|
Screw Rebuilding New Orleans
|
| you make some interesting points |
| posted by: squisshy |
23:29 1.20.10 |
| But the bottom line is that either you agree with proposition A (nola should be consigned to the swamp) or proposition B (Bush appropriately dealt with the situation while he was President). There is no other possibility! |
|
| you make some interesting points |
| posted by: squisshy |
23:28 1.20.10 |
| But the bottom line is that either you agree with proposition A (nola should be consigned to the swamp) or proposition B (Bush appropriately dealt with the situation while he was President). There is no other possibility! |
|
| i gotta say... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
23:12 1.20.10 |
(1) i hate when one person i love calls another person i love a "dick". stuff like that makes nelson cry, so watch it!
(2) nothing gets my attention like calling someone a dick, so i did a bunch of googling, and from what i understand obama is getting a fair amount of cred for handling nola, and is certainly giving plenty of money (and doing a lot of other things to speed up recovery).
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/15/2099511.aspx
i know this is just a lame cable news link, but it seems to pretty much say what all the major networks were saying.
so, i gotta say, i'm not sure what the point of all this is: the stimulus had no nola-specific money (though nola did at least apply for it ... i'm not that bored to see what it got)? that's it?
i mean, throwing money at a problem is not the same as getting better results, no?
and it certainly isn't good enough to make people forget about an absurdly out-of-touch fly-over, a head of FEMA who was way out of his element, and then saying things like "nobody could have foreseen the levees overflowering". |
|
| just wanted to point out ... |
| posted by: squisshy |
22:51 1.20.10 |
that HB puts forth a ridiculous straw-man argument on 2/20/09. not sure how i failed to notice this before, but, uh, really? i must admit that Bush was doing an "appropriate" amount for new orleans or that the city "shouldn't be a priority"? uh, jackass, how about the proverbial "third way," which is that 1) bush was an incompetent fuck who didn't do *nearly* enough for new orleans, basically ensuring that the city would not recover, and 2) obama has likewise dropped the ball (one of many, many disappointments/issues that i and other dems lodge with obama). i won't necessarily go into the fact that i think bush cast the die with his shameful neglect of the city, but that doesn't mean i don't think obama could and should have done more.
dick. |
|
| haiti |
| posted by: publius |
16:30 1.13.10 |
as a point of comparison to katrina, can we bear in mind that as of now media outlets are reporting that as many as 100,000 (!) people may be dead from the earthquake in haiti. the scale of that (especially in relation to the size of the haitian population) is mind-arresting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/13/haiti-death-toll-fears-grow
can you imagine a disaster in which 100K americans died? something like that might even be bigger than the tiger woods fiasco... |
|
|
| posted by: horsebeater |
17:49 2.20.09 |
Democrats spent 5 years screaming that Bush wasn't doing enough for New Orleans. And then, in a $789 billion stimulus package, a *package that is supposed to focus on public works projects*, there is no special rebuilding cash for New Orleans.
So if you're a dem, either admit that (1) Bush actually was doing an appropriate amount for New Orleans or (2) New Orleans shouldn't be a priority when it comes to public works budgets.
I'd be happy with (2), but feel free to pick either.
|
|
| nice |
| posted by: rabble-rouser |
12:04 2.20.09 |
| My understanding is that New Orleans gets a ton of federal aid, but I like the idea of calling Democrats giant fucking hypocrites anytime they spend any money on anything that doesn't include New Orleans. That's good stuff. |
|
| Giant Fucking Hypocrites |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:39 2.20.09 |
This is just too rich:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihA0Z5ybW84SLeY3NQbodRanP0mwD96EH44G3
|
|
| slow death by inaction ... |
| posted by: squisshy |
17:56 2.21.08 |
is taking place right on schedule. i thought this article was somewhat interesting, although there are plenty of other ways to document what is taking place in NOLA. funny how it seems (from their quotes, anyway) that some of the NBA players were surprised by the state of the city.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dave_zirin/02/19/neworleans/index.html
i guess the city isn't dying for everyone though ... some developers will undoubtedly make some money. |
|
| if anything above # 40 gets de |
| posted by: horsebeater |
11:22 7.19.06 |
| columbus, oh # 39???? |
|
| putting my money where my mout |
| posted by: horsebeater |
11:21 7.19.06 |
Natural Disaster Risk
from highest to lowest risk
50. Miami, FL
49. New Orleans, LA
48. Oakland, CA
47. San Francisco, CA
46. Honolulu, HI
45. San Jose, CA
43. Los Angeles, CA*
43. Houston, TX*
42. Long Beach, CA
39. Tulsa, OK*
39. Oklahoma City, OK*
39. Columbus, OH*
38. Sacramento, CA
35. Virginia Beach, VA*
35. Seattle, WA*
35. Memphis, TN*
32. New York, NY*
32. Jacksonville, FL*
32. Boston, MA*
31. San Diego, CA
30. Portland, OR
29. Charlotte, NC
28. Baltimore, MD
27. Washington, DC
26. Louisville, KY
25. Indianapolis, IN
22. Fort Worth, TX*
22. Dallas, TX*
22. Arlington, TX*
21. Kansas City, MO
20. Austin, TX
19. Omaha, NE
18. Atlanta, GA
17. Nashville, TN
16. San Antonio, TX
15. Las Vegas, NV
14. Albuquerque, NM
13. Denver, CO
12. Chicago, IL
8. Philadelphia, PN*
8. Minneapolis, MN*
8. Fresno, CA*
8. Detroit, MI*
7. Colorado Springs, CO
3. Tucson, AZ*
3. Phoenix, AZ*
3. El Paso, TX*
3. Cleveland, OH*
1. Milwaukee, WI*
1. Mesa, AZ*
http://www.sustainlane.com/article/996//U.S.+Cities+in+Harm%92s+Way.html
|
|
| Like it or not, New Orleans ha |
| posted by: spacehippie |
22:00 7.15.06 |
Except it's not in New Orleans. From the NYT:
July 16, 2006
Replica of New Orleans: A Study in Urban Cloning
By SUSAN SAULNY
LAFAYETTE, La. — New Orleans is supposed to be 130 miles east of this Cajun country capital on the Vermillion River, but there in the distance, rising from the swampland, is something that looks very familiar.
The quaint row houses of the French Quarter are off Interstate 10, past the strip malls. There are Garden District-style mansions in a neighborhood named the Garden District, and blocks full of Creole cottages, lush courtyards and lacy ironwork. There is even a street called Elysian Fields.
It is not the Crescent City, however, but rather River Ranch, a commercial development here that is a virtual re-creation of much of historic residential New Orleans, meticulous in detail and substantial in size, with a growing population of more than a thousand on about 300 acres.
The project was started about 10 years ago but now is attracting the attention of New Orleans residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina who long to have a wrought-iron balcony or two in their lives again.
“I looked at it and thought, ‘This is quite nice!’ ” said Hortense Reine, a New Orleans evacuee who is staying in Lafayette and wants to buy a River Ranch apartment. “I think it’s very interesting what they’ve done and that imitation is a form of flattery.”
Many former residents like the project so much that they believe its mirror-image designs should be used to rebuild the ruined neighborhoods of New Orleans, an idea that some state officials have embraced. David Terrie, a New Orleans native who has taken solace on the slightly familiar streets of the planned community, considers it an enthusiastic tribute to his lost home.
