked a car. Their apartment was flooded and then burned. Their cash savings ($2,000) and all papers, etc, were destroyed. They escaped to the Superdome and today are among the refugees who, according to a prior post "need to be held responsible for the choice they make...and they should be the ones who take care of mergency planning/management for problems unique to them/their area". A quarter of New Orleans' population are at the poverty level. http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05moving.html?pagewanted=2

[Mule]

Speeder said:
"Having an underqualified or unqualified person heading FEMA is just completely unacceptable and irresponsible, it is just too important of a post. Like a firefighter in a sleepy town, they are able to relax most of the time but when you need them, you need them. Bush is burying the GOP party for ages, IMO. People will not forget this one, and one hell of a lot of red state folks are hating him after this. It is a classic case for the Dems, who believe that govt. should provide better services to all people."

Speeder, Bush has one shot. Appoint Juliani as "recovery czar" and let him try to make the best of this. With a good showing he will beat Hillary. Short of that, you won't see a republican pres for 20 years.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by jyl
Here's a NYT story contrasting two New Orleans families - one middle-class, one poor. The poor family couldn't leave because they lacked a car. Their apartment was flooded and then burned. Their cash savings ($2,000) and all papers, etc, were destroyed. They escaped to the Superdome and today are among the refugees who, according to a prior post "need to be held responsible for the choice they make...and they should be the ones who take care of mergency planning/management for problems unique to them/their area". A quarter of New Orleans' population are at the poverty level. http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/nationalspecial/05moving.html?pagewanted=2

John- I have no doubt that some of the folks in NO couldn't leave and I certainly don't "blame" them. I'm not asking for people to take sole responsibility for their actions. Obviously, in hindsight, we all wish things could have been done better/quicker with less suffering. What rubs me (and I assume some others) is the lack of taking any personal responsibility while blaming anyone and everyone else for the poor's misfortune. I think a lot of the comments (i.e. people need to take responsibility) we're seeing are in response to the screams of "it's Bush's fault".

I'm sure that some poor had no way to leave. I'm also sure that some that could leave (catch ride with neighbors or other family, grab a greyhound, etc.) simply chose not to.

I certainly don't believe that everyone (100%) who suffered in the aftermath of the floods were stuck in NO simply b/c of their poverty or race. BTW, I continue to see (what appears to be) poor people in the area who refuse to leave. I'm talking about as of last night and today. They simply say to the rescuers "go away, we're fine".

Another thought... If the people who could have left had, maybe there would have been enough food & water to sustain those who couldn't leave. It surely would have made the evacuation this week easier/quicker.

Just my .02,
Skip

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
I didn't see anyone here *****ing about FEMAs policies when Florida was helped out.

But now that it's Louisiana and Mississippi, I hear that FEMA shouldn't be helping, or people shouldn't expect it to help?

WTF do all these folks pay taxes to the Feds for? FEMA was helpful to me after the '94 quake. They set up a loan for me to repair damage to my house. They were very visible and efficient. I was so impressed with them that I sent a 'thank you' letter.

FEMA failed in Louisiana and Mississippi -- failed to do anywhere near the job they did in several past Florida hurricanes. BUT, their response was comparable to the first big hurricane they had to deal with in Florida: slow. It seems they have no serious pre-disaster planning, but just feel their way along with each state infrastructure as needed.

I don't think anyone has said that all citizens should depend on FEMA -- although that's the way the apologists for this administration are trying to spin it. But in any hierarchy, the highest authority (with the greatest resources) is going to have to take some responsibility for all the government relief efforts the taxpayers *thought* they were paying for. So NO and LA are making FEMA look bad. And on top of that, FEMA looks like it's being mismanaged by yet another recipient of political welfare.

I can't understand why liberals always have to changew the argument to one that is more easily argued...than to argue what someone actually posts. No one has claimed that FEMA should not help out after a natural disaster. the point is that if citizens exhibited a bit more personal responsibility..and if local governments did their job...there woiuld be a lot fewer dead and a whole lot less to fix/cleanup.
As far as to whether FEMA is mismanaged or is looking bad..and how well they will do in the aftermath of the disaster...that remains to be seen....but it will be difficult to judge since the locals have screwed thingds up so royally to start with.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder
People need to remember that NO was not built below sea level from what I understand, it has sunk (?)

