If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stop the Funeral.... New Orleans ain't dead.
One of the things that has really annoyed me about hurricane Katrina
coverage is how the press continually reports on the worst case scenario, over and over again to the point where people begin to believe that it must be true. There were people saying it would take over 3 months to pump out the water. Now it turns out that this will take weeks, not months. Yesterday there were 36 pumps working. Today there are over 70... and 100 more are being brought back on line. Most of the city should be dry by October 2 (three weeks from now) and the job could be totally done by October 18. The number of expected fatalities has been grossly exaggerated. One nut predicted 50,000. The Mayor of New Orleans said 10,000. Then the press reports that FEMA has brought in 25,000 body bags. The truth is that so far 154 people in Louisiana have died. I am sure that number may go much, much higher... but nowhere near the dire predictions that were made by some people. "New Orleans has been destroyed". Huh. Truth is that at one point, 80% of the city was flooded but much of that was with less than 2 feet of water. The French Quarter and downtown sustained very little damage. Within 10 days the water had receded (without pumping) so that only 50% of the city was flooded... and now that the pumps are starting up, the level is dropping rapidly. How many times have you heard people say that New Orleans will be a "dead" city? People won't be able to rebuild because of toxic waste, sewage, insurance companies, yadda, yadda, yadda? Baloney. There may be areas that will take longer to clean up. There may be people who won't come back. It will take time to rebuild but there is no way that New Orleans is going to be "dead". Power to parts of downtown has been restored... as it has in many other areas. City Hall has running water. Yesterday the rail link to New Orleans was supposed to be complete.... rail service is important to bring repair materials to the city. Mail delivery has started in some areas. The airport will open to commercial traffic on September 19. The Port of New Orleans will open to commercial traffic sometime next week. Cleaning crews are already busy in the Superdome, Convention center and on the dried streets in the business district and French Quarter. Last night I saw some business owners working in their stores in the RiverWalk Mall. New Orleans ain't dead by a long shot. http://tinyurl.com/a2zzm George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com The Mother of All Group Cruises 2 - http://www.moagc2.com/ May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New Orleans ain't dead by a long shot. http://tinyurl.com/a2zzm
"Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" - Mark Twain |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Odysseus" wrote "Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" - Mark Twain Just saw on CNN that five New Orleans hospitals are open for business... electricity, water, staff... 500 beds available and open for business. Pumping station #6 which is the largest pump is about to go back online. Oh... and a friend told me that the airport will now open for commercial traffic on a limited basis on the 13th instead of the 19th as I had thought. Commercial cargo traffic started today. The main wastewater treatment plant will be running tomorrow. And there is even talk about the Mardi Gras celebration in 2006. Impossible? I sure wouldn't bet against it. -- George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com The Mother of All Group Cruises 2 - http://www.moagc2.com/ May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
All really excellent news. I think the original estimates for pumping
out the water, electrical being back on, etc. was based on the manpower they had there at the time. They have since gotten many helpers from many states.....all good. June "George Leppla" wrote in message ... "Odysseus" wrote "Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" - Mark Twain Just saw on CNN that five New Orleans hospitals are open for business... electricity, water, staff... 500 beds available and open for business. Pumping station #6 which is the largest pump is about to go back online. Oh... and a friend told me that the airport will now open for commercial traffic on a limited basis on the 13th instead of the 19th as I had thought. Commercial cargo traffic started today. The main wastewater treatment plant will be running tomorrow. And there is even talk about the Mardi Gras celebration in 2006. Impossible? I sure wouldn't bet against it. -- George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com The Mother of All Group Cruises 2 - http://www.moagc2.com/ May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
George Leppla wrote:
One of the things that has really annoyed me about hurricane Katrina coverage is how the press continually reports on the worst case scenario, over and over again to the point where people begin to believe that it must be true. George - I agree completely with your post. What I can't understand is the articles posted that say New Orleans should just be abandoned. It's amazing to me that this would even be considered. Sure they've been through a very devastating experience, but I fully expect it to be cleaned up and that most of it's citizins will return at some point. And I look forward to being a tourist there at some point in the future. John |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WolfpackFan wrote:
George Leppla wrote: One of the things that has really annoyed me about hurricane Katrina coverage is how the press continually reports on the worst case scenario, over and over again to the point where people begin to believe that it must be true. George - I agree completely with your post. What I can't understand is the articles posted that say New Orleans should just be abandoned. It's amazing to me that this would even be considered. Sure they've been through a very devastating experience, but I fully expect it to be cleaned up and that most of it's citizins will return at some point. And I look forward to being a tourist there at some point in the future. John Before everyone gets too excited, you should take into account that virtually all of the single story residential buildings flooded will likely have to be bulldozed flat. There basically will be nothing in them worth salvaging. Any money for rebuilding will probably have to come straight from the feds, as insurance won't be picking up much. See: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f3301e74-22...00e2511c8.html So the big question will be: is it worth doing massive building in a zone that could get flattened again next year? If you do rebuild, it would make sense to provide a multi-layered defense (not just single levees) that are sized to take a category 5 storm. This will take up a lot of real estate that is currently used for residential purposes. How many hundreds of billions of fed dollars will people be willing to put into a rebuilding project that can be destroyed at any time? It does make sense to restore the French Quarter (which is a natural flood redoubt anyway), get the tourism sector going, make sure the refineries and port are working because these provide the city and its residents with income. It may not make sense to put a lot of low income housing in a highly vulnerable location. Of course, these people have to go somewhere, and they have to have jobs. The big question will be, where? Chris |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Hall wrote:
Before everyone gets too excited, you should take into account that virtually all of the single story residential buildings flooded will likely have to be bulldozed flat. There basically will be nothing in them worth salvaging. Any money for rebuilding will probably have to come straight from the feds, as insurance won't be picking up much. See: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f3301e74-22...00e2511c8.html So the big question will be: is it worth doing massive building in a zone that could get flattened again next year? If you do rebuild, it would make sense to provide a multi-layered defense (not just single levees) that are sized to take a category 5 storm. This will take up a lot of real estate that is currently used for residential purposes. How many hundreds of billions of fed dollars will people be willing to put into a rebuilding project that can be destroyed at any time? It does make sense to restore the French Quarter (which is a natural flood redoubt anyway), get the tourism sector going, make sure the refineries and port are working because these provide the city and its residents with income. It may not make sense to put a lot of low income housing in a highly vulnerable location. Of course, these people have to go somewhere, and they have to have jobs. The big question will be, where? The tourism sector hires bunches of low income folks, in hotels, in restaurants, and the like. It's not a highly paid industry and there do need to be workers. The question is, of course, where will these lowpaid working poor live if we don't rebuild greater New Orleans. A French Quarter and Garden District with no taxi drivers, no waiters, no busboys and diswashers, no bartenders, no hotel maids, no bus drivers, no tour guides, no desk staff won't have much tourism. Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low income housing. -- Julie ********** Check out the blog of my 9 week Germany adventure at www.blurty.com/users/jholm Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Juliana L Holm wrote:
Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low income housing. You are absolutely right, but it may not make sense to put this housing in the bottom of a bowl that can fill up again at any moment. In fact, it may even happen THIS year if any sort of hurricane comes by before Dec. (still plenty of time left in the hurricane season). The services provided to the tourism and convention industries need to be provided by a work force and they will be low income. If they are located elsewhere, then a massive upgrade to the transportation infrastructure would be needed (the city is notorious for traffic choke-points). If the low income housing is in N.O. proper, it will probably need to be much higher density with localized flood defenses. My point is that you can't just say "let everyone return" without the high expectation of getting an instant replay of the Katrina disaster, this time after spending a huge amount of money for nothing. Since the feds will probably have to pay for almost all of the rebuilding, they will likely have to have some say in the matter. I seriously doubt that the population of N.O. (other than military or construction crews) will approach pre-Katrina levels any time soon. Chris |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Hall wrote:
Juliana L Holm wrote: Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low income housing. You are absolutely right, but it may not make sense to put this housing in the bottom of a bowl that can fill up again at any moment. This is true, but you didn't say they shouldn't build low income housing in the bowl; you said they shouldn't build low income housing. I am not, personally sure what to do here, and can only say that I don't expect anyone to make any decisions any time soon. In fact, it may even happen THIS year if any sort of hurricane comes by before Dec. (still plenty of time left in the hurricane season). The services provided to the tourism and convention industries need to be provided by a work force and they will be low income. If they are located elsewhere, then a massive upgrade to the transportation infrastructure would be needed (the city is notorious for traffic choke-points). If the low income housing is in N.O. proper, it will probably need to be much higher density with localized flood defenses. My point is that you can't just say "let everyone return" without the high expectation of getting an instant replay of the Katrina disaster, this time after spending a huge amount of money for nothing. Since the feds will probably have to pay for almost all of the rebuilding, they will likely have to have some say in the matter. I seriously doubt that the population of N.O. (other than military or construction crews) will approach pre-Katrina levels any time soon. Chris -- Julie ********** Check out the blog of my 9 week Germany adventure at www.blurty.com/users/jholm Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Juliana L Holm wrote:
Chris Hall wrote: Juliana L Holm wrote: Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low income housing. You are absolutely right, but it may not make sense to put this housing in the bottom of a bowl that can fill up again at any moment. This is true, but you didn't say they shouldn't build low income housing in the bowl; you said they shouldn't build low income housing. I am not, personally sure what to do here, and can only say that I don't expect anyone to make any decisions any time soon. Um, here's what I actually said: "It may not make sense to put a lot of low income housing in a highly vulnerable location." This means it doesn't make sense to put it where it already is, unless you change the equation and make the location MUCH less vulnerable. I did not say that low income housing should not be built. In fact, it HAS to be built. But I suspect some of it will be built in Houston or San Antonio or Baton Rouge and not necessarily in N.O. That would be the low cost solution (i.e. a solution with a minimum of government subsidies or outright ownership). Any N.O. "low income" housing will not be "low cost" unless it is treated as being disposable (thereby leading to a repetition of the current mess). Chris |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Road from Jackson | Becky | USA & Canada | 9 | April 12th, 2004 08:55 PM |
I want to marry my dog! | The Grammer Genious | Europe | 367 | April 6th, 2004 12:57 AM |
Comments on itinerary [Yosemite, Zion, Death Valley + more] | Peter Ibrahim | USA & Canada | 41 | December 30th, 2003 11:28 AM |
NYC subway, New Orleans or Wash. DC? | Hiloman | USA & Canada | 0 | October 6th, 2003 11:37 PM |