“River Ranch blows my mind,” Mr. Terrie said. “When I first saw it, I called everyone in my family and said, ‘You’ve got to see this.’ Why couldn’t they do something like that in New Orleans?”
But for all its charm and easy livability, River Ranch has disturbed others who quarrel with its architectural style. They see it as the design equivalent of cubic zirconium, the epitome of what many in New Orleans hope the rebuilt city will never be: an imitation New Orleans, a pretty postcard version of a real city.
“It’s hard to describe my gut reaction to that place — it’s disgust,” said Donna LeBlanc, a native New Orleanian who lives in Lafayette just a few minutes from River Ranch. Ms. LeBlanc firmly disagrees with her mother, Mrs. Reine, who has been staying with her. “If someone gave me a house in River Ranch, I’d sell it and go live someplace else. I’ve never been anywhere that tried to be such a complete imitation of something else.”
Carefully planned communities like River Ranch stand at the crossroads of the debate over what should replace the flooded neighborhoods of New Orleans and damaged Gulf Coast towns. The development is a model of a design philosophy known as New Urbanism, which stresses densely packed housing, green town squares, easy access to transportation, and architecture with a historical theme.
New Urbanism, which began in the 1990’s, has been popular in the last year among smaller Gulf Coast towns, but it has yet to gain traction among New Orleans residents and planners, many of whom say the old urbanism worked just fine.
The resistance focuses not so much on planning principles that favor density and green space as on the traditional styles that New Urbanists seem wedded to.
“We don’t need a facsimile of ourselves,” said David Waggonner, of Waggonner & Ball, a New Orleans architecture firm that has been active in post-hurricane planning. “There were some good ideas in old New Orleans. There are ideas worth studying, and we should learn from them, but it’s not my nature to think it’s natural to copy.”
Critics also say that New Urbanist designs tend to be too rigid for contemporary times and that they cater to developers and rich homeowners. In River Ranch, prices start around $265,000 and run into the millions.
Still, a civic group in the flooded Gentilly neighborhood of New Orleans, near Lake Pontchartrain, invited a group of New Urbanist planners to the city a few months ago to help sketch designs for a rebuilt neighborhood.
Residents are awaiting the group’s final recommendations, which in draft form focus on things like making Gentilly more compact and pedestrian-friendly. Developed in the early to mid-1900’s with bungalows and wide streets, Gentilly was the early suburban answer to old New Orleans. The neighborhood, devastated by flooding after the storm, still resembles a ghost town.
“Some things the residents will embrace, and some other things, well, I’m waiting to see,” said Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, a city councilwoman who represents Gentilly.
Ms. Hedge-Morrell said some early proposals “didn’t fit the feel” of the area.
“For instance,” she said, “they talked about making it possible to walk everywhere. Having lived in Gentilly, I don’t know if people really want to walk everywhere.”
In the days after the storm, Bring New Orleans Back, a commission set up by Mayor C. Ray Nagin, resisted the New Urbanist ideas. But the Louisiana Recovery Authority, a state agency guiding the rebuilding, embraced the ideas and hired the lead architect for River Ranch, Steven Oubre, to be part of a team of planners who created a regional vision for the state. The plans were submitted recently.
Mr. Oubre said that momentum was building beyond Gentilly and that his firm, Architects Southwest, and other New Urbanist planners had submitted other proposals.
If the people of New Orleans were introduced to the concepts, he said, “I think overwhelmingly the population would support this.”
“There is a sense among the design community that New Urbanism is nothing but a throwback to the past and isn’t warranted,” he added. “I don’t agree with that.”
Many former New Orleanians said they were drawn to River Ranch out of sentimentality and a longing for a New Orleans in which urban problems had been erased.
“We started to worry about the crime in New Orleans years ago, then we found this and fell in love with it because it reminded us of Uptown,” said Colin Riggs, a River Ranch boutique owner who used to live in New Orleans. “It has the pretty balconies and shops and restaurants and all.”
Given the difficulties the city is facing, Ms. Riggs added, “I think this is better than the real thing; I think of it as copying the good old days, and that’s a good thing.”
There are a lot of rules in River Ranch: The shutters must be functional. Ceiling heights are to be 10 feet on the ground floor, nothing less. Bricks must be old.
The bricks for Karen Daigle’s Garden District home in River Ranch came from an old peanut factory in Virginia. Ms. Daigle has been in River Ranch since its beginning and is now the marketing director. Touches like antique brick give the area charm and character, she said, but it is still not the same as the original.
“That was the feel of New Orleans and hopefully it will be again,” Ms. Daigle said. “We’re not ready to give up on New Orleans. It makes me want to cry every time I think about it.”
Ms. LeBlanc is sad, too, but for different reasons. River Ranch makes her think about New Orleans, she said, and “I think I’d rather have my memories.”
|
|
| we've all said it before |
| posted by: ludwig |
17:56 7.11.06 |
but what drives me crazy about katrina is that it was a man made disaster. if those levies don't fail, then New Orleans doesn't get swamped and you save a whole hell of a lot of that $300 billion. So we have man made disaster and an immeidate response that was disastrous at best. then the government (federal and state) sat and waited and procrastinated and people died.
and everyone knew what would happened.
so i find myself agreeing with simpli. when you stand up and say you're going to solve the problem, solve the problem. make an honest effort. If Bush was not sincere, if he was trying to comfort people, he could have avoided making that speech.
You can rebuild a city. every country in europe did that after world war 2. What you need is strong leaderhip, a plan, and commtiment. We're 0 for 3 on New Orleans.
if you think government can't solve a large problem, a complex problem, I say ha! THe marshall plan worked. that was a tad complex. we built an atomic bomb rather quickly. government was involved in that. we put a man on the room.
the rebuilding must be formed by the fedeal government's commitment to rebuild the levies. we need to know how high, how strong, and how extensive. Otherwise, it could induce people to rebuild on the hopes that the government will fix the problem. I haven't heard any federal commitment about the levies. I haven't heard about any larger plan.
We have a leader who speaks broadly about goals and commitments. When willing, he's put all his power behind ramming things through congress (medicare prescription drug bill, tax cuts, war, patriot act). If he slapped a "Rebuilding America's Pride" label on a rebuilding new orleans bill he could use his power to muscle it through congress. but he hasn't and it's unlikley he will do it. |
|
| i love horsebeater.... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
17:15 7.11.06 |
BUT, my man, let's be clear:
What got my dander up was your most recent post (before mine) in which you stated, as follows:
1) You crystallized the pro-rebuilding argument as follows:
"We need to spend $300 billion so that people can get a cool vibe back."
2) You then compared it -- and I could only take what you wrote as a pretty direct comparison -- to iraq:
"I mean, spending $291 million to depose a dictator and promote democracy (albeit a flawed democracy with serious security issues and potential civil war problems) is just wrong."
3) And then you contrasted the two, even more succinctly:
"But spending $300 billion to promote coolness in the American South... why NOT spending that much is a travesty."
----
yes, we all jump all over you. it's true. but as a strong proponent of jumping all over folks, it's with the implicit understanding that you don't take offense.
