Evacuations gone bad and other Katrina Blame Games [Archive] - Page 2

dfiler

2005-09-06, 15:39

What I'm seriously afraid of is that everyone will scream for increased federal assistance, when the *real* lesson to be learned here is "Don't count on someone else to save you." Increased *local* planning and assistance is what's needed. You can't just expect 'someone else' to come save your tuchas, or you end up with something like thisI couldn't dissagree more so let me briefly try to sway your sentiments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I took your argument was: "Fuck em. It is their fault they are in this situation so let them die."

Certainly some of the people in new orleans could have left, but what you are doing here is failing to give people the bennefit of the doubt in a life or death situation. Thousands upon thousands of people would have left the city but were incapable. Over a hundred thousand residents don't own automobiles and public transportation was completely full. Many of these people have been living below the poverty line for generations. They simply don't have more than the 40 bucks in their pocket and couldn't have evacuated no matter how much they wanted to... without governmental assistance.

I fully expect our government to save lives by delivering food and water to starving citizens... without squandering days just because a few leaders don't grasp the situation and fail to coordinate disaster relief.

I am 100% convinced that our federal response to Katrina was completely botched by a select few leaders. The neccessary coordination simply wasn't there in the first few critical days. As the chain of events becomes more clear, hopefully there will some accountability.

The Return of the 'nut

2005-09-06, 15:45

why is goverment to you strictly federal?

I also don't think kickaha was saying what you accuse him of, but, he was saying the city and state could have done a better evacuation job to better prepare for this and to prevent some of this. And that is definiitely true. Busses should have been providing similar to how they have been the last couple of days.

Kickaha

2005-09-06, 15:46

No, that's not my position at *ALL*. (Thank you 'Nut.)

But you neatly fell into the exact position I was pointing out as the problem: that there is the 'government response' as defined by the *federal* level. Why does everyone forget that they have many levels of government in between that are supposed to help them as well?

The populace that was mobile fucked up by not checking on those who were less capable to get out, and offer personal assistance if possible. (Who's on *your* checklist of people to try and help evacuate your area?)

The city really fucked up IMO by not helping its citizens that wanted to, but couldn't, get out. That's local.

The state fucked up by apparently not getting its act together to marshal what resources it had to bolster the local efforts. That's regional.

Yes, the federal govt has screwed up, but they were far back in line for the opportunity.

Don't rely on people far away to save you, be they governmental or godly. Take care of yourself and your neighbors as best you can. Government should step in to take up that slack, *in stages*. The people next to you have the most interest in your welfare. The people far away really don't. Don't rely on nebulous 'someone else' to save you and yours. It doesn't matter if you're an individual, or the mayor or the governor. As soon as you just expect someone else to bail you out, well... look at what happened.

Unfortunately, the response I can almost predict with certainty will be that the federal level will be expanded greatly, and expected to be johnny on the spot within a few hours of any disaster, etc, etc, thereby creating an unwieldy hydra that can't fulfill it's mandate. The efforts should be concentrated on the local level *first*.

How much easier would this week have been if the majority of those people still stuck there had been evaced out beforehand? Or at least concentrated into central holding areas? That's where the city and county dropped the ball. They expected the larger forces to come and rescue everyone after the fact, when it became much harder to do so.

How much easier would it have been if even 1/10 of those with a car out of the city had picked up just *one* person to take with them? They expected the city and county to get them.

Everyone expected 'someone else' to take care of the problem, and the end result was that nobody did.

This is the danger I see in advancing federalism in government, and advancing fundamentalism in religion - that in both cases 'someone else' will provide, you just have to *trust* them, and have *faith*. It doesn't work.

bassplayinMacFiend

2005-09-06, 19:03

I have to find the link, but after 9/11, FEMA was given the authority to go into an emergency situation proactively, even if the state had not yet asked for help. It's part of FEMA's revised charter. They didn't have to wait for the state to ask for help before going into the affected areas.

FFL

2005-09-06, 19:44

torifile

2005-09-06, 19:51

Look folks, it's just re-gawd-damn-diculous to suggest that every state and local government be completely prepared to provide their citizens with relief from a catastrophic disaster.

It would be *WAY* too expensive for each local government to keep all those relief supplies, and all that equipment, on hand/in storage, waiting around for the disaster that might come next year... or in 20 years... or in 50... or never.

That's one of the big reasons why such relief is the mission of FEMA, and public security in disaster areas is the mission of the National Guard (or at least, they USED to be :\ ).

Also, let's not forget that the Mississippi Gulf Coast is voicing the same anger with the Federal response. So, maybe it's *not* just NOLA, ya know?
FFL, you should repost that post you made from earlier. It's a federal clusterfuck if I ever saw one. The facts are that NOLA was unable to handle this. All local communities were. The governor of LA did what she was supposed to do, well in advance of the storm. But the federal gov't was apparently on vacation. I'm not kidding, either. They were all gone.

And what about the communities in MS that are being completely ignored because the media isn't there? The feds fell down on the job and are still struggling to get back up.

bassplayinMacFiend

2005-09-06, 19:52

Ah, here's the link: --> http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf <-- Notice this is a .pdf of the DHS National Response Plan.

The pertinent section goes something like this:
In the section titled "Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events", the Plan says:
"Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude."
The Plan also says:
"Notification and full coordination with States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources. States are urged to notify and coordinate with local governments regarding a proactive Federal response." (page 44)

dfiler

2005-09-06, 19:53

Kickaha, I agree with your sentiments regarding federalism.

However, in a disaster of this magnitude, no amount of foresight or preparation at the local and state level would have provided the necessary relief. Federally coordinated aid was flat out needed to save lives.

The organizations and funding were already in place to deal with such a disaster. They simply failed to act swiftly. Aid organizations, private citizens, and state governments were all willing to help, it wouldn't have been a federal power grab at all. It doesn't have anything to do with federalism.

In the first couple of days, it was simply about the transportation of food and water. Child's play... if only a select few leaders had chosen to stay up all night and make it happen by placing phone call after phone call.

bassplayinMacFiend

2005-09-06, 19:56

torifile

2005-09-06, 19:57

Here's the post (http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?postid=234691#post234691) I was talking about. It was in the "Where's the Nat'l Guard" thread.

scratt

2005-09-06, 21:43

The thing that gets me is that Bush is heading up the investigtion into what went wrong...

I can just see him now.. "er er er bagsie not to blame er er er 'cos aam in cha'ge o da investi-investig-investigation... er yeah".

Nothing like putting the fox in charge of watching out for the chickens. sheesh!

Whatever ever happened to 'independant' investigations???

LudwigVan

2005-09-06, 21:47

Is this going to make shrimp go up in price?

Isn't that area the shrimp capital of the world or something?

There are bigger issues but if you are going to worry about oil I'm going to worry about my shrimp.

Did anybody else experience a flashback to "Forrest Gump" after reading 'Nut's post? :)

Kickaha

2005-09-06, 23:07

Argh. I wasn't saying that the city/county/state should do *everything*... just that they should do more, and not rely on the feds quite so much. That's all.

FFL

2005-09-06, 23:18

I hear ya, Kick.. and perhaps something could have been done better to try to bus the poor folks out, in terms of pre-storm proactiveness. OTOH, such an endeavor would have just as likely been an untenable logistical nightmare

But post-storm (which is what gets most people's dander up at the Feds/FEMA)?
By the very nature of a catastrophic disaster, the local infrastructure is pretty much hosed, post-storm. Again, that's the whole reason FEMA exists, IMHO.

Kickaha

2005-09-06, 23:41

The Return of the 'nut

2005-09-07, 00:19

Powerdoc

2005-09-07, 00:58

dear lord.

woman working in a grocery store in this video says "I'd rather have em here dead than alive, at least that way they aint robbin ya and eatin all your food"

towards the middle. I'm speechless.
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2005/09/06/amanpour.st.gabriel.morgue.affl
Most of this food, will be lost anyway. I won't care if they rob my food in this situation. I would care if they stole my goods BTW.

bassplayinMacFiend

2005-09-07, 07:47

bassplayinMacFiend

2005-09-07, 07:57

Agreed, but to not take all reasonable precautions beforehand *because* you know you'll get bailed out? That's the attitude I have a problem with. Each step up the chain of assistance should be a last resort escape hatch, not an assumed and expected safety net.

I hear ya. While FEMA did take too long to react, New Orleans' own disaster plan had specific references to using school buses and such to get people without transportation out of town. Now I haven't read the entire plan, but I'm not sure they had a destination once they left town, which could cause a problem.

Also, why wasn't the Superdome and convention center stocked with supplies? You tell 20,000 people to head to two spots, then surround them with guards that won't let them leave, but you don't supply food, water, formula, diapers, insulin, etc., for these people. There was a serious lack of planning for the extreme event, which was the levees breaking. Things were actually going OK until the levees broke.

Unfortunately for the feds, this is why they'll get the brunt of the blame. The feds (FEMA) chopped the levee maintenance budget by $71.2million this year alone. This stopped planned maintenance on the NO levees. It was the levees breaking that caused the situation in NO to spiral out of control.

Kickaha

2005-09-07, 11:49

It was the levees breaking that caused the situation in NO to spiral out of control.

Really? I thought it was the hurricane.

;)

Yeah, the slashing of the levee improvement is going to bite the feds on the ass, definitely. Two things though:

1) As with many people, the local (NO and LA) governments looked to the feds to pay for it. What was their amount they were willing to kick in, if it was that critical?

2) It wasn't enough, because, just like at the federal level, the politicians play a constant gambling game: it won't happen on their watch. Yes, it was basically 100% certain that *someday* a critical hit on NOLA would occur. Yes, it was basically 100% certain that in such a case the levees would fail. What was utterly unknown was *when*... which means that every politician until now that voted against the levee funding, and diverted it to other programs that got them re-elected, beat the game. They won. And don't think it's unusual, it's how politics is played. For 30 years, levee funding was ignored, or slashed. The administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton *and* Bush II all get blame for that... but because only the last is in office, only the last will take the hit. The others won.

This is the problem with expecting 'someone else' to save you - they have their own priorities, and you probably aren't one of them.