Are you blaming the people for living there, Fintstone? Or just the ones that could not leave? I have been thinking that they should have made more of an effort to evacuate, (and in hindsight it's easy to say), but the shear number of people left behind makes me tend to believe that many had no way out. It is true that the local/state govt. should have had a massive contingency plan to remove people from NO.
...

First of all, apparently New Orleans has been sinking a long time. Your rational might apply to buildings from 50 to 100 years ago, bit not to new ones. It seems that many of the older buildings held up quite well.
Secondly, The people were instructed to evacuate. The city/state should have helped anyone leave who did not have a way out. It would certainly be easier to mobilize busses that were already their and under their (state and local) control than to have people bring them from outside.
Am I blaming people for living there?...If there are people living in a city that is that vulnerable to such a disaster..and are not mobile.. .I certainly do think that it is unwise to live there. There are many less expensive places to live without the risk.

Originally posted by speeder
[B.....It is a classic case for the Dems, who believe that govt. should provide better services to all [/B]

.....and someone else should pay for them.

[Mule]

Flintstone, this is a re-post:
Flint, you and I usually agree. Does it make more sense to build a city araund the 4th largest port on earth, one of the largest oil & gas reserves in the US and some of the richest fishing grounds in our country and then protect it as our activity washes away the protective coastline, or is it better to build a city in the desert where water has to be dammed and piped hundreds of miles so we can have access to slot machines and whores?

Maybe if we had spent some of that money on NO they're would be a few thousand people still alive.

[fintstone]

Mule, this is a repost of the answer to your post that you are reposting:
As a southerner myself, I have nothing against LA or New Orleans... I am just trying to apply logic. If the natural attributes of the city/location are that wonderous enough to warrent living there in spite of the risk (and they may well be)...there should have been plenty of revenue/reason to build the levees and buildings properly. It should be in the building codes just as much as hot water heater retaining straps are in the code for areas prone to earthquakes. bad local (good old boypolitics) government and squandering of revenue is the problem in Louisiana.

If I build my home in the desert, I would not expect FEMA to bring me water if I had a drrought/dry well....or provide A/C if the temperatures were excessive. There are limits to what federal govt should/can do. Now, if I wanted to get together with other residents of the desert and build a pipeline, dam, well, etc to provide myself more water for (insurance)...that would be different.

I own a house in North Carolina that was built in the 20's. As all the homes in that area of that era...the site was selected carefully. Noone in the 20's expected the govt to bail them out if they did something stupid. (note the French Quarter and much of the older areas did not flood badly) Recent floods washed away/damaged several homes that were built more recently..on very low lying plots. There was no damage to my home. Should I be taxed to build some sort of diversion to protect their homes in the future..or to rebuild the damage...even though they knowingly built them in a flood area?


__________________

[Mule]

Really? If the power goes away should we allow Las Vegans to bake or rescue them? Is that a hard question? What about this one, are you pro-life?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by fintstone
First of all, apparently New Orleans has been sinking a long time. Your rational might apply to buildings from 50 to 100 years ago, bit not to new ones. It seems that many of the older buildings held up quite well.
Secondly, The people were instructed to evacuate. The city/state should have helped anyone leave who did not have a way out. It would certainly be easier to mobilize busses that were already their and under their (state and local) control than to have people bring them from outside.
Am I blaming people for living there?...If there are people living in a city that is that vulnerable to such a disaster..and are not mobile.. .I certainly do think that it is unwise to live there. There are many less expensive places to live without the risk.

.....and someone else should pay for them.

Generally, what you wrote is the way even liberals see it.

However, your last line is the biggest disagreement we have, Fint. If we had spent as much on NO per capita as instead of spending it on Iraqis (by my calculation $11,5XX per person), very few Americans would have died in this hurricane or the next 20.

it's a one-time expenditure if it's done right. The Netherlands has managed to preserve a whole country at below sea level because they committed to do it. England has managed the Thames flooding. I think we're up to the task.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Mule
Really? If the power goes away should we allow Las Vegans to bake or rescue them? Is that a hard question? What about this one, are you pro-life?