---
I think the anger, which you feel, is simple: There's a disaster. The federal government doesn't perform so great, to put it delicately. Fine. What does Bush do? He stages a gigantic photo op, and makes the following statement:
"And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives..."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050915-8.html
Now, part of me says this is just something a President has to say to a grieving nation. And maybe it was all fluff. And maybe I shouldn't have taken it at face value. But it seemed to me that, for whatever reason (political or kindness, or more likely a combination of both) the die was cast. And, now, like so many fucking times with this administration, what is said and what is done is separated by a mile wide gulf.
And it isn't just a political issue. If you classified every false or not quite truthful statement uttered by a politician, it would be impossible to categorize them. However, at least with respect to the modern republican party, it seems that they are incapable of saying what they mean. And by that I mean that -- and I tried to underscore this above -- there are very good reasons for saying NOLA should not be rebuilt. I don't agree with them, but HB hits them (ignoring the "elitist/hipster" insinuations that incongrously pepper a lot of them) and makes his case.
However, with this administration, the "plain talkers", you don't get that. You get an opportunistic press conference, a lot of money thrown around, no apparent plan, and a seemingly rudderless operation - all of which is more than enough to cause doubt on the original motivations and present intentions.
And, since HB brought up Iraq, I'll say it: the two do have parallels. I just described them.
Mock the hipster left all you want. But it wears its heart and its goals on its sleeves. A lot of it is silly. Even more of it is unworkable. But when it takes a position, for better or worse, it seems to be a whole hell of lot more honest and truthful than what's coming from the Bush white house. And, in light of the political condition, that is saying an awful lot.
So, as always, all apologies, HB.
|
|
| federal individual income taxe |
| posted by: horsebeater |
16:13 7.11.06 |
... I should have clarified that individual income taxes took in $800 billion. That excludes corporate, which took in about $200 billion and other taxes.
The numbers wouldn't skew that much if you included them, since corporate taxes often get passed on through higher prices, but probably would effect the rich more than the poor. |
|
| as far as squissy goes... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
16:05 7.11.06 |
I feel like I'm in bizarro world. I am accused of parroting bush and believing things solely "because Bush said so" and having no inquisitive grey matter or whatever. Did you notice that this thread started 10 months ago when I ATTACKED Bush's policy on New Orleans? He wanted to rebuild New Orleans full scale and all of Congress was chiming in. I questioned whether that made sense.
But, y'know, it's fun to attack republicans for being unthinking followers and not cool liberal individualists, so let's just make that argument and ignore things like facts.
...
i am glad squissy is for a "serious debate needed/needs to happen and a comprehensive plan" that considers "environmental realities" should be developed. Who isn't for this?
Of course, he wants that, and he also wants the federal government to rebuild 80% of the city (he graciously notes back on 9/22 that we can skip rebuilding some of the poor parts because many of those people probably won't come back anyway... and while I realize that this is probably even a good idea, it's begging for a potshot so here goes... what a convenient way to get rid of a chunk of the underclass), but of course when rebuilding you have to make sure they don't lose a bit of the culture and if they don't do it right then his hatred for Bush will pass right through 10 and go to a spinal tappish 11.
I'm not saying bush has done things successfully, but if you want to teach me or argue something, then make an argument or link to some analysis. Taking the Judge's letter and posting it was pretty fucking effective. you made a point on that one and made me think "gee... it seems like the feds might be screwing up New Orleans." I can be pretty damn receptive to "bush is incompetent" arguments, but when you ask him to do the impossible and he doesn't measure up, you aren't making much of a point.
********
The dems like to make the argument, and it is a valid one, that people should have been asked to pay for the war in iraq with increased taxes and that then people would have at least felt its economic costs and then they would have had to determine if they still supported the war. They rightly argued that bush's "war for free" was crappy policy and designed to keep public support higher than it otherwise would have been.
Can we do that for New Orleans? Federal income taxes took in $800 billion last year. If we really wanted to pay for Katrina fully and fund the whole $300 billion, then raise everyone's taxes need to go up 37.5% (which is 300/800).
So if you paid $10K in federal taxes last year, you'd pay $3,750 more to rebuild new orleans. If you paid $20K in federal taxes last year, you'd pay $7,500 to rebuild new orleans.
My share would be at least $6,000. We are not talking peanuts here. That is an awful lot to ask for a city I've never been to.
|
|
| errr.... |
| posted by: publius |
15:41 7.11.06 |
| that was supposed to be in the "plea to horsebeater" thread... |
|
| after reading hb's post on the |
| posted by: publius |
15:40 7.11.06 |
i wish i'd posted this another day...while i still revile the republican party and think hb is far too good to associate himself with them, today more than most the fort feels like a whack horsebeater on the peenie-a-thon, which is, as everyone will undoubtedly agree, unfair and the not the point (it would all be so different if it weren't for that republican thing).
plus i'm scared that if all hb catches is dumptrucks full of shit he'll disappear himself from the fort, perhaps this time for good.
and we absolutely don't want that.
so i apologize for (needlessly) jumping on the whack hb thread...the above email was just too easy...
now about that republican thing... |
|
| reply to simpli |
| posted by: horsebeater |
15:27 7.11.06 |
i really fucking wish that in responses to posts about new orleans i wouldn't get jumped on for my position on the minimum wage when, frankly, i don't even fucking have one, and don't ever recall posting it here. Raise it a bit, keep it the same, within a reasonable range, I don't fucking care. But when convenient for members of the fort, I get to transform into "everyrepublican" and be held accountable for bill frist's sins.
but point by point...
(1) My point in Iraq vs. New Orleans was not to begin an intricate debate about whether Iraqi war costs were 320 billion or 291 billion or 337 billion. wow, squissy, you really got me on that one. damn.
My point isn't that there aren't differences between Iraq and New Orleans. I don't recall arguing "Iraq and New Orleans" are the exactly the same in every detail, but simpli, thank you for attacking that paper tiger. Great job.
My point is that many on the democratic side (and I think here on the fort) have argued against the war as a collossal waste of money among other things, and have talked quite a bit about all of the wonderful things that money could do here at home (remember john kerry's complaint about opening fire stations in iraq and closing them in boston or wherever it was?). My point was the simple one that $300 billion is a lot of fucking money and you can do a lot of shit with it.
The dems have argued that there is a lot of good shit they could do with an extra $300 billion when discussing the costs of the Iraq war.
Isn't all that good shit you identified as being more worthwhile than Iraq also more worthwhile than rebuilding New Orleans?
(2) The "old canard" that the federal government can't do anything right. I've never argued that the feds can't do anything right. Some things are perfect for government intervention: militaries, police & fire, road building / maintenance, post offices, antitrust laws, necessary regulations. I don't mind the "delivery" part of public utilities being gov't owned and operated. I could go on ad nauseum.
I am a conservative and necessarily think that gov't goes too far, but I bet I'd agree with 75% or 80% of the programs out there. I'm not a crazed libertarian.
But I'm saying when you get to REALLY COMPLICATED things, the feds are often a spectacular failure. Does anyone think federal involvement in health care or education or energy policy or crime or the "war on poverty" has worked?
I think the feds are really good at certain things, generally easy things, and shitty at tough things.
Now which is rebuilding a city from the ground up more like? Solving the problem of poverty or delivering the fucking mail?
Simpli, who gets to pick what programs to tout, and chooses 9, and he picks...