Chinney

2005-09-07, 20:52

The CBC News website is featuring the following photo, with the caption below:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/featured_photo_1_cp_8385141.jpg

Some lights are on in the city of New Orleans as shown in this night photo made late Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2005. Power is slowly being restored to the area still besieged by flood water. (AP Photo)
I know that there remain many, many problems in NO, but it still made me smile.

Kickaha

2005-09-08, 01:57

Met a couple tonight from NOLA at a party in Raleigh. Their story:

They got out Sunday before it hit, after seeing the weather report, and the writing on the wall. They managed to get everything they really wanted, except for a digital keyboard of the wife's. (Apparently she's a musician.) They drove out under their own power, and went to stay with friends in Atlanta, then came up to Raleigh to stay with family.

They lived in the western part of NOLA, in one of the lesser damaged areas, but they've been in touch with neighbors who have gone back, and everyone figures their houses are a total loss.

They're not going back. They're moving elsewhere.

The guy said that if he ran FEMA, he'd write each landowner a check for the value of their property and say "Thanks, the govt owns the land now, you're welcome to move where ever you want." and let the wetlands reclaim it after a cleanup of the toxins etc. He doesn't see the point in returning or trying to rebuild.

Of course, he's not *from* there, he was just *living* there, so he hasn't a strong emotional connection.

But still. One story out of millions.

pscates2.0

2005-09-08, 06:47

Even if I was "from there", I don't think I could stand living there, with this hanging over me the next 30-50 years.

:(

I'd move too. I'd go back once a year or so, for vacation or whatever. But as for living there, with all my belongings and loved ones? Nope.

If my hometown Chattanooga was below sea level and took a bad hit like this and I lost everything (and there was no guarantee that a month later it couldn't happen AGAIN), I'd be happy to scoot on up the road to Nashville or Charlotte or wherever. My "emotional connection" to places isn't THAT strong...

:err:

"Laissez les bons tem... *glug*glug...*cough* HELP!"

:o

dfiler

2005-09-08, 12:24

I've had a few conversations with coworkers in the past couple of days. For some reason, much of the debate revolves around federal vs. local accountability. I wouldn't have thought this to be the central issue but I think it has become that way due to some rather stubborn and partisan affiliations.

Here is how I would characterize the mistakes at the two levels...

Local and perhaps state governments were faced with the difficult situation of predicting what might happen. Calling for a mandatory evacuation but not enforcing it at gunpoint seemed like a fairly reasonable response at the time. What if they had forced everyone out at gunpoint and then the disaster we see today never materialized? It's a tough position to be in. I fault the local and state governments for a lack of foresight.

The federal government made an entirely different type of error. It wasn't an error in foresight. Rather, it was an error of simply not responding to possibly the country's largest national disaster.

The locals were worrying about forcing a half millions citizens (at the point of a gun) to evacuate when it was still possible for the New Orleans to come out of the storm OK. They had reasons for a temperered response. Nobody was acutally starving yet, and it was possible that nobody would.

What were the feds worrying about? That someone might fault them for airlifting food to starving peope?

This is why I feel that most of the blame should fall on the feds. The locals didn't respond properly to something that might happen while the feds didn't respond to something that already happened.

Kickaha

2005-09-08, 15:49

By the time the mandatory evac was called, there was no *way* NO was escaping it. That's why they called it.

Also, wonderful piece on NPR today about FEMA, and one point everyone kept stressing was that the nation's disaster relief systems are based on *ta-da!* a staggered response. Local -> regional -> national. FEMA only runs the national infrastructure, but once they *get* there are supposed to help coordinate with local and regional. Anyone expecting a 24hr federal response has really got their heads in the clouds. It's 72hrs on a good day, because the local and regional forces are supposed to take of things before then.

This was not a good day, this was a worst case scenario.

Also, yes, FEMA is telling the Red Cross not to distribute food and water inside NOLA... because they're trying to get everyone *OUT*. They don't want them having any reason or ability to stay. Only once they know everyone is out can they really start doing a safe assessment and recovery on the ground.

The city, county, state, and federal folks *all* dropped the ball on this one. But, crap floats, and the feds are going to get blamed for all of it, which is unfair IMO.

709

2005-09-08, 16:07

So FEMA is essentialy starving them out? Interesting.

autodata

2005-09-08, 16:11

It's important to remember, however, that a huge part of the criticism of FEMA has to do with its inability to manage resources that want to be in there but can't because of FEMA's failures. Emergency teams from around the country and all kinds of agencies are and have been upset at FEMA for preventing them from assisting. These go all the way back to the beginning, including federal problems holding up the arrival of national guard troops from new mexico.

709

2005-09-08, 16:16

Indeed. But by *now* I would hope that FEMA has at least a framework in place, and at the very least a plan to regain the city.

autodata

2005-09-08, 16:29

Indeed. But by *now* I would hope that FEMA has at least a framework in place, and at the very least a plan to regain the city.
Unfortunately, the problems with the agency apparently continue:

http://news.google.com/news?q=biloxi%20fema
http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2005090727

dviant

2005-09-08, 16:32

Actually it wasn't FEMA kept the Red Cross out of the Superdome... it was the *state* DHS for Louisiana. Says so right here on the Red Cross site:

http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html

At some point the media might actually figure out that Local and State authorities deserve to shoulder some (if not the majority) of the blame being thrown about. Blanco and Nagin are trying really hard to look like victims and deflect blame from themselves. What a sham.

autodata

2005-09-08, 16:43

Actually it wasn't FEMA kept the Red Cross out of the Superdome... it was the *state* DHS for Louisiana. Says so right here on the Red Cross site:
There are actually conflicting accounts about how the responded and who caused what. from nola.com:
[Jefferson Parish Emergency Preparedness Director Walter] Maestri also was upset with American Red Cross officials for delaying the staffing of shelters in the parish. He said a Red Cross official said he should send a staffer to Mount Olive, La., with a request for personnel. When the staffer arrived, he was handed a note saying help would not be coming until it was safe for Red Cross workers.

�They can go to Iraq and Afghanistan and tell us it�s too dangerous to
New Orleans,� he said. �I�ve got that note and will frame it with a copy of my resignation letter for the board of directors� of the southeastern Louisiana Red Cross.

dviant

2005-09-08, 17:00

Here's a transcript from Fox last night that tries to outline who has authority over whom in this situation. Sorry it's so long. Whole thing sounds like a giant mess:

Fox News' Brit Hume: First, the focus of all of the attention has been FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, what is FEMA?

Fox News' Major Garrett: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2,500 full time employees, 4,000 stand by employees. The mission statement very simple: prepare, respond, help, recover, reduce risk. How does it do it? By coordinating with state and local entities and other groups The Salvation Army, Red Cross, dedicated to helping the needy when disaster strikes.

Hume: So FEMA is relatively, it isn't very labor intensive it mostly works through other agencies?

Garrett: It works through other agencies. But it has been moved into the Department of Homeland Security. And in this crisis, It is a bit a victim of its own bureaucratic boastfulness. Earlier this year the new national response plan released by the Department of Homeland Security promised this - "seemless integration of the federal government when an incident exceeds local and state capabilities." In the minds of many Americans, this one did. And FEMA, at least initially, in the minds of some, did not respond enough.

Hume: The words seamless don't exactly spring to mind. But look, they are down there, The Red Cross, for example, is there.

Garrett: Standing by, ready.

Hume: Standing by, ready. Why didn't FEMA send The Red Cross into New Orleans when we had all of the people there on that bridge overpass and elsewhere. Why not?

Garrett: First of all, no jurisdiction. FEMA works with The Red Cross, The Salvation Army and other organizations but it has no control to order them to go one place or the other. Secondarily, The Red Cross was ready. I got off the phone with one of their officials. They had a vanguard, Brit, of trucks with water, food, hygiene equipment, all sorts of things ready to go where? To the Superdome and convention center. Why weren't they there? The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security told them they could not go.

Hume: This is isn't the Louisiana branch of the federal Homeland Security? This is --

Garrett: The state's own agency devoted to the state's homeland security. They told them you cannot go there. Why? The Red Cross tells me that state agency in Louisiana said, look, we do not want to create a magnet for more people to come to the Superdome or convention center, we want to get them out. So at the same time local officials were screaming where is the food, where is the water? The Red Cross was standing by ready, the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security said you can't go.

Hume: FEMA does, presumably at some point, have some jurisdiction over some military forces. Of course, the first responders there are the National Guard. Why didn't FEMA send the National Guard in? You heard that cry from many people.

Garrett: FEMA does not have jurisdictional control over any state's National Guard, only the governor does. The governor in this case, Kathleen Blanco, A democrat, did use the Louisiana National Guard for some purposes, did not deploy them in massive numbers initially and they were not used to move any of these relief organizations in and they could have been for the very same reason I talked about earlier, the state decided they didn't want the relief organizations where the people needed it most because they wanted those people to get out.

Hume: But even today we know that Governor Blanco has now decided that a mandatory evacuation may not be necessarily after all. But we can go into that later. What about the use by her of the National Guard to impose law and order during the early looting and all of that?

Garrett: She had a choice, as I am told. She could have taken up the offer from FEMA to federalize all of the activities in Louisiana, meaning that FEMA would be in control of everything. Not only law enforcement, but everything else. She declined to give them that authority. So essentially FEMA was trapped between two bureaucracies. One the Department Of Homeland Security where many of its decisions have to be reviewed and in some cases approved, and a recalcitrant state bureaucracy that wasn't going to give them the authority they needed to make things happen, among them, the National Guard.

Hume: What about this evacuation problem? It's clearly was something that New Orleans faced, knew it faced to some extent.

Garrett: And the city [sic] of Louisiana. They have a whole plan that contemplates dealing with an evacuation in the effect of a hurricane three, four or five. Their own plan says, 100,000 residents minimum from the New Orleans area will have to be evacuated. This plan makes it clear ...

Hume: You mean, can't get out on their own.

Garrett: These people will have not have their own vehicles. Not only that, It stipulate that these people are disproportionately poor, sick and in need of special transportation assistance. Brit, I think in these circumstances, bureaucratic language is important. Let's go to this. This is what the state says: "the Department of Health and Hospitals has the primary responsibility for providing medical coordination for all of the special-needs populations, i.e. hospital and nursing home patients, persons on home health care, elderly persons and other persons with physical or mental disabilities." Brit, I don't think you can come up with a better description of the people we saw, day in and day out, at the Superdome and the convention center, than this very population that the state's own plan said needed to be transported to a safe place and provided services.