If you are talking about electrical power in Las Vegas, I assume that either the city or state would would buy it elsewhere. If none were available, I certainly imagine that most folks living in the desert..as well as many places throughout the south...would relocate to other areas. I do not expect that they would need anyone to rescue them. They would simply drive away.

Don't get me wrong. I have never even implied that the folks in New Orleans should not be rescued. In fact, just the opposite. It is just sad that there are so many dead and so many needing rescue...largely due to their own actions and that of their local government. I would only wish that they would learn from their mistakes instead of blaming others who had their jobs made much more difficult because of the ineptness of the local officials and the fact that so many did not leave as directed.

If you are trying to slam me about Las Vegas....don't bother. I don't like it there one bit. I only live there now because my country needs me to be there. I will leave as soon as I am not needed.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
...

it's a one-time expenditure if it's done right. The Netherlands has managed to preserve a whole country at below sea level because they committed to do it. England has managed the Thames flooding. I think we're up to the task.

Why was it not "done right" before? 10 or even 20 years ago? And if you did manage to make New Orleans Hurricane proof...Where do you stop? Do you do the same for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Hawaii, etc. What about the Florinda Keys? How much would it cost to elevate a few islands? Do you build levees on every river in the US that tends to flood so folks can build below level? Should I go buy some cheap land in a flood plain and build a bunch of homes so that other taxpayers can bail me out when the inevitable flood come? Don't I or my local officials have any obligation to act reasonably?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by fintstone
Why was it not "done right" before? 10 or even 20 years ago? And if you did manage to make New Orleans Hurricane proof...Where do you stop? Do you do the same for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Hawaii, etc. What about the Florinda Keys? How much would it cost to elevate a few islands? Do you build levees on every river in the US that tends to flood so folks can build below level? Should I go buy some cheap land in a flood plain and build a bunch of homes so that other taxpayers can bail me out when the inevitable flood come? Don't I or my local officials have any obligation to act reasonably?

Reading comprehension problems again?

Or were you just tossing out another straw man argument?

I was referenceing flooding protection of populations living below sea level as accomplished by other countries (neither of which have hurricanes).

[RoninLB]

thx procon

and from the 1st article site I posted on p1

"By law, FEMA requires all states, if they are to receive grant money, to file both pre- and post-catastrophe mitigation plans. Experts in Louisiana, and indeed New Orleans, have been drafting one for several years."

fwiw. I choose to live on the real estate I'm living on now. It's as vulnerable as it gets imo. I'm used to it but I don't like the idea of living in LA [btdt] earthquakes. If the feds have to bail me out that's fine w/me. If they don't it's not like I expect them to. I won't turn down $100k either if they want to help me protect this house by raising it in the air 15'although I'm not going to spend it.

The difference to me seems that they were told they would be safe from harm. Their Governor and Mayor screwed them by not raising the money thru state and local taxes to pay their 50%. They feds or state gov't haven't told me that they will protect me besides yelling

"evacuation now"

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
Reading comprehension problems again?

Or were you just tossing out another straw man argument?

I was referenceing flooding protection of populations living below sea level as accomplished by other countries (neither of which have hurricanes).

Seems clear to me that if we spend the federal tax dollars to ensure that New Orleans residents are safe from natural disaster (as you advocate), we would have to do the same for the residents of any similar potential catastrophes...or would you consider citizens of New Orleans more deserving of such largess than other citizens?

[CamB]

I agree with Fint - there needs to be some careful thought about who pays, in the context of the potential for it to happen again.

If it were my money (ie, if I lived in the US), I'd probably be happy enough to see federal $$$ pay to reinstate the city and the existing levees, but the residents of the new, improved New Orleans should have to pay for the new, improved levee system (they could be lent the money by the Fed govt). If you want to live there, it might have to be reflected in local govt costs.

And there better be some heavy duty long term planning to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[johnco]

I sure hope you guys feel the same next time a flood, hurricane, blizzard, tornado, landslide, earthquake, drought, famine, forest fire, volcano, monsoon, tsunami, cyclone, heat wave, etc., etc. hits your particular place on earth and destroys everything you have. my guess is that you will be standing there with your arms outstretched begging for help just like everyone affected by Katrina

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by fintstone

, we would have to do the same for the residents of any similar potential catastrophes...

I need $100k protection $.