... social security, which dems and the gop both admit is in complete crisis. social security IS a success in that it was a successful senior citizen anti-poverty program. Of course, when folks like Newt suggest that maybe it should go back to being a much more limited less universe program, they get crucified, and probably would be shouted down by much of the fort, but...
... the rail system? Really? For chrissake I hope you don't mean passenger rails and amtrak, which is a giant money pit. How does the federal government run the rest of the rail system? you mean the great successes in practically enslaving asian immigrants? that great success?
... the minimum wage? I have no idea how this is a success or what this success has done. What has the minimum wage done? It's impact on the economy hasn't been that great, even in its heydey.
... weekends? I think labor unions should get the credit for that.
... integration? yes... it was cool when the federal government solved the race relation problem in the 1960's... what? they didn't?
So 5 of your 9 examples aren't very impressive.
(3) This is offensive.
I think the federal government would be bad at something, like taking responsibilities for rebuilding an entire american city from the ground up (a city that had massive problems to begin with), and this means that I am against all federal laws regulations whatsoever. That's a logical leap.
Simpli: does your conspiracy-addled brain actually hallucinate me taking these positions before you attack me for things I didn't say? I'd appreciate not being called a "fucking idiot" anymore.
(4) I'm not sure what your point is with respect to the link.
The article proves that FEMA is very good at rushing emergency supplies to an area. Getting people ice, food, etc.
It also suggests that FEMA is very wasteful and does a crappy job at spending recovery funds.
I don't see how you reach the "people do a good job when their asses are on the line" point. The point I get from the article is that "people do a good job when they are saving lives and doing something simple and do a shitty job when the situation is no longer life threatening and they are doing something difficult."
*****************
|
|
| i agree that NOLA should not b |
| posted by: squisshy |
10:26 6.29.06 |
... see my posts on 9/22/05. There are environmental realities, and it would be close to criminal to let people move back to the areas that are most vulnerable to flooding. But I do think that the "fuck rebuilding new orleans" train of thought is just crazy -- it is essentially forsaking an entire city, and a unique and special one (in my opinion) at that. This is why I've always thought that a serious debate needed/needs to happen and a comprehensive plan developed. The environmental realities need to be considered, flooded areas need to be rebuilt smartly (i.e. probably not the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, with some wetlands regeneration allowed and better flood controls implemented) with affordable housing, etc., taken into account. Is this a huge project? Definitely. Can "the market" coordinate such a redevelopment adequately? Definitely not.
But what is most telling about the whole sorry saga is the Administration's response. Note that there was NO debate as to what would be the best way to tackle this seemingly insurmountable problem. There was NO plan developed. Rather, Bush was content to stage-manage his pledge to help, then throw money at the problem ($2000 debit cards for all the victims! Good luck, ya'll!) and let "the market" take care of everything. Again, not surprisingly, this "plan," developed out of political necessity after no debate, resulted in massive fraud and waste, while the city of New Orleans dies a slow death. Meanwhile, the Administration CANNOT, MUST NOT admit that there might be a place for federal oversight here if the job is ever to get done in a way that makes sense, as that would put the lie to that most beloved of all Republican myths -- that the federal government cannot do anything right and must not "interfere" with the glorious functioning of "the market."
The NOLA situation is similar to the Iraq war in one way -- it shows the incredible arrogance and incompetence of this administration. No plan developed, no debate conducted ... well, I'm through with this topic. You all know my thoughts on this; I apologize, HB, for getting personal in my last post. |
|
| rebuild it |
| posted by: ludwig |
08:11 6.29.06 |
Is what happened to NO a unique catastrophe that plagues a city destined not to last or is it part and parcel of a larger ill?
Yesterday I watched from my office as the Schuykill jumped its banks, flooded a parking lot and started to move up a street towards my office. That was a minor problem. But in Trenton, the city is running low on fresh water because high water in the Deleware forced the city to shut down its water purification plant. In DC, the IRS building flooded as did a big portion of the metro.
Why?
I don't know for sure, but you can't deny that there has been a lack of investment in infrastructure over the last 20 years or so. Bridges crumble, levies don't get built high enough, pumps don't get replaced, etc. the discourse among the two parties has spiralled down in to a competition where they boast who cut taxes more (and declare that government is the problem). This prevents bold initiatives - like the interstate highway system - and solid planning - like putting $$ towards other worthy initiatives (railways, etc.). |
|
| well...uh....yeah...but.... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
23:56 6.28.06 |
i've been mulling this little flurry in my head all night (ok. that's a lie) and i'm not sure i want to jump in or not.
because this isn't about new orleans...it's about the whole fucking set-up we've got going.
really.
To Squishy, I say this:
You've got to face facts. I was down there, too, last week. And when you look at the totality of the whole situation, it isn't clear that NOLA should be fully rebuilt. I hate to say that, truly. But from what I could see, it's pretty clear that that place had seen better, more important, days well before Katrina. Plus, the environmental situation is abyssmal.
Did you know that the Mississippi "wants to" head straight south up near Baton Rouge, but that the Army Corp. of Engineers is basically forcing it to take a hard right so it goes through Baton Rouge and NOLA? Obviously, you know that much of the area devastated was never "supposed" to be built upon in the first place. Now, there's ways around this, of course. But the bigger question is, why rebuild a place that's only going to get demolished by the *real* Cat 5 storm of the century direct hit (which Katrina was not...)? This is doubly true when one considers how dysfunctional much of the places that were destroyed really are (our intro to the Lower 9th was a guy in a smashed up car in the middle of the street with his head on the steering wheel....everyone went about their business, we called 911 and stopped, whereupon the man calmly told Izzy to go about his business and that his "friends were one their way." Now, don't get me wrong. This is incredibly distressing. And if somebody told me the same thing about Canton (or, HB, Cleveland), they would be making a pretty good point (that is, before I killed them). But the economic/environmental realities are very real. And they're hard to ignore. And if they are taken into consideration, I can't imagine NOLA will ever be put entirely back together. By the way, did you know Galveston was Texas' biggest city until the hurricane/flood in the early 20th century?
To HB, I say this:
How can you be so fucking idiotic sometimes? I don't even know where to begin.
1) Most importantly, how is that you can't see the difference between $300B for Iraq and $300 B for NOLA? One of these kids is not like the others, one of these kids is doing their own thing. Here's a hint: one of these plans would more or less work, one of them has already failed. One of these plans would involve Americans helping Americans. One of these plans would involve Americans propping up a government that couldn't last two weeks without us. One of these plans would be debated, discussed, overseen, and transparently implemented. One of these plans has been cloaked in dis/mis information, half-truths, knowing lies, faulty plans, and false claims. One of these plans would save American lives. One of these plans is costing American lives.
2) Perhaps as important: how could fall for the old right wing canard that the federal government is full of waste and graft and can't do anything right. Let's go through a checklist of things the feds have fucked up: the highway system. the rail system. integration. the minimum wage. 40 hour work weeks and weekends. social security.
food and drug standards. the tva. the finest damn court system in the fucking world.
hell, i could go on and on. But if you're going to through out the bath water, you'd better be prepared to chuck the baby as well. Did you know that every major plank of the early-20th century SOCIALIST party has been implemented. And who do you think fought them every step of the way? The people who had this wonderful view that only Capitalism works. Fine, you're right. Only capitalism works...for you. And it works pretty well, by itself, for all of us on the fort. But last I checked Americans look out for each other. And if that's the case, to say that Capitalism alone gets the job done is a fucking joke.