Hume: Apparently no plan, no provision, no facility for doing that.

Garrett: No facility for doing that. Not only that, those who reviewed the plans the state put together before were critical of it. In 2002 the New Orleans Times Picayune had a whole story about this saying no one believes the evacuation plans are possible, feasible or will be carried out. They proved to be accurate.

Hume: It sounds like the state will have much to answer for in the investigation coming before Congress as well as the federal government.

Garrett: It appears to be.

autodata

2005-09-08, 17:11

you should know better. really. It's not that it's not true, it's that it's half the picture. hume? come on.

dviant

2005-09-08, 17:13

autodata-- That Jefferson Parish account seems consistent with what the Red Cross lists on their FAQ:

The Red Cross does not conduct search and rescue operations. We are an organization of civilian volunteers and cannot get relief aid into any location until the local authorities say it is safe and provide us with security and access.

Doesn't make it any less unfortunate that they didn't get supplies to those people, however. The war zone comparison is a good point. :/

dviant

2005-09-08, 17:14

What's the other half then?

autodata

2005-09-08, 17:18

autodata-- That Jefferson Parish account seems consistent with what the Red Cross lists on their FAQ:

Doesn't make it any less unfortunate that they didn't get supplies to those people, however. The war zone comparison is a good point. :/
but walmart went into jefferson parish.

The point is what was earlier: that the violence was exagerrated.

errata: I'm reminded that jefferson county president broussard stated (http://www.zebrality.com/media/2005/aaron_broussard.mov) (if you haven't seen this video, watch it through the end) that FEMA turned walmart trucks away when they tried to go in. Walmart's response was apparently above and beyond the federal response according to officials there, providing huge amounts of aid before anyone else did.

autodata

2005-09-08, 17:22

What's the other half then?
All of FEMA's failures, the federal failures that hindered national guard deployment, etc. Unfortunately Hume has spent all week making excuses, going so far as to flat-out lie in an effort to put some blame on the NYTimes. I'd itemize it for you, but this isn't the place and, as I noted, you should know better.

dviant

2005-09-08, 17:39

That's just really the first article I've seen that outlined DHS vs FEMA vs Natl Guard vs Red Cross vs Salvation Army vs State DHS. If you can point me to a better assessment of who has jurisdiction over whom I'd like to see it.

EDIT: Also don't mistake this for me excusing any ridiculous actions by FEMA. I'm just trying to understand the chain-of-command here.

autodata

2005-09-08, 17:50

Sorry, I don't have a better one, but that one is no good. It's filled with strawmen, like "Why didn't FEMA send the National Guard in?" and falsehoods, like saying that FEMA was incapacitated because it was stuck between two bureaucracies, something that's obviously not true looking at the facts, including its failures in Mississippi and the fact that it suspended operations on its own because of fear of violence. The picture it paints of the chain of command is an inaccurate one.

FFL

2005-09-08, 19:14

Speaking of strawmen, there is this from Hume's interview transcript above:
Garrett: She had a choice, as I am told. She could have taken up the offer from FEMA to federalize all of the activities in Louisiana, meaning that FEMA would be in control of everything. Not only law enforcement, but everything else. She declined to give them that authority. So essentially FEMA was trapped between two bureaucracies. One the Department Of Homeland Security where many of its decisions have to be reviewed and in some cases approved, and a recalcitrant state bureaucracy that wasn't going to give them the authority they needed to make things happen, among them, the National Guard.
See, that's just dishonest spinning, finger-pointing, and excuse-making. The request to the LA governor to federalize was made on Friday evening, nearly 5 full days after the hurricane hit, and 4 days after the flooding.

I'm not opposed to the idea that ALL local and state officials could have done a better job with evacuating (you can't single out Nagin and Blanco when relief efforts in Mississippi are also FUBAR). But I'm not sure exactly what they could have done differently, other than declaring the mandatory evacuation a day sooner.

It's also pretty obvious to me that you can't expect local and state officials to provide security in a disaster area without a significant National Guard presence.

The Return of the 'nut

2005-09-09, 14:21

Michael Brown is sent back to Washington. And now it is shown he is a massive liar as well as an administrative failure.

The guy needs to be fired.

An article on CNN today about 1,000 pets being rescued has made me a little happier. Hopefully they can get to more in time. Very sad situation with the animals left in New Orleans.

FFL

2005-09-09, 15:18

"Michael Brown has done everything he possibly could to coordinate the federal response to this unprecedented challenge," Chertoff told reporters in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Indeed he has.
Doing an acceptable job is clearly above his abilities.

The Return of the 'nut

2005-09-13, 18:49

Police chief (or something) is on CNN right now with Anderson Cooper in regard to this bridge incident that is now making news headlines.... the bullshit coming out of this guy's mouth is amazing.

and he basically admitted they didn't want "New Orlean's" problems in their parish. He seems to share the line all gov't officials have been using the last 2 weeks...."I didn't do it", "I didn't know anything about it", "It was not me", "It was someone else", "I don't know who did it but it wasn't my fault"

I'm encoding the video now if anyone is interested in it

Here we go: think this should work

http://homepage.mac.com/applenut/Live%20Recording%20-%209-13-05%204-47%20PM.mp4

Kickaha

2005-09-21, 20:43

Dear New Orleans, and LA.

Re: Evacuations.

Watch Galveston and TX. Take notes. You'll need them.

FFL

2005-09-21, 21:31

Dear Kick:

RE: Flawed comparisons in your last post

1. New Orleans had 24 hours notice of the storm progressing to a Category 5. Texas is getting 3x that much notice, by current forecasts.

2. Every city in the country, including New Orleans, has learned from Katrina. I guarantee you that Galveston is bending over backwards on evacuations way more than they would have without the lessons of Katrina, and that Galveston's citizens are taking the evacuation way more seriously as well.

3. The population of Galveston is about 10% of the population of New Orleans. The logistics are completely different.

pscates2.0

2005-09-21, 21:43

But I thought those levees were only built to withstand Category 3? Were folks in NOLA waiting until it go really bad (Category 5) before they took action?

Defiance and ignorance made a dangerous cocktail for some people.

:err:

On the Friday prior to Katrina's hit, wasn't everyone stressing "leave"? It's all I remember hearing/seeing on the news. Didn't the President declare it an emergency situation? Some of this is fuzzy to me, so I'm not asking in a smarty-butt, rhetorical way.

Not even living there, it struck me as quite a "people really need to get the hell out of there" type of situation. Do people have to be told 15 times (and/or wait for bad stuff to really start happening before it's "real" to them?)

Yes, the "logistics ARE completely different"...New Orleans was especially vulnerable, and anyone living there knew it wouldn't have to get "too bad" for things to get...well, bad. Being below sea level, protected only by man-made levees underscores that.

A Category 2 hurricane bearing down directly on NOLA probably would've made my butt leave, knowing what I did about the water, surge, levees, worst-case scenarios, etc.

Kickaha

2005-09-21, 21:48

Dear Kick:

RE: Flawed comparisons in your last post

1. New Orleans had 24 hours notice of the storm progressing to a Category 5. Texas is getting 3x that much notice, by current forecasts.

Yeeeeeah. "You have 72 hrs until a Cat 3 hurricane hits. Oh, btw, that's the maximum your levees were designed for. You might want to consider that." "Oh, no worry, I'm waiting until I get confirmation that it's a Cat 5 before I think about ordering an evacuation." BS.

2. Every city in the country, including New Orleans, has learned from Katrina. I guarantee you that Galveston is bending over backwards on evacuations way more than they would have without the lessons of Katrina, and that Galveston's citizens are taking the evacuation way more seriously as well.

Well thank god someone decided to start paying attention. "There's a Cat 3 hurricane headed your..." "Yeah, yeah, after my show's over."

3. The population of Galveston is about 10% of the population of New Orleans. The logistics are completely different.

Simple things like: split city into three areas. Evacuate each separately to minimize traffic congestion.

Oh *right*, sorry, NOLA only had a couple days notice to figure it out. Because, you know, no one *ever* imagined a hurricane might hit there.

I'm sorry, but the failures started at the local level and worked their way up.

FFL

2005-09-21, 21:55

I know from firsthand conversations from people who evacuated from NOLA that many people were hesitant to evacuate when it was a Cat 3, but decided wisely to go when it made Cat 5. Also, "mandatory" evacuations weren't issued till it was a Cat 5.

By different logistics, I was referring to the task of evacuating a half million people in NOLA, as opposed to 50 K in Galveston. Not to the geography of NOLA.

I'm not arguing that many people in NOLA weren't defiant and ignorant. I'm arguing that any comparison of NOLA's pre-Katrina evacuation to Galveston's post-Katrina evacuation is going to be flawed.

We're living in a post-Katrina world now. No evacuation of a city or town will ever be viewed or implemented the same again.

FFL

2005-09-21, 22:03

Yeeeeeah. "You have 72 hrs until a Cat 3 hurricane hits. Oh, btw, that's the maximum your levees were designed for. You might want to consider that." "Oh, no worry, I'm waiting until I get confirmation that it's a Cat 5 before I think about ordering an evacuation." BS.

Well thank god someone decided to start paying attention. "There's a Cat 3 hurricane headed your..." "Yeah, yeah, after my show's over."

Simple things like: split city into three areas. Evacuate each separately to minimize traffic congestion.

Oh *right*, sorry, NOLA only had a couple days notice to figure it out. Because, you know, no one *ever* imagined a hurricane might hit there.

I'm sorry, but the failures started at the local level and worked their way up.
I'm not arguing that NOLA couldn't and shouldn't have done better.

But you're completely ignoring the effect of Katrina, on Rita preperations. Bush, FEMA, the military - EVERYONE is reacting much differently to Rita than they did to Katrina.

Kickaha

2005-09-21, 22:09

That's the problem with people. They only react *AFTER* the fact, not from warnings.

"It's going to happen." "No it's not, you don't know what you're talking abBLAM"

"Told you."