3) Just as important: let's go back in time to a world where your idea wins out (cue trippy music here): There is no minimum wage. The food your kids eat probably has lice and shit and wood chips in it. Of course, you have no way of knowing because nothing is marked as such. You can travel on highways and get electricity (and do so "more cheaply" than you would under the preent system), but you redneck buddies from home don't have the cash for either. Blacks would be able to vote in Cleveland, Ohio, but not Cleveland, Mississippi. You'd make more than you do now, but you'd spend as much on bodyguards and razor wire: a hungry man (and there'd be many more) is an angry man. If your uncle got his hands chopped off at work he'd have no choice but to become a professional apple salesman. Do you know who prevents this from happening? The federal-fucking-government, that's who. And do you know how they do it? Through the work of bureaucrats, that's how. Nameless, faceless folks who make sure that corporations play fair, government works (or at least sort of works) and everything is as straight and on the level as it can be.
4) A close second: And this I love: don't blame Bush, everything the feds do turns to shit.
Oh yeah? Just read this: http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000246.htm
Isn't that odd? FEMA worked great? They were pro-active. Everything was coordinated.
In a sense, 4) proves you right and wrong. It proves you right in the sense that when people's asses are on the line, they perform. Even the feds. It's proves you wrong when you say that the federal government can't perform superbly. and certainly more superbly than the TWO DAY LONG (it was cancelled immediately with very little comment) plan of just giving cash straight to people:
http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/katrina/stories/090905ccKatrinacadebitcard.77c7b173.html
TO BOTH HB AND SQUISHY: you both practice a brand of naivete. and you both better settle down and shake hands. but more importantly, one of you envisions a government that cares, that helps, that does good. and one you has given up even trying.
i reckon you both know whose back i've got on that point.
|
|
| all that is being proven |
| posted by: squisshy |
17:00 6.28.06 |
is that this PARTICULAR government -- the Bush Administration -- is a bunch of lying, incompetent morons. Setting aside the lies about Iraq, the Administration lied plenty about New Orleans, culminating in the President's laughable vow to rebuild and the associated implication that (contrary to Kanye West's and many others' belief) he actually cared about the displaced persons who lost everything. Of course, that promise was a highly stage-managed affair (LIVE from Jackson Square in New Orleans' historic French Quarter!), made ONLY after Bush's approval rating took a beating as the entire world witnessed the nation's disgraceful response to the storm.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050916/ai_n15714022
Of course, the more cynical (or rational) among us knew that he didn't actually care, that he had no real plan to accomplish this massive project, and that he and the rest of his incompetent buddies would fail miserably (see my post on 9/22/05 above). Bush's Republican cronies in the House shot down the only reasonably well-thought-out plan to oversee this effort, instead essentially throwing money at the problem in a very scattershot fashion, with very little federal oversight. Predictably, graft and inactivity have undermined this effort, but that wasn't so hard to see as a possibility way back when. That is EXACTLY why many liberals were calling for a larger program with more federal oversight. So, let me get this straight -- AMOTHER miserable failure by this clown now indicates nothing about HIS failings but is actually an indictment of the effectiveness of our entire federal government? You know, I can recall past examples of our federal government undertaking large projects that worked out pretty well (e.g. TVA, although in retrospect that probably caused a lot of environmental damage), at least in terms of building and remaking the physical environment in which we live.
Finally, I guess I'll just say (oops, wait, I guess I'll have to apologize in advance for the upcoming bile -- that apparently makes it all good) that I have seen you described as a "smart" conservative, and if that is true I really worry about the future of this country. First, you describe the potential rebuilding of NOLA as meaning only that "people can get a cool vibe there" and "promoting coolness in the American south." Yes, I myself emphasized the amazing musical heritage of the city as I feel like it is something worth preserving, but can you admit there's a lot more to it than that? I mean, what about the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons? What about the THIRD WORLD conditions right now in a major American city (and port). What about the horrible crime that is beginning to surface again in the city given the miles and miles of rotting, demolished buildings (in some of which they are still finding remains).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606180242jun18,1,3096252.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
What about the epidemic of depression and suicide for those residents who remain, given that they have so clearly been abandoned by the country that your asswipe President claimed cared so much about them?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/us/21depress.html?_r=1&ex=1151035200&en=6ac775bef6977689&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin
Does any of that factor into the calculation? I mean, have you been to new orleans since katrina? I have, and it is a DISGRACE -- an entire city left to die by the government. Nah, you're right -- it's all about a bunch of eastern hipster slackers who want to check out good tunes. (Although I give you props for admitting that you want to let the city die; Bush is too much of a lying coward to do even that, preferring to make grand pronouncements and act incompetently so that conservatives can later point to his incompetence as evidence of ineffective federal government).
Meanwhile, you describe the war in Iraq as spending "$291 million to depose a dictator and promote democracy." My God, I think my head might explode. FIRST, if you want to discuss the war let's describe the costs accurately: According to the Congressional Research Service, monies appropriated for Iraq so far have been $261 billion as of April '06. Assuming Congress approved or will approve the supplemental FY2006 appropriation that figure rises to $320 billion.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Additionally, according to CBS News (last night), the MONTHLY costs to repair and replace equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq will be $17 billion, stretching long after the miserable experience ends.
Now let's talk about the rationalization for this war. You claim it's all about deposing a dictator and promoting democracy. I'll set aside the obvious contradictions with the early justifications -- and the fact that former republican administrations armed and coddled this dictator, and play tit-for-tat with your bullshit explanation about what rebuilding new orleans is all about: we could just as easily describe this war as a $320 billion effort to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians; irreparably damage America's international standing as a result; put our armed services in harm's way such that more than 2,500 troops die; put our armed men and women in an incredibly difficult situation such that massacres of innocent Iraqi civilians and concomitant murder charges against American GIs result (further damaging our international standing); and creating a training ground for terrorists, just as Al-Qaeda apparently wanted us to do all along (see simpli's war post for the article link).
yet, in the magical Republican world, these facts don't matter. no, no, no -- it's all about creating democracy, because Bush says so! that is why i took the cheap shot of saying if you're a smart Republican i fear for this country -- there doesn't seem to be an inquisitive cell in your gray matter. Rebuilding new orleans is bad because the government can't do squat. (Why is that? Because conservative think tanks say so! Capitalism is infallible despite the concepts of externalities and public goods!). The war in Iraq is all about democracy, and it will all work out ok! ... ugh. well, this screed has gone on long enough. I realize I've violated the First Rule of Tentfort, but frankly HB, your post really pissed me off. And yes, it did make you seem like an asshole, just as I'm sure I seem like an asshole now. |
|
| you see... what happens is tha |
| posted by: horsebeater |
14:53 6.28.06 |
... the less i post, the more the asshole parts of my personality build up (my wife would argue that they leak out with her plenty, but that's another matter), and so when I finally make it back to the fort to post, it just wells up and bursts out of me.
So sorry for the bile above, but I still wonder why we should rebuild for all fo the reasons I posted months ago.
In fact, isn't the federal government proving in spectacular fashion that building a city from the ground up is far far far beyond their capacity and competence? Calls for the feds to take over are something of a joke it seems to me.
More broadly, isn't this the point of capitalism? That governments, if left to handle this stuff, particularly when the person working on it is a bureaucrat in another city, fuck this shit up royally?
|
|
| no izzi... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
14:21 6.28.06 |
... we can't let New Orleans rot. We need to spend $300 billion so that people can get a cool vibe back.
I mean, spending $291 million to depose a dictator and promote democracy (albeit a flawed democracy with serious security issues and potential civil war problems) is just wrong.
But spending $300 billion to promote coolness in the American South... why NOT spending that much is a travesty.
Izzi, you should be ashamed of yourself.
(support for $300 billion figure: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/09/16/special_reports/hurricanekatrina/18_13_449_15_05.txt) |
|
| Is this a ridiculous article o |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
09:37 6.27.06 |
I'll let you decide:
http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/uptotheminute.cfm?recid=4912&userID=0&referer=dailyUpdate
though some of the quotes in here are absolutely money. |
|
| Went to NO last weekend |
| posted by: isidorus |
00:38 6.26.06 |
and I have to say that the basic thrust of the 5th Circuit Judge's memo above is still true, ten months later. Much of the city is still a complete mess. The lower ninth ward is a spectacular sight, completely devasted yet basically untouched since september, but it's the less dramatic areas that are more disturbing - there are vast residential chunjks of the city that at first glance seem okay but on closer inspection are vacant and rotting.
after NO we went out to the atchafalaya swamp and it's pretty clear that mcphee's thesis is right - the mississippi wants to go through there, not through baton rouge and new orleans, and eventually it will. maybe the river should be allowed to take its natural course, and NO can shrink down to under 100,000 or so residents and become a theme park for (as our friend Will put it) sleazy tourism. Sure it's preposterous to propose but another future for new orleans is difficult to imagine. |
|
| passing on a memo .... |
| posted by: squisshy |
11:51 2.17.06 |
from a 5th Circuit judge to the rest of the court, from one (like most of the court) who was nominated by a diehard Republican -- definitely *not* a raging liberal. please take note of what longtime residents of the area believe need to happen for things to get better.
but on the plus side for the camp of "screw rebuilding new orleans," HB, it looks like exactly that will happen courtesy of the Bush Administration's inaction and broken promises ... and I say that despite the recent allocation of more money. while that is nice, a problem of this magnitude requires real thought and innovative solutions, not money and "let the market fix it." unfortunately Bush just cannot think that way.
SUBJECT: New York Times Article re New Orleans Restaurants
Thanks to Judge **** for circulating the subject article yesterday. The title, however, contains a typo: It should have read New Orleans Restaurants, Unsung to Famous, Are [MIS]-Leading a Revival. I offer the following as my personal opinions only.
Except for the French Quarter, CBD, Algiers (on the Westbank), Garden District, and Uptown, the remaining 80-plus per cent of New Orleans is only marginally different today from the way it was two days after Katrina’s landfall. Most estimate that the part of the devastated acreage that lies outside the celebrated and repeatedly- telecast Lower Ninth Ward —— destroyed, uncleared of most debris, and mostly without street lights, traffic lights, grocery stores, dry cleaners, drug stores, or occupants —— totals 30 to 50 times the acreage of the Lower Ninth! It’s now almost six months since Katrina, yet these many square miles of the original devastation sit there, essentially untouched.
Even worse, the plain truth is that nothing significant will change for New Orleans until the executive and legislative branches of the federal government get their collective acts together, start looking forward for solutions instead of backward for blame, and fully fund and orchestrate a massive, comprehensive clean-up and restoration effort. Most importantly, the sine qua non for all that is genuine flood protection. Real and full recovery simply cannot happen here without a multi-billion dollar flood protection system comprising viable levees, massive floodgates, several canal closures, etc.
Just ask yourselves, who will buy, who will rebuild, who will finance the as-yet uncommenced “revival” without first receiving dependable assurance that a repeat of the flooding produced by Katrina really will be made preventable? Then ask, who can possibly finance a dependable protection system of that magnitude but the federal fisk? Certainly not a politically feckless City or State that are devoid of tax bases, and certainly not the private sector.
Whatever else we might think about CNN, Anderson Cooper, the NYT, et al, they are the few remaining voices in the wilderness still trying to prevent a pandemic of “sympathy amnesia,” both inside the Beltway in Washington and throughout the country. Only if kept in high visibility daily will the harsh lessons learned from Katrina translate into an effective master contingency plan capable of dealing with the next national calamity. After all, virtually nothing learned from 9/11 was ever translated into such a plan.
Each of us should seize on every opportunity that comes along to let it be known that the rosy musings of the Chamber of Commerce/City and State tourism and business inducement committees/Hotel and Motel Associations, et al that portray real movement toward reviving and rebuilding the City are the Mother of All Urban Myths. It just ain’t so! Like the reports of Mark Twain’s death, this revival is “greatly exaggerated.” |
|
| here's another |
| posted by: squisshy |
13:58 2.10.06 |
on brownie's testimony today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/national/nationalspecial/10cnd-katrina.html?hp&ex=1139634000&en=10e4a8e98150cfe3&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/10/katrina.brown/index.html
the interesting thing in these are the details about communications to and from Harriet Miers on potential claims of executive privilege. |
|
| yeah, there was supposed to be |
| posted by: squisshy |
13:21 2.10.06 |
here it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html
|
|
| Click on the second part of th |
| posted by: spacehippie |
12:59 2.10.06 |
| After the "target=_blank>" part. That worked for me. Also, both links are for the same story. Was there something else, squisshy? |
|
| i'm having trouble getting the |
| posted by: horsebeater |
12:34 2.10.06 |
|
|
| incompetence, duplicity ... th |
| posted by: squisshy |
11:03 2.10.06 |
I don't know what to say about this first article, other than that incompetence appears to have been everywhere, but that the administration must have or should have known about the extent of the disaster in new orleans before they had claimed to be aware of it (i.e. Tuesday). that guy bahamonde was apparently the only competent person on the scene. but it seems that brownie actually did more to alert the administration than had previously been known.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020801826.html
target=_blank>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020801826.html
and now we're starting to get the inevitable protests, as people realize that the administration really is not going to come through on its promises to rebuild the city. (though i do like the "gumbo city" comment).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020801826.html
target=_blank>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020801826.html
I really do worry that this is going to end very badly, like with rioting by the many people displaced by the storm who have lost everything and realize that the government is not capable of helping them get back on their feet. no money nor will to do so. |
|
| the 200k giveaway |
| posted by: ludwig |
08:52 9.23.05 |
reminds me of the chappele show skit about what would happen if the government gave reparations to all the black people. Hilarious.
I understand HB's comments of fiscal prudence, but I agree with squishy that New Orleans was valuable for commercial reasons as well as cultural. Would I argue to rebuild Tampa or Houston? No. Those are real cities but they have no intrinsic charm or culture. It's true. Like the rich, people from New Orleans are different from you and me. If you haven't been there, if you haven't spent weeks at a time there then ou don't understand. It's a frustrating argument for you to hear and me to make. But having spent months for work in every corner of Louisiana I can say that Baton Rouge can never be what New Orleans was (could be again?) and Northern Louisiana is a cancer no different from Texas or Missippi. It's New Orleans and the real Cajun County (both the bayou and the prairie cajuns of Mamou, Ville Platte, etc.).