"No you didn't! Why didn't you tell me sooner! Waaaaaaaaah!"

----

"It's going to happen." "OMFG! Help me! Help me Jeebus!"

----

Both reactions are stupid. Unfortunately, that's most of humanity.

Moogs

2005-09-21, 22:33

Houston is right on the other side of Galveston Bay and it's over 5 million people. The logistics in TX technically could be *more* of a challenge then NO, if you want to get knit-picky about it. But absolutely the orderly withdrawal has a lot to do with people learning from NO's fuck-up. Not that they wouldn't do it better ordinarily (I believe they probably would, given everything I've learned about LA government in the last month), but what's happened recently surely moves people along a bit more.

FFL

2005-09-21, 22:47

well, yeah, but Houston is only evacuating certain areas, not the whole city - and it's voluntary, unlike Galveston & NO.

Here's an interesting quote from the Galveston mayor, BTW:

In Galveston, Texas, several thousand of the city's 58,000 residents were bused to inland shelters.

Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas applauded the evacuees.

"We're a sandbar, and storm-ridden fairly often," she said.
"This is the first time people have responded the way they have."

scratt

2005-09-21, 22:52

I am sure this will run a lot more smoothly than Katrina did... However, I really hope that the administration doesn't try and turn round afterwards and try and spin this and say that it got everything right this time... Blaa Blaa Blaa..

This is a totally different situation to New Orleans, as we all know, simply because of the whole Levee problem.

Assuming everyone is much much safer and more prepared for this one they will have simply done their job, and will still be grossly guilty of not preparing or responding to Katrina in a timely or sufficient manner. I don't want that to get 'spun', 'swept under the carpet' and a state of complacency appear again...

EDIT: I also hope that the preperations in case of a dramatic shift of direction for this storm are being done in a timely and considerate manner for New Orleans, and they arn't just concentrating on Bush Jrs state...

Dave

2005-09-21, 23:25

Both reactions are stupid. Unfortunately, that's most of humanity.
I think the first reaction might have something to do with how our media sensationalizes *everything*. You could have a lone light grey cloud in the sky, and the reporters on the news are saying that it might become another Noah's Flood. Then when the "monster storm" merely moistens three streets on one end of town and moves on, they claim that the weather is hard to predict.

OTOH, you have to be pretty stupid to think that a cat 5 wouldn't do a *lot* of damage to a city like NO.

Kickaha

2005-09-21, 23:33

I think the first reaction might have something to do with how our media sensationalizes *everything*. You could have a lone light grey cloud in the sky, and the reporters on the news are saying that it might become another Noah's Flood. Then when the "monster storm" merely moistens three streets on one end of town and moves on, they claim that the weather is hard to predict.

That's probably because it is. (I consulted with the EPA on mesocontinental atmospheric modelling systems for a while.) While I agree that the media likes to sensationalize way beyond reason, the bureaus that are tasked with providing warnings (NWS, etc) have to also push the high end of what *could* happen. If they give the 'average' outcome, then 50% of the time they open themselves up to cries that they didn't warn people. So, they give warning with percentages. Now, the problem is that not only do the talking heads not understand basic math, neither does the average person on the street. So when they hear "50% chance of X occurring", they don't think "Oh, half the time it won't happen", they scoff when it doesn't, and act shocked when it does.

OTOH, you have to be pretty stupid to think that a cat 5 wouldn't do a *lot* of damage to a city like NO.

Yup. Plenty of those folks running around too.

dfiler

2005-09-22, 07:39

We're living in a post-Katrina world now. No evacuation of a city or town will ever be viewed or implemented the same again.
Katrina will be forgotten just as all the rest have. A few decades from now, people will be repeating this very same conversation. We've had plenty of catestrophic storms make landfall with deadly consequences.

This is why we should elect smart people who know history and exercise foresight. :)

MCQ

2005-09-22, 07:59

Katrina will be forgotten just as all the rest have. A few decades from now, people will be repeating this very same conversation. We've had plenty of catestrophic storms make landfall with deadly consequences.

Bingo.

I think maybe the discussion of "catastrophic damage" is too difficult for people to grasp. They should start talking about hurricanes like this:

"You will likely have:"

No electricity for 2 weeks
As a result of 1, no A/C for 2 weeks
As a result of 1, no TV for 2 weeks. No Football, no Desparate Housewives/Law And Order, News, etc.
As a result of 1, no businesses will be open for a while.
As a result of the above, you will be doing nothing but running around for two weeks in 90 degree weather hoping some kind people have brought ice and water for you.

I don't know - it's as if people want to make themselves miserable. Obviously, I'm speaking towards those who have a relatively easy means to evacuate themselves from their home.

Brad

2005-09-22, 11:29

Katrina will be forgotten just as all the rest have. A few decades from now, people will be repeating this very same conversation.
It probably won't be forgotten so earily by the people that live there. I still remember and occasionally hear people reference Hugo from 1989 and its damage was a pittance compared to Katrina. Ironically, FEMA was slow to respond to Hugo too and an investigation was launched afterwards to improve FEMA's response time.

Ah, how history repeats...

Kickaha

2005-09-22, 11:30

Katrina will be forgotten just as all the rest have. A few decades from now, people will be repeating this very same conversation. We've had plenty of catestrophic storms make landfall with deadly consequences.

EXACTLY.

1935: Hurricane hits NO. Levees inadequate. Everyone agrees they need to be worked on. Work starts, then followed by 30 years of decreased resources.

1969: Camille hits NO. Levees inadequate. Everyone agrees they need to be worked on. Work starts, then followed by 30 years of decreased resources.

2005: Katrina hits NO.

Notice a pattern here??

This is why we should elect smart people who know history and exercise foresight. :)

Yeah, but when they do, they get penalized by not getting voted in the next time around. :P

Instead, this pretty much sums it up, in my mind:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~smithja/09-22-05.jpg

I'm trying to get confirmation on a source for the picture on the right.

Of course, in 30 years we'll be having this discussion *again*...

scratt

2005-09-22, 12:17

EXACTLY.

1935: Hurricane hits NO. Levees inadequate. Everyone agrees they need to be worked on. Work starts, then followed by 30 years of decreased resources.

1969: Camille hits NO. Levees inadequate. Everyone agrees they need to be worked on. Work starts, then followed by 30 years of decreased resources.

2005: Katrina hits NO.

Notice a pattern here??

Yeah, but when they do, they get penalized by not getting voted in the next time around. :P

Instead, this pretty much sums it up, in my mind:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~smithja/09-22-05.jpg

I'm trying to get confirmation on a source for the picture on the right.

Of course, in 30 years we'll be having this discussion *again*...

I'm glad you put that picture up Kickaha...

I saw it on the news and the first thing I asked was why oh why were they not moved out of NO before the storm, even if they weren't carrying people (which of course they should have been). That, I think, was the biggest gaff and most embarressing picture from the whole Katrina affair.

FFL

2005-09-22, 14:38

Right now, Houston is talking about making both lanes of the interstate, one-way leaving town - something they never had a plan to do.

In contrast, New Orleans was very successful in implementing their already-existing contra-flow plan, which helped them evacuate 80% of the city in less than 24 hours.

Gee, it seems that Texas is NOT exactly making the New Orleans evacuation look bad, huh? Not sure why people seem so determined to use Rita to rip the people of New Orleans, especially when the facts don't support it.

Here's more on the fact that preparations at all levels are very different "this time around," specifically because of what happened with Katrina:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-21-katrina-lessons_x.htm

FFL

2005-09-22, 14:54

Hmm...
New Orleans had 100,000 people who didn't/couldn't evacuate on their own. Galveston (whose entire population is about half of that number) bussed out 2,000 people.
:rolleyes:
NOT exactly a valid comparison!

Also, Galveston's plan to evacuate people by bus, was put together the week AFTER Katrina, as a reaction to Katrina:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3352871

People who keep trying to use Galveston as an example to make the people of New Orleans look bad, don't know what the fuck they are talking about, quite frankly.

FFL

2005-09-22, 14:59

The Houston evacuation is going soooooo well, according to Josh Marshall:

"A brief note on the evacutation of the Houston area. Galveston and all the coast was successfully evacuated but Wednesday night there occured throughout Houston a simultaneous mass (hysterical) evacuation. All the freeways and highways leaving Houston are at a dead standstill as of 11am Thursday. People have been in their vehicles as long as 12 hours without traveling more than 40 miles. Now they are running out of gas and there will soon be another chaotic storm evacuation situation. The local government and the mayor of Houston don't seem to realize that cars need gas and folks need facilities. The city has waited too long to open all freeway lanes to outbound traffic. The truth is, the feds, state, and locals do not know how to evacuate a major metropolitan area. Another catastrophe is only a day away."

Ooh, yeah, but let's make this an opportunity to rip on New Orleans!!! :rolleyes:

Dave

2005-09-22, 15:14

People who keep trying to use Galveston as an example to make the people of New Orleans look bad, don't know what the fuck they are talking about, quite frankly.
I don't do that. I use the "they live in a costal city that's below sea level *and* in a hurricane-prone area" argument to make them look bad. I'm still surprised that anyone was surprised at how much damage Katrina did. It seems pretty obvious to me that NO was, and forever will be, a disaster waiting to happen.

FFL

2005-09-22, 15:19

Moogs

2005-09-22, 22:53

It seems pretty obvious to me that NO was, and forever will be, a disaster waiting to happen.

This is pretty much correct. It's a city that never should've been built, given the quality and lie of the land it was founded upon. You don't build houses on sand as they say...

torifile

2005-09-23, 11:25

I was watching the NBC news last night and they commented on how many big SUVs are on the road. And how many people are towing boats and RVs. And running out of gas. :no: It's un-fucking-believeable that people are so heedless of the urgency of the situation and the possibility that there just might be problems with, umm, traffic and gas, on the road that they would take their boats and RVs. :no: People as so stupid, even when they're following instructions.

scratt

2005-09-23, 11:30

I am stunned by the bus which blew up carrying old people and loads of Oxygen tanks.. Which apparently caused the explosion after a small fire "to do with navigation" sparked the explosion. :confused:

Moogs

2005-09-23, 11:36

Yah, that is really sad to say the least. I wonder what's going to happen to all these people on the highways if the storm rolls through there. Then we'll have a bunch of media idiots yelling and screaming that the government has terrible evacuation routes. The real lesson to learn from all this: if a major city gets attacked by any sort of bio or chemical weapon or otherwise has need for its citizens to leave in a hurry, you're screwed.