Squishy makes a very good point about NO and race relations. Yes, the city was stratified economically and segregated to some extent, but there was an interaction between all races that was unique.
|
|
| in my opinion |
| posted by: squisshy |
18:33 9.22.05 |
nola will never be the same, which depresses me. and i'm certainly not advocating turning it into an amusement park for rich white folks -- that would, i think, be the worst of all worlds. ... but i do think there's got to be a middle ground, and that letting it go entirely is extreme and unwise. i would think a sensible plan would include housing vouchers for the many who don't want to return, and more sensible building/planning/environmental planning for the city's eventual rebirth. allowing the wetlands to regenerate (while taking a really long time), for example, would be as effective as moving the city inland (which is a practical impossibility), given that you're essentially allowing the land to move back out into the gulf.
and talk about a red herring - the point about giving everybody $200 grand (i read the slate article before your post), while an effective rhetorical point, is absolutely absurd and unworkable. Can you imagine if the federal govt. up and said "uh, yeah, we'd like to give $200 grand to everyone who was displaced by the storm - everyone who now has no ID, no means of proving their identity, etc." gimme a break. and as far as social policy goes, i think it's a safe bet that you'd have serious issues a few years after handing out the dough. plus, according to interviews I have seen, many of the nola displaced do want to return, and it seems to me that a combination of housing vouchers, infrastructure spending, and better planning/building would help out those folks as well as those who want to leave (with the help of a housing voucher). the bush plan, by the way, is to build giant mobile home parks while the city is being rebuilt.
Anyway, i really don't think the point here is to save something i think is special, although the point of my first post was simply to note that it was strikingly clear how little you know about the city given the tone of your posts. it's not just rich white folks that love it -- rich and poor, black and white, a LOT of people in that area know what a great place nola is, despite its problems. the devastation gives us an opportunity to ameliorate some of those problems while saving the city not only for its residents, but for the rest of us as well. do i think it will happen? no. not with bush in office ... though this is such a large undertaking that i'm not sure who i'd feel comfortable with at the reins.
and yeah, simpli, you shoulda visited ... |
|
| Question... |
| posted by: simplicissimus |
18:08 9.22.05 |
Having *almost* gone to NOLA about six times (two girlfriends, one last-minute new year's invite, and one deposition...so it's four, actually) in my life, I ask this question:
Like the NYC resident who moved there on 9/12/01, once I do go will I forever be reminded that I wasn't there, that I didn't see it, when it mattered most?
just wondering. |
|
| you can't have it all... |
| posted by: horsebeater |
17:46 9.22.05 |
Everyone wants to decry the poverty of New Orleans, but priorities get revealed here when you say you favor doing the rebuilding of New Orleans in order to rescue its culture instead of actually helping the actual poor people who, for a few days, were the focus of all of this. I'm not saying you have to pick the poor over the culture. I might not. But I do think you have to admit what you're doing.
And the culture thing is tricky. Ludwig's point is correct. People are an important aspect of the culture. And rebuilding New Orleans because some white people like jazz isn't very compelling to me. "Rebuild New Orleans because I had a really great time there once" isn't either (I'm not trying to cheap shot publius/squisshy or saying that they were making this argument... but that's the argument I feel like I'm hearing sometimes outside of the 'fort.)
I don't mean to denigrate this stuff. Whether people have a good time or not in a place DOES matter as to whether it should be kept around (bye bye Youngstown), and this factor often depends upon whether a city has a culture of its own and a feel all its own and is a truly special place. And I'll take on faith that New Orleans has that. But there is something weird about taxing people that live throughout the whole country a good chunk of change in order to let New Orleans have its "feel." It's like 2% of the country gets to actually live INSIDE the amusement park where they shoot off fireworks every night, and now that its burned down, the rest of us are required to pay to rebuild it, because they let us all visit every now and again. All I'm saying is that maybe we'll give you a few less roller coasters this time around. I'll question why we're doing this when the entire amusement park police force is corrupt or incompetent.
Culture is portable these days. Jazz and cajun cooking will remain on the planet if we don't rebuild (again, I'm not trying to mock NO culture and I realize it's more than that, but a lot of what else it is is portable too). And New Orleans didn't have its feel because it was in the exact geographic place that it's in. There's no reason to rebuild the most dangerous, and below-sea level, parts of town. There's no reason not to move it 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 miles if that makes it a rational place to live, instead of a silly and dangerous one. Requiring us to rebuild in nearly the exact same place feels like people channelling the worst of conservatives. It's either treating The City as a Godlike entity that must be worshipped: "We must rebuild it exactly to make the Spirit of the City happy." Or maybe it's "If New Orleans isn't rebuilt exactly, then the terrorists... I mean Mother Nature... wins."
And squisshy seems to recognize that. His post is something less than "let's totally rebuild New Orleans." It's "let's rebuild a smaller New Orleans" that can "weather the next storm." All I'm saying is that if you can't do it so it can weather the next storm in a pretty darn cost-effective way --- and maybe you can't --- we need o look at whether we should be doing it at all, and whether we can't be giving this money to help the poor (or for AIDS or debt relief in Africa, etc). And when squisshy segues into talking about rebuilding "with levees and flood gates" I start getting worried and wondering whether this is really worth it.
Ultimately, I'm just floored a bit as to how people will spend $200 billion without blinking. I mean, the Dems have called that amount ENORMOUS, since it's about what Bush has spent on Iraq. And the Dems have made arguments that when spending that much, you have to be very careful about what you're doing. Why can't those argument apply now? Why has this happened with no debate at all?
*******
p.s. the port argument strikes me as a total red herring. I'm certain the port and port facilities can be rebuilt while only rebuilding a fraction of the city (and on high ground at that). let's not pretend like the only option is to totally rebuild, and if I don't agree to that, then the port disappears.
*******
p.p.s. Alas, I did never make it to New Orleans. I often said that the only 3 cool cities I still needed to visit in North America were Montreal, Seattle and New Orleans. |
|
| i been readin' ... |
| posted by: squisshy |
16:14 9.22.05 |
just not writin'. good to be back ... perhaps i'll drag my fingers across the keyboard more often.
|
|
| welcome back squisshy... |
| posted by: publius |
15:05 9.22.05 |
i figured this topic would eventually get you back to the fort. glad it did...i certainly remember a few hazy nights with you in new orleans (and let me tell you, jacques imo's in new york doesn't even qualify for comparison with the original).
hope all is well in your world. |
|
| hb, your posts indicate quite |
| posted by: squisshy |
14:43 9.22.05 |
that you've never been to nawlins; you don't even need to say it. If you had been, you'd be literally crying that this incredible, heady mix of history, art, music, and cuisine has essentially been destroyed, instead of figuratively crying about how much rebuilding is going to cost you personally. and I'm not talking about the neon lights on bourbon street, I'm talking about the oaks on st. charles, the johnny v. trio at tipitinas, and poboys at domelise's. to lose new orleans is to lose an incredibly unique and vibrant place -- one of the few american cities that actually has its own feel. certainly, the city has numerous problems, crime and poverty among them. just as certainly, the battle may have been already lost (which is what saddens me most) given that many displaced residents will probably not go back, and as ludwig notes, the people make the culture.
but does that mean we should throw up our hands and say "fuck new orleans" (and "fuck one of the most important ports in the U.S., along with the oil and gas infrastructure in the area")? it seems to me that the more sensible option is to rebuild while remaining aware of the mistakes of the past and the problems of the city - i.e., not to rebuild exactly the way things were (and wait for the Category 5 to wipe out the city again), but rebuild on a smaller scale, with less construction in the most flood-prone areas, with a more comprehensive plan to allow the city to weather the next big storm (i.e., one that not only includes levees and flood gates, but restoration of the coastal wetlands that have historically protected the area). Because many of the city's poorest residents will likely not return, the rebuilding effort could include more affordable housing dispersed throughout the higher-ground neighborhoods such that the city does not lose the cultural mixture that makes it so special. one thing i fear almost as much as the city dying a slow death is the city turning into a bourbon-street-style theme park of what it used to be.
challenging? yes. (and frankly i don't think the bush administration is anywhere near up to the task.) expensive? yes. but just to say "fuck new orleans" is not only unrealistic (given the importance of the port), but much more expensive than you indicate ... we'd all lose under that plan, because we'd lose new orleans itself. if you've never been, perhaps you will never be able to understand, but it is a special place. but hey, i guess we could all move out to the exurbs and meet up at the local Chili's -- right off the interstate -- every saturday. man, that would be sweet.
|
|
| ludwig |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:03 9.22.05 |
You can't have it both ways. If you want people to act responsibly, and enact good building codes, then you can't bail them out when they act irresponsibly as you've charged. I mean, what incentive does CAMA have to keep trying if they get to see that Mississippi can enact a shitty building code but if a hurricane knocks down their homes, the feds swoop in and rebuild it for them cost-free?
You say we must rebuild but that we should stop subsidizing flood insurance for everyone. But by rebuilding, we ARE their insurance, and its not just subsidized, it's FREE. |
|
| Someone is Reading Tentfort |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:00 9.22.05 |
| http://www.slate.com/id/2126715/ |
|
| I am arguing to rebuild |
| posted by: ludwig |
17:09 9.21.05 |
I think we must rebuild. We have no choice.
I like her argument that (a) people should be required to have flood insurance and (b) we should stop subsidizing flood insurance for everyone. I thought it was an interesting argument. |
|
| ludwig... i'm confused |
| posted by: horsebeater |
17:00 9.21.05 |
| applebaum is saying don't use federal funds to rebuild in the flood zones... I thought you were arguing the opposite. |
|
| good analysis of rebuilding in |
| posted by: ludwig |
16:09 9.21.05 |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001414.html |
|
| articles on problems for the l |
| posted by: ludwig |
07:53 9.21.05 |
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/092105/bus_smallfirms001.shtml
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/092105/sub_pending001.shtml
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/092105/new_repaircourt001.shtml |
|
| It's NO's placement |
| posted by: ludwig |
17:45 9.20.05 |
If you scrap NO, you scrap a lot of things, including the largest port i nthe US and the fifth largest port in the world. Where do you propose to put all that shipping? It can't go higher than Baton Rouge because Huey Long built a bridge in the 30's so low that it blocked sizable ships from passing north. He did this for the express purpose of preventing other states from dominating shipping. Thus, other bridges further north were built at the same height. So, we're stuck with new orleans for some time unless and until we repalce all those other bridges, build massive amounts of warehouses, re-route railroads, etc.
Now, HB, you place a lot of emphasis on money but very little on culture. Doesn't the nation value the very unique and valuable culture there? Now, granted, it might have been destroyed given that the people make the culture (and might not be returning). But shouldn't we put some value on that? All you see is the negative and the cold financial.
Also, I think New Orleans demise is not just a natural phenomena. It's the prodcut of southern state's fixation with small government, low taxes and under investment in everything from infrastructure to social services. Take small government - is it any wonder that the housing stock on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi was wiped out given that the State of Mississippi has no mandatory building code? Look at North Carolina - CAMA, the Coastal Area Management Agency sets forth very stringent building requirements for coastal property. As a result, a lot of houses (in an area prone to vicious hurricanes) survive hurricanes. Not so in Mississippi. It's "voluntary" buildign code allwoed an individual to put up whatever they wished. Big water comes ine - voila - the housing disappears. |
|
| correction |
| posted by: horsebeater |
16:01 9.20.05 |
| if you cut a $200,000 check to 500,000 people, you would spend $100 BILLION (half of the $200 billion proposed to be spent). |
|
| New Orleans |
| posted by: horsebeater |
15:58 9.20.05 |
If you're saying that the Mississippi River is a BIGGER problem for New Orleans than hurricanes, then...
... well, first, I'm pretty damn sure that you're wrong, in light of recent events
... but, second, if it's that true then why in the world would you suggest it should be rebuilt? I mean, the second biggest problem just wiped out the city. And it's got a bigger problem? If you're then willing to rebuild NO, do you draw the line anywhere? If a volcano erupts underneath Denver and wipes the city out, do we have to rebuild there?
You have to admit that there is a line to be drawn somewhere. We've built a city in an untenable place. When the city was built, most people thought that God controlled whether a hurricane struck them or not. When the city was built, they probably weren't even certain whether it was above or below sea level. Our understanding of science now lets us understand that we've built a city below sea level in a place subject to extreme weather conditions that, possibly can't be protected at all, and certainly can't be protected without exorbitant federal expenditures that the residents of the city themselves wouldn't be willing to bear alone if given the choice.
I have no problem with someone rebuilding their home if they want to. But I've recently figured out that I now personally bear between $5 and $10 out of every $1 billion spent by the federal government. So if the feds are contributing $200 billion to this, that means I have to give $1,000 and $2,000 to rebuild the streets of NO, a city I've never been to. Personally, I think it's a dumbfuck place to put a city. Frankly, I find it unfair. Move somewhere above fucking sea level.
Instead of spending $200 billion, you could just cut each of the 500,000 residents of NO a check for $200,000 AND YOU'D ONLY SPEND HALF OF THE $100 BILLION!!!!! So a family of five would become a millionaire.
Can someone tell me why rebuilding NO is a better idea??
***********
I certainly will be happy to jump on the "Don't Rebuild San Fran With TaxPayer Dollars" when it gets destroyed too.
*********
|
|
| the other article is on hawaii |
| posted by: ludwig |
18:02 9.19.05 |
| it's about volcanoes. The LA article leaves you with a really disturbing view of LA's expansion into the canyons and hills. |
|
| second on the mcphee.... |
| posted by: publius |
17:05 9.19.05 |
| i've been recommending "the control of nature" to all sorts of people since the storm (our very own rabelais among them). i haven't read much other mcphee, so don't have as strong an opinion of him as ludwig, but all three of the essays in that book (one of the others is on la, one is on something else...north carolina maybe?) are all worth checking out. |
|
| why rebuild anyplace? |
| posted by: ludwig |
16:18 9.19.05 |
Did the US abandon San Fran after the Eartquake during the world series? what about the LA earthquakes? Has it abandoned the coast of the Carolinas after each hurricane? Will it refuse to rebuild coastal Mississippi and coastal Alabama? No, it rebuilds those areas all