Our interstate highway system was never designed with evacuations in mind; it was designed to allow military convoys to move from state to state in a time of war, basically, and to promote interstate commerce I imagine. Mass exodus wasn't on the radar scope, nor were the booming populations we have today on the scope.

So, when the shit hits the fan, either get out by country roads, leave earlier than everyone else, or fire up the BBQ and live it up while you can still breathe. ;)

pscates2.0

2005-09-23, 11:37

The SUV thing I couldn't care less about, but the TOWING of stuff like boats and all in this type of emergency situation...

:err:

Yeah, that's quite idiotic and thoughtless. People like that probably deserve to be stranded, frankly.

What part, exactly, of "get your butt out of the area!" are people simply not grasping? I swear, it takes water up to their chin for some people to get a clue, I guess.

We haven't learned anything from Katrina. Chief among the stuff we haven't learned is that you simply can't save some people from themselves.

:(

709

2005-09-23, 11:37

Chief among the stuff we haven't learned is that you simply can't save some people from themselves.+++

dfiler

2005-09-23, 11:58

Our interstate highway system was never designed with evacuations in mind; it was designed to allow military convoys to move from state to state in a time of war, basically, and to promote interstate commerce I imagine. Mass exodus wasn't on the radar scope, nor were the booming populations we have today on the scope.Acutally, Mass civilian evacuation was one of the original justifications for expendatures on the interstate highway system.

However, it is to be expected that the immediate evacuation of 2 million people won't be smooth or instantaneous. I think that is an unattainable goal. There are so many other things in life which also deserve money and resources.

kretara

2005-09-23, 12:04

Moogs

2005-09-23, 12:37

Acutally, Mass civilian evacuation was one of the original justifications for expendatures on the interstate highway system.

Really...

I had always read it was a military / business move basically. I suppose either way, the time in which it was built means today the evacuation aspect it probably less realistic, given the population change.

Dave

2005-09-23, 16:31

Galveston's built on a barrier island (aka "sandbar") in a hurricane-prone area, so they're not living in a much different level of risk, other than having a much smaller population.

The biggest difference is they don't have a "bowl" that will retain floodwaters for several weeks. But, if they get hit with a Cat 4 or higher, their entire town will be underwater.
That's a pretty big difference. In NO, the flood waters just sit there waiting for God to stick a straw in the bowl and start sucking. In Galveston, the water goes away all by itself.

I still wouldn't really build any major buildings in Galveston though. Even temporary flooding can be disastrous, to say nothing of the damage caused by high winds. If a few houses get destroyed, well you can rebuild them with relatively little difficulty. If an entire major city is underwater, without any natural drainage, I wouldn't bother rebuilding in that location. If it can happen once, it *will* happen again, and I don't see the logic in repeating our past mistakes.

FFL

2005-09-23, 16:46

The buildings still get destroyed by a storm surge, whether the water goes right back down immediately, or hangs around in a bowl for a week or two. I don't see where it makes much of a difference.

Questions? Please see the non-bowl towns of Gulfport and Biloxi.

Perhaps if New Orleans had gotten the type of complete-devistation storm that Galveston got in 1900, it might have been relocated (as Galveston was basically relocated to Houston after that).

Otherwise, it's been way too big of a population, commerce, and culture center, to "relocate" ever since it entered the US in 1803. It was arguably the most important city in the US in the first part of the 19th century.

Plus, none of you would have ever even heard of music called jazz, blues, or rock n roll, if not for New Orleans. :p

I laugh every time I see someone clueless enough about US history to say something like "they never should have built New Orleans there".

Tell it to Bienville, dumbass....
:lol:

Kickaha

2005-09-23, 18:09

Building below sea level in an area where it's prone to flooding, is, regardless of whatever historical or cultural significance may have come later, stupid. I'm sorry, that's all there is to it. It's like building on a cliff edge in an area prone to earthquakes. (Looking at you, CA...) NO has been a disaster waiting to happen. Oh wait, it *did*. Repeatedly. And it's just going to happen again, and again, and again...

And every time, people are going to scream that they didn't have enough warning, that no one could have predicted it, that they didn't have plans in place because they couldn't have imagined... whatever. From Chertoff to Naglin, they can all cry about how nobody could have predicted something like a hurricane hitting NOLA, and I'm going to think they're morons. It's like saying no one could predict an earthquake hitting LA, CA. It's a *certainty* that it will happen, that's all there is to it. Maybe not this year, maybe not for 10 or even 30, but it *will* happen. Odds are 100% that NOLA will get hit with another hurricane down the years. Prepare, or die, that's pretty much it.

Dave

2005-09-23, 18:12

The buildings still get destroyed by a storm surge, whether the water goes right back down immediately, or hangs around in a bowl for a week or two. I don't see where it makes much of a difference.

Questions? Please see the non-bowl towns of Gulfport and Biloxi.
And even though those towns were completely wiped out, not near as many people died there. Those that stayed and survived the initial storm didn't have to worry about drowning in 20ft of raw sewage and toxic waste. Neat how that "not in a bowl" thing works out.

I'm not saying don't build anything in costal areas, just don't build anything that you don't mind having to rebuild every so often, and certainly don't stick around for the show if you're below sea level.

Oh, and don't whine about how you didn't know it was coming or any of that other BS. :grumble:

Windswept

2005-09-23, 18:26

Apparently the decision to open the other side of that Houston freeway (the freeway side that *hadn't* been open - Interstate-10?) was made in the early morning. But the last time I saw a television, 8-10 hours had passed, and the other side *still* wasn't open!!! :no:

If I were trapped in a vehicle on that northbound side for 8-10 hours - all the while observing the *completely empty* southbound side - I would want to personally tear limb from limb the persons responsible for the delay. :mad:

My god. What idiots! And for all the world to see! Plus, it's over 100 degrees outside. :(

Ah, yes. What you have is bureaucracy in action - everyone covering his own ass: "What if there's a wreck because people are on the wrong side? We'll be sued!" *horrors*

Pardon me while I gnash my teeth. :mad:

Moogs

2005-09-23, 18:30

Pretty much... I wonder if they have to knock down cement retaining walls / medians in some places to make this a reality. Might have something to do with it. Also I don't understand the plan to get this 100 mile long line of cars out of there... nor do I understand where or why the bottleneck is still present. Is it a case of many lanes going to one or two (local highways are the only way out of the state IOW)?

Dave

2005-09-23, 18:30

If I were trapped in a vehicle on that northbound side for 8-10 hours - all the while observing the *completely empty* southbound side - I would want to personally tear limb from limb the persons responsible for the delay. :mad:
Really? I think I'd just drive on the other side anyway. With all the gas I'd save by not just sitting there for 14hrs, I could probably pay for the first three tickets, post bail after getting arrested, and still get to wherever I was going faster than you. :\

FFL

2005-09-23, 18:50

And even though those towns were completely wiped out, not near as many people died there. Do you think the fact that they were much smaller towns, with a total population that was less than the number of people without their own cars in New Orleans, might have had something to do with it?

Whether someone is killed during the storm, or by a post-storm flood, either way it's "if you don't evacuate, you die." That's why I don't think the bowl in NO makes living there any risker than living in Galveston.

Even though it's usually considered an inland city, the geography of NO puts it more at-risk than anyplace else that's not a coastal or barrier island community. The fact that it's an urban area with a hundred thousand people puts it more at risk, also.

Windswept

2005-09-23, 18:51

Dave, our similar freeway here now has a heavy steel cable (about 3' off the ground) keeping people from crossing over. Of course if a huge vehicle could run over the posts and flatten the cable, I would be the first in line behind him.

I can't tell from the long-distance helicopter video shots if there's a dividing cable between the two sides. I assumed there was; otherwise people would have crossed by now. Or, there could be an unmanageable drainage ditch in the center area that most cars wouldn't be able to negotiate. From the air, it'd be hard to tell if there's a ditch.

curiousuburb

2005-09-23, 19:49

isn't that what SUVs are good for? you know it's not great mileage at <10mph while towing a boat...

FFL

2005-09-23, 20:25

Building below sea level in an area where it's prone to flooding, is, regardless of whatever historical or cultural significance may have come later, stupid. I'm sorry, that's all there is to it.
I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more to it than that. You might want to learn more about the settlement history of New Orleans before making such a boldly broad-brush statement.

The initial settlement of New Orleans was in the French Quarter, which is above sea level. The next parts of the city to be settled were the Garden District and Uptown, and Algiers directly across the river, all of which are also above sea level.
http://www.southbear.com/New_Orleans/Geography.html

Like many of America's oldest cities, its "risky" geographic location is the very reason for its growth. There simply would not BE a city of New Orleans, if it had been located elsewhere in Louisiana. Also, it doesn't make much sense to fault Bienville for not foreseeing an eventual metropolitan area of more than a million people, when he founded New Orleans in 1718.

Now, if you said something like "draining the marshes around the dry ground of New Orleans in order to expand the city was a mistake" it would make much more sense (hindsight being 20/20, of course).
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3854/is_200204/ai_n9061390
For more than two centuries, New Orleans' builders struggled to expel the soggy wetlands from within their city. Early settlers saw little value in the swamps after they had harvested the virgin cypress forests and marshes held no value as urban real estate.

The original city grew during the early 1700s along the natural levee, a narrow band of relatively high ground deposited by recurring river floods, and several faubourgs gradually extended into the miasmatic backswamps by the end of the colonial period (1803). Levee construction along the river coupled with canal excavation toward the lakefront were the key colonial public works projects to drain water from the city and thereby reclaim the swamps and marshes within the urbanized territory.

Only after a viable flood protection barrier was in place by the mid-nineteenth century and the effective completion of major drainage systems by the 1930s were developers able to extend streets and subdivisions across the marsh to the Lake Pontchartrain shore. In addition to expanding usable real estate, the massive drainage projects greatly reduced disease threats that had plagued the city for two centuries.

To accommodate post-World War II suburbanization, wetland drainage pressed westward into adjacent Jefferson Parish, into the marshes east of New Orleans, and southward beyond the natural levee on the Mississippi's west bank By the late 1960s, technical capability and real estate demand seemed poised to complete the wetland conquest within the city limits.

An unforseen result of building on top of drained marshes was the gradual settling of the land to an even lower level, which is referred to as subsidance. Thus, areas which are now more than 10 ft. below sea level, were significantly higher when the buildings were first built.

New Orleans is not the only major US city to expand into drained marshland (San Francisco, Miami, Louisville, Mobile, and Houston come to mind immediately, and I'm sure there are many others), but it surely is the oldest. Other than the Lakeview area in New Orleans, the drained marshes in these cities were generally settled by lower-income people.

What exactly would you suggest as alternatives? That the government should have prevented those cities from growing any further once they ran out of adjoining dry land? That those cities should have somehow been moved away from the very rivers, lakes, and bays that made them grow and prosper in the first place?

scratt

2005-09-23, 20:46

No.. But in a country as large and empty as the US there is little excuse for re-claming land, rather than using good building land... I should think the reasons behind that (were age old human reasons) lazyness and greed (that land being cheap - wonder why?).

Now in Japan, or the UK (not sure if they have reclaimed land or not) or other countries where the population is starting to threaten space then I can understand land 'reclamation' projects... Not that I agree with them..

A good step would be for humans to stop breeding and stop taking up too much space on the planet...

On a side note a good set off comments from Clinton today on the News. Basically saying the US people are uninformed and have no idea how little they spend domestically on their own country compared to others.. He thinks this will bring about a little more awareness of domestic issues and shine a light on the politicians that promise a lot to get elected but never deliver domestically...

The bottom line here is that successive governments have cut the local budget for local issues to keep this money machine that is 'US international policy' and lines the pockets of those same politicians.. The likes of Haliburton (however it is spelled) and the 'War Machine' which sells, uses, deveopes and seems to sorely fail overseas when put to task, but brings in huge revenues for all their shiny toys which they sell to Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on... and then complain that they use them!

/rant over

staph

2005-09-23, 21:12

or the UK (not sure if they have reclaimed land or not) or other countries where the population is starting to threaten space then I can understand land 'reclamation' projects... Not that I agree with them..

The fens were drained in the 18th and 19th centuries, I believe, but mainly for farmland and pasture.

FFL

2005-09-23, 21:42

No.. But in a country as large and empty as the US there is little excuse for re-claming land, rather than using good building land... I should think the reasons behind that (were age old human reasons) lazyness and greed (that land being cheap - wonder why?).
That's largely true, and you can add convenience and demand to laziness and greed. The basic capitalistic tenants of supply and demand are very much at work here.

But, there is still the fact that the demand for housing was in the areas directly adjoining the cities - you couldn't just arbitrarily tell people to move away from the city to the middle of nowheresville when their jobs were in the city.

Now in the case of New Orleans, there simply wasn't ANY "good building land" within 80 miles of the city, once all the naturally dry ares were fully developed. I don't think you could have expected anyone who worked in the city of NO in the 1800's to have wanted to live 80 miles away.

A good step would be for humans to stop breeding and stop taking up too much space on the planet...
no arguments here...

On a side note a good set off comments from Clinton today on the News. Basically saying the US people are uninformed and have no idea how little they spend domestically on their own country compared to others.. He thinks this will bring about a little more awareness of domestic issues and shine a light on the politicians that promise a lot to get elected but never deliver domestically...

The bottom line here is that successive governments have cut the local budget for local issues to keep this money machine that is 'US international policy' and lines the pockets of those same politicians.. The likes of Haliburton (however it is spelled) and the 'War Machine' which sells, uses, deveopes and seems to sorely fail overseas when put to task, but brings in huge revenues for all their shiny toys which they sell to Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on... and then complain that they use them!

/rant overHmm, that sounds interesting. I'll have to check for those remarks - I haven't seen them today.

Chinney

2005-09-23, 22:41

[...]

What exactly would you suggest as alternatives? That the government should have prevented those cities from growing any further once they ran out of adjoining dry land?

[...]

Some people would call that urban planning. Perhaps it is excusable that they were not doing that in the 19th century, but I think some of the recent growth and planning decisions, or lack of them, are not easy to understand.

Kickaha

2005-09-23, 22:58

I'm sorry, but there's a whole lot more to it than that. You might want to learn more about the settlement history of New Orleans before making such a boldly broad-brush statement.

You might want to read what I actually wrote before jerking your knee around like that, you might hurt it.

I say it's stupid to build below sea level, and then you go off about building *ABOVE* sea level, and how that wasn't stupid.

Um, duh? Did I say it was? No. I specifically said that building below sea level in a flood-prone area is stupid, and I stand by that statement. You can give history lessons all you like, but you weren't responding to what I said, but instead what you thought I was implying.

Now, if you said something like "draining the marshes around the dry ground of New Orleans in order to expand the city was a mistake" it would make much more sense (hindsight being 20/20, of course).

Bingo. Finally.

What exactly would you suggest as alternatives? That the government should have prevented those cities from growing any further once they ran out of adjoining dry land? That those cities should have somehow been moved away from the very rivers, lakes, and bays that made them grow and prosper in the first place?

Not every city *HAS* to turn into a sprawl at the expense of common sense. Yes, I think that the city should have said "Wow, that's a phenomenally stupid thing to do, maybe we should look at other options." Look at many other cities - they built up, not out. Population density increased, not area. No '80 miles out'.

Oh wait, right, sorry, the geniuses behind this just stuck the poor and workers there. Problem solved. Can always get more of those if they drown. What was I thinking?

:no:

Expanding the city into the low areas was as bright as building into the side of a cliff in a slide and quake prone area. Which is, to say, not bright at all. It's risky, it's asking for trouble, and since the chances of a calamity actually happening *SOMETIME* is 100%, it's a guaranteed failure. However, the short-sightedness of the average person means that everyone is just going to risk that it won't happen in their lifetime. But it will in their children's, or their grandchildren's, and so on. Not smart, no matter how you cut it.

So I stand by my original statement: building *BELOW SEA LEVEL* (amplified for the reading impaired) in a flood-prone area is long-term stupid, no matter how pretty the short-term gains might look.

FFL

2005-09-23, 23:27

This NYT editorial summarizes the current situation pretty well. It's obvious that after 911 and after Katrina, we still have a long, long way to go.
Three weeks after the nation was shocked to realize how little the government knew about emergency management in New Orleans, another hurricane has hit the south and made it clear that the learning curve is still daunting.

There was little danger that Rita would fail to get the authorities' full attention, or that people in the potential path of danger would not heed warnings to evacuate. But when Houston residents were told to leave, they found themselves stranded and sweltering in 90-degree heat in colossal traffic jams. High-occupancy-vehicle lanes went unused, as did many inbound lanes of highways, because authorities inexplicably waited until late Thursday to open them up. Some motorists discovered, in terror, that they were stuck in what could be the hurricane's path. Tragically, one bus evacuating 44 people - most of them elderly - caught fire near Dallas, killing at least 24.

If Katrina exposed what happens when many people have no cars to take them out of danger, Rita seemed to show the other side of the coin. The authorities are going to have to become much more sophisticated about developing evacuation plans that do not put every family on the highway in their own vehicle. But the car-obsessed American public is going to require a lot of education before many will accept the idea that they should flee disaster via mass transit.

Some Rita-related failures seemed inexplicable. A dearth of federal security screeners at Houston's international airport led to long lines of airline passengers trying get out of the city. The Homeland Security Department should have anticipated that problem. Houston's shortage of emergency shelters and the local officials' apparent reluctance to let the public know where space was available were hard to comprehend.

President Bush was as visible in the preparations for Rita's arrival as he had been absent during Katrina. But the fact that Mr. Bush's handlers have learned the importance of communicating the commander in chief's concerns is not particularly encouraging. The president well knows that his presence is more of a distraction than a comfort in these circumstances. What the country wants is confidence that the administration is improving the leadership and performance of FEMA, and homeland security operations in general. We already know that it knows how to manage a good photo-op.

Kickaha

2005-09-23, 23:32

FFL

2005-09-24, 00:37

You might want to read what I actually wrote before jerking your knee around like that, you might hurt it.

I say it's stupid to build below sea level, and then you go off about building *ABOVE* sea level, and how that wasn't stupid.Sorry if I misread your statement as saying that NOLA should have never been built in the first place. It wasn't clear to me that you ware aware that all of New Orleans was on dry land for the first 150 years or so of its existence. It also seemed like you were rebutting my earlier post that said:
I laugh every time I see someone clueless enough about US history to say something like "they never should have built New Orleans there". Perhaps when I replied to your post, my knee was still jerking from Moog's statement:
It's a city that never should've been built, given the quality and lie of the land it was founded upon.As I've mentioned before, I used to live in New Orleans, and I know several people from there currently displaced into various parts of the country, including a guy I bought dinner and a beer for earlier in the week who survived from Sunday to Saturday in the Superdome (I could start an entire new thread on some of the things he witnessed and experienced).

So it's entirely possible that my knee is a tad jerkier than it usually is these days, whenever New Orleans is mentioned. I'll offer no apologies whatsoever for defending the city and its residents from what I see as unwarranted and factually inaccurate attacks (which would include your earlier post about TX and Galveston providing evacuation lessons for New Orleans).
Not every city *HAS* to turn into a sprawl at the expense of common sense. Yes, I think that the city should have said "Wow, that's a phenomenally stupid thing to do, maybe we should look at other options." Look at many other cities - they built up, not out. Population density increased, not area. No '80 miles out'.That's an interesting counterpoint. Can you name some specific examples, and can you show any links that support the city planning behind this? Can you say at what year in the history of New Orleans that such a decision should have been made?
Oh wait, right, sorry, the geniuses behind this just stuck the poor and workers there. Problem solved. Can always get more of those if they drown. What was I thinking? If you thought I was endorsing that fact by pointing it out, then you misread my post.

OTOH, do you think it possible that this is what qualified as "affordable housing" in its days, and those working class people would never have been able to afford living in something more expensive, like "building up?" Like I said earlier, supply and demand rules, especially 150 years ago.

So I stand by my original statement: building *BELOW SEA LEVEL* (amplified for the reading impaired) in a flood-prone area is long-term stupid, no matter how pretty the short-term gains might look.While I don't disagree completely, I'd still like to see more specifics on what you think the people of New Orleans should have done differently in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and what exactly other cities did differently.

FFL

2005-09-24, 00:44

We're always going to have a long, long way to go. Every 30 years or so, the hurricane cycle hits a peak (like now), and the Gulf seems to get hit the hardest. Yet every 30 years, everyone acts shocked and surprised.

Maybe if it were every 10 years, people's memories wouldn't fade quite so much. 30 years is just about a generation, after all, and probably just long enough to cause everyone to forget. :\
On this we agree.

I can't help thinking that this apparent "near-miss" for Galveston and Houston, combined with the evacuation clusterfuck, will make many of those residents less likely to evacuate for the next hurricane.

FFL

2005-09-24, 00:59

Along those same lines....

Looking at 911 and Katrina, it seems like we can't prevent anything bad from happening the first time around... we're only capable of trying to prevent a second occurrence of something bad.

So, don't expect DHS to have a clue until the second dirty bomb or biological/chemical attack.

Kickaha

2005-09-24, 01:13

So it's entirely possible that my knee is a tad jerkier than it usually is these days, whenever New Orleans is mentioned. I'll offer no apologies whatsoever for defending the city and its residents from what I see as unwarranted and factually inaccurate attacks (which would include your earlier post about TX and Galveston providing evacuation lessons for New Orleans).

You're welcome to your opinion, but given the *AMAZINGLY* poor job of evacuation that NOLA managed, or rather, didn't, I'm going to continue to point to *any* example of even a half-way decent evacuation as something they can probably learn something from. God knows they really couldn't have done much worse.

That's an interesting counterpoint. Can you name some specific examples, and can you show any links that support the city planning behind this?

Never been to NYC, I take it? San Fran? Extremely high population densities, constrained by geography. This isn't rocket science.

Can you say at what year in the history of New Orleans that such a decision should have been made?

No, nor am I even going to attempt to respond to such a red herring. You obviously have a better grasp of NOLA's history, and no matter what answer I were to give, you'd find *some* reason to slam it, and do the superiority dance. No thanks.

OTOH, do you think it possible that this is what qualified as "affordable housing" in its days, and those working class people would never have been able to afford living in something more expensive, like "building up?" Like I said earlier, supply and demand rules, especially 150 years ago.

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that draining the swamps was a cheaper alternative than condensing the population. I *can* totally believe that people then were no different than people now, and 'not in my backyard' was just as prevalent then as a lousy reason to push political solutions that just plain aren't any good in the practical world.

While I don't disagree completely, I'd still like to see more specifics on what you think the people of New Orleans should have done differently in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and what exactly other cities did differently.

Sorry, you're going to have to look elsewhere for the specifics. I merely point out that very few cities have the combination of risk factors and extraordinarily poor forethought that seems to have gone into NOLA's urban planning.

FFL

2005-09-24, 02:19

You're welcome to your opinion, but given the *AMAZINGLY* poor job of evacuation that NOLA managed, or rather, didn't, I'm going to continue to point to *any* example of even a half-way decent evacuation as something they can probably learn something from. God knows they really couldn't have done much worse.
Maybe you need to review the news of the last two days (or even some of the other posts in this thread - Carol's, for example).

The evacuation of Houston was a major clusterfuck. People evacuating New Orleans had traffic delays, but not nearly to the degree that Houston did. At least in NOLA they understood how to implement contra-flow on the Interstates. And they did this without the benefit of the post-Katrina hindsight provided to Federal, Texas, and Houston officials!

BTW - WTF was New Orleans supposed to do before the storm with all those school buses in the flooded parking lot, that you and others keep posting photos of? WHO was going to drive them (National Guardsmen would have been perfect, but of course they didn't show up in force till the Friday after the Monday storm)? Do you think that school bus drivers would have showed up to drive evacuees out, when the DHS employees in Houston wouldn't even show up to check baggage at the airport? How many trips do you think each bus driver would have had to make to evacuate 100,000 people scattered throughout the city, anyway?

New Orleans evacuated approximately 80% of their population, and it was a more successful evacuation than expected - the most successful one in the city's history.

I've yet to see anything that addresses how many (if any) more of their non-car-owning population Houston was able to evacuate, than New Orleans was. All I've seen is ample evidence that Houston did a much worse job of evacuating the ones who did own cars.
Never been to NYC, I take it? San Fran? Extremely high population densities, constrained by geography. This isn't rocket science.
...
You obviously have a better grasp of NOLA's history, and no matter what answer I were to give, you'd find *some* reason to slam it, and do the superiority dance. No thanks.
...
You'd be hard pressed to convince me that draining the swamps was a cheaper alternative than condensing the population.
Yeah, I've been to NYC and San Fran. Have you ever been to NO? Did you see a single basement in any building there? I saw basements in both SF and NYC... but never a single one in NO.... hmmm....

Sure, I know more about New Orleans than you do, but I think Google works equally well for us both. For example, I found this when searching for New Orleans high rise construction:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101332&bt=2&ht=2&sro=1

Other than the 20-story Hibernia Bank built in 1921 (needless to say, banks can spend much more on office space, than working class people can spend on their homes), New Orleans had NO high-rises until the 1970's. Why? Because the spongy ground underneath it made for quite an engineering challenge... the bedrock is nearly 100 feet below ground level, which is very much NOT the case in NYC and SF.

Building high-rises to "condense the population" in the late 19th and early 20th century in New Orleans was not a cheaper alternative - it was physically impossible. Not to mention that New Orleans was busting out of its "safe" ground, long before NYC or San Fran.

Are you going to fault Bienville for not running soil surveys and foreseeing in 1712 the problems with building future high-rises in New Orleans?
:lol:
Sorry, you're going to have to look elsewhere for the specifics.Like I said, Google works equally as well for both of us. I've posted several links so far to support my statements and opinion, and I've yet to see a single one from you.

scratt

2005-09-24, 02:27

BTW - WTF was New Orleans supposed to do before the storm with all those school buses in the flooded parking lot, that you and others keep posting photos of? WHO was going to drive them (National Guardsmen would have been perfect, but of course they didn't show up in force till the Friday after the Monday storm)? Do you think that school bus drivers would have showed up to drive evacuees out, when the DHS employees in Houston wouldn't even show up to check baggage at the airport? How many trips do you think each bus driver would have had to make to evacuate 100,000 people scattered throughout the city, anyway?

Well with some organistaion exactly that... Even 1 trip per bus would have been better than leaving them below sea level with a Cat 4 / 5 hurricane on it's way! Jesus! People knew the storm was coming for days.. The media hyped it up but noone with any authority thought to a) evacuate b) use resources they had available to do it...

All the evidense was there for them... But they did nothing.

The financial waste and logistical waste of those buses is obsene. No two ways to look at it

FFL

2005-09-24, 02:35

Well with some organistaion exactly that... Even 1 trip per bus would have been better than leaving them below sea level with a Cat 4 / 5 hurricane on it's way! Jesus! People knew the storm was coming for days.. The media hyped it up but noone with any authority thought to a) evacuate b) use resources they had available to do it...

All the evidense was there for them... But they did nothing.

The financial waste and logistical waste of those buses is obsene. No two ways to look at it
Please show me where Houston did any better. Yeah, Galveston did better with school buses, but they had way less people to deal with, plus the Katrina hindsight (that led to their making school bus plans in the last week or two in the first place).

Please show me other major cities' plans to use school buses for a mass evacuation.

Please learn to spell "evidence" and "obscene"
:p

scratt

2005-09-24, 02:50

Please show me where Houston did any better. Yeah, Galveston did better with school buses, but they had way less people to deal with, plus the Katrina hindsight (that led to their making school bus plans in the last week or two in the first place).

Please show me other major cities' plans to use school buses for a mass evacuation.

Please learn to spell "evidence" and "obscene"
:p

I will remember to use my spele chicker when you stop putting words into my mouth! :p

I never said anyone did any better, or any worse. I simply stated that that was obseeen. (I also don't think that this latest situation has been handled particularly well.)

So what if noone thought to use school buses for evacuations before! Shame on the people who have the oversight of those resources for not thinking of it...

It is not a huge mental leap to make...

a) I have people to get out...
b) What resources are not in use right now...
c) *scratch head*
d) ....

Now call me smug, or a liar, I don't care which, but when I saw those pictures I was shocked as I had assumed that school and public buses would be used... It was not even something I felt needed articulating as we watched the farse unfold...

FFL

2005-09-24, 03:18

Final thoughts for the evening....

I'm absolutely of the opinion that all recent evacuations should and could have gone better.

I'm very sure that this problem exists in every major US city, and not just Houston, and not just New Orleans. Post-Andrew Miami might be an exception (hmm, there's that hindsight thing again).

I'm pretty sure that New Orleans has been singled out for more criticism than it deserves - especially by a few people in this thread.

Right now, the guy on CNN is telling me that people in Lake Charles who didn't evacuate are calling 911 right now asking the authorities to come rescue them... just like some people did in New Orleans... and Gulfport... and Biloxi... etc. Probably happening in Galveston and other Texas towns right now, as well. There are some idiots everywhere.

scratt

2005-09-24, 03:37

Agreed... And just to set the record straight I am not critisising the people of NO.
I am criticizing the government of the US from the VERY TOP down. But then that's a common theme for me.. ;)

FFL

2005-09-24, 03:39

Kickaha

2005-09-24, 12:20

Agreed... And just to set the record straight I am not critisising the people of NO.
I am criticizing the government of the US from the VERY TOP down. But then that's a common theme for me.. ;)

Just as long as you make it all the way to the bottom with that chain, I'm with ya.

FFL, you obviously have more time to play with this than I do.

However, I'd like to say that: how City X does in their evacuation has no bearing on whether or not City Y screwed up. If City X did *any one thing right* that City Y screwed up, then Y can learn from it, and vice versa. You are being self-righteously defensive of NOLA for some bizarre reason, are putting words in people's mouth, and being purposefully anal about specifics (I mean come *on*, what *year* I think they should have made another decision??) instead of trying to discuss the actual themes in a rational manner.

A dump truck of facts does not a logical argument make - it just makes a big mess. I don't have time to wade through it, even with the help of google. You obviously do. I would preferred to have had a discussion that was meaningful, but I guess not.

And speaking of illogic:

An unforseen result of building on top of drained marshes was the gradual settling of the land to an even lower level, which is referred to as subsidance.

Other than the 20-story Hibernia Bank built in 1921 (needless to say, banks can spend much more on office space, than working class people can spend on their homes), New Orleans had NO high-rises until the 1970's. Why? Because the spongy ground underneath it made for quite an engineering challenge... the bedrock is nearly 100 feet below ground level, which is very much NOT the case in NYC and SF.

Pick one. Was it unforeseen (scratt's not the only one who needs a spell checker, you twit - and btw, it's subsidence, not subsidance), or was it a known reason for not building high-rises? And stop and think for a minute. Did I ever say skyscrapers? No. Not once. The ubiquitous 3-5 story brownstones in both cities I mentioned were what I had in mind. A 30 unit apt building will hold more people than 2 one family homes on the same land. That's the sort of population density I was suggesting, but instead, you did what you've done in this entire thread, which is to jump to the most extreme example possible to set up a straw man. I'm tired of having to correct your misinterpretations of every point, instead of actually having a conversation. It's taking three times as long, and not really getting anywhere.

FFL

2005-09-24, 13:18

However, I'd like to say that: how City X does in their evacuation has no bearing on whether or not City Y screwed up.

and then there's this:

Dear New Orleans, and LA.

Re: Evacuations.

Watch Galveston and TX. Take notes. You'll need them. :rolleyes:
Contradict yourself much?

709

2005-09-24, 13:31

Sheesh, guys. Give it a rest already.

Or at least start another thread focusing on "What we did and didn't learn from Katrina" or whatever. I'm more interested in the reading reports and info about what's happening *now*, not reading a shoulda/coulda bickerfest. :rolleyes:

Kickaha

2005-09-24, 13:45

Contradict yourself much?

Not in the least bit.

NOLA screwed up. Galveston did some things right that NOLA could learn from. That was my intent, and those were my words.

*YOU* then said "Oh! But look at Houston! They fucked up the contra-flow lanes on the interstate while NOLA got it right! Neener neener!"

No shit, sherlock. Houston could learn from NOLA on that front.

I repeat, with the variables expanded so it's easier for you to read, and without your convenient editing out of the bits that you didn't like: How Houston does in their evacuation has no bearing on whether or not New Orleans screwed up. If Houston did *any one thing right* that New Orleans screwed up, then New Orleans can learn from it, and vice versa.

NOLA screwed up, plain and simple. Houston screwed up, plain and simple. They each did some things that the other could learn from. Why is this so damned hard for you to grasp?

But y'know, I was talking about Galveston in the beginning - you're the one who brought Houston into it for no good reason. This is precisely the sort of mangling of issues that makes trying to discuss this with you almost impossible.

You seem to think that NOLA is above reproach in this, for some reason, or that the rest of us think that NOLA did *NOTHING* right. Neither is the case, and I wish you'd stop turning it into a black and white issue. (And just to forestall any idiotic comments from anyone not reading carefully, that has nothing to do with race.) They did a few pretty obvious things right, but then totally and utterly blew it on a number of major ones. Other cities got other things right, and blew it on some things NOLA got right.

709: Damned good idea. FFL, as the mod involved, you want to split it out?

FFL

2005-09-24, 15:23

OK, by 709's request, seconded by Kickaha, I've split the hurricane thread into two separate threads. It's a good idea and should have been done a while ago.

The original thread (not this one) is the place for talking about the hurricanes themselves and the damage they cause, and for people in the hurricane areas to share where they are, how they are doing, etc.

This split thread is for the rest - evacuations, FEMA, pre- and post-hurricane governmental actions, looting, race, media, etc. etc.

Kickaha

2005-09-24, 15:26

Thanks mon. One of us should have taken the initiative to start a new thread long ago. *hangs head in shame*

Windswept

2005-09-25, 23:03

A couple of things...

Yeah, I finally saw a "from the ground" photo of Interstate-45, and there were those sectional concrete barriers dividing the two sides of the freeway - at least, along the particular part of highway shown in the photo.

Those barrier sections are designed to be moved, but would probably take a crane to do so. Still, not exactly an insurmountable problem when one side of the interstate is completely empty. Should have been no trouble to bring in cranes used by the highway department.

Speaking of "other" cities' possible evacuation plans... can you imagine trying to evacuate Seattle in time of disaster? OMG! Those freeways are a nightmare under 'normal' circumstances! :eek:

Kickaha

2005-09-25, 23:31

Yeah, and every main thoroughfare out is over a bridge. There has been more than one doomsday scenario simulation with 90% of the population of central Seattle being mired.

Windswept

2005-09-26, 17:20

I hate to even bring this up, but has anyone else had the sinking feeling that Al Qaida and other terrorists have been watching the quagmire of our evacuating cities with intense interest? :( *sigh*

Also, I know we've talked about looters in New Orleans, but I recently heard a law enforcement person who said that approx. 3,000 looters came by boat at night to ransack New Orleans banks, jewelry stores, museums, etc. - and that many were organized-crime people from out-of-state. :(

Did anyone else hear that? (Or is this old news that you've already discussed here? :\ )

The interviewee was saying that the extent and character of this looting was coming to light via the massive number of insurance claims pouring in. No ordinary burglar off the street would target a museum, do you think?

Too bad our various levels of government can't be as prepared and organized as the crime syndicates. :rolleyes:

kscherer

2005-09-26, 17:36

There might be some truth to it, but I have a feeling that it is a cop-out intended to show how wonderful everyone is.

Where do you suppose these folks came from the DAY AFTER the storm, while things were still wild and crazy? Did they come down, by boat, from St. Louis? And did they float in through that hole in the levy? If you stop to think about the scenerios that would be necessary for this to happen, it starts to send up red flags. I, fo one, don't buy it. :no:

FFL

2005-09-26, 18:10

Yeah, and every main thoroughfare out is over a bridge. There has been more than one doomsday scenario simulation with 90% of the population of central Seattle being mired.
Wow, what a stupid place to build a city....

FFL

2005-09-26, 18:16

I hate to even bring this up, but has anyone else had the sinking feeling that Al Qaida and other terrorists have been watching the quagmire of our evacuating cities with intense interest? :( *sigh*

Absolutely. While it's true that we can't blame the Feds for the fact that there was a hurricane, we can indeed blame them for a glaring lack of results after spending 4 years and countless billions to "make us safer."

Also, I know we've talked about looters in New Orleans, but I recently heard a law enforcement person who said that approx. 3,000 looters came by boat at night to ransack New Orleans banks, jewelry stores, museums, etc. - and that many were organized-crime people from out-of-state. :(

Did anyone else hear that? (Or is this old news that you've already discussed here? :\ )I seem to remember hearing something similar somewhere, but not from any local New Orleans media or friends of mine.

Do you have a link for that report, Carol?

Windswept

2005-09-26, 19:28

Absolutely. While it's true that we can't blame the Feds for the fact that there was a hurricane, we can indeed blame them for a glaring lack of results after spending 4 years and countless billions to "make us safer."
Yeah, it's more like "homeland INsecurity". :(

Btw, how do all you guys feel about the 100 security screeners that didn't show up for work at the Houston airport during the evacuation?

Do you feel they should all be fired for failure to report for duty during an emergency situation? I mean, after all, they *are* federal workers employed by an agency specifically responsible for the security of American citizens.

I seem to remember hearing something similar somewhere, but not from any local New Orleans media or friends of mine.

Do you have a link for that report, Carol?No, I don't. Sorry, FFL. :\

What's weird is that I heard that *one* interview, and then never another mention of that particular information again. I can't remember which cable news network it was on, because I continually keep flipping back and forth from one to another during commercials. Most of the stories are repeated endlessly, so I didn't think to make a mental note of 'which' channel, 'which' reporter. Sorry.

I can't believe that story isn't getting more coverage. Maybe the insurance companies requested that the story be repressed so it wouldn't give other people ideas for future storms.

Kickaha

2005-09-26, 20:12

Wow, what a stupid place to build a city....

No doubt about it, the bridges might be problematic. Which is why the major ones are (with one exception) designed to sustain an 8.0+ quake, the only natural force worth worrying about. And why two of the main ones are floating, and damned near quake-proof (rated at something insane like a 9.6).

The building codes for new construction are some of the tightest on the West Coast for quake-proofing (although the older buildings are being ignore), and the infrastructure, from electrical to gas, is designed to be quake-resistant. So basically, after the quake, the city won't be uninhabitable. People might be stuck, but it won't be disastrous.

Add to that the major quake cycle in the Puget Sound area seems to be about 500 years, and they still have 200 to go until the next one, and they're sitting pretty good. The Nisqually Quake a few years ago cause some damage to the Waterfront Viaduct, but it was built long before the modern quake codes went into effect, and had been discussed for years as a possible tear-down for a waterfront improvement initiative. In the meantime, it's been shored up to handle up to about a 6.5.

See, solid steps were taken to minimize known risks from Ma Nature. It's not like they went out of their way to cause more problems, when there's a known certainty of a 30-yr cycle and nothing being done in that time. *cough*

The only rational worry is if they're bombed outright. Those are the doomsday scenarios I mentioned. When you bring in malicious human behaviour *NO* city is safe, so the location has jack-all to do with it.

OTOH, with the highest per capita boat ownership in the US (any town over, I think, 50,000), a good % of the population can bug out via water, too. There the Ballard Locks are the bottleneck, but there are emergency evac plans that call for just opening them for the duration. Would likely cause some pretty harsh eco-damage to Lake Union, but Lake Washington would provide the replenishing stock afterwards.

Edit: Just so you don't think I'm all pollyanna about this, there is this viewpoint (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002185299_earthquake20m.html), which has some very good points. I've gotta say though, 1,600 dead out of a populace of over a million for a completely unannounced major event that affects the entire region isn't that bad. Still more that can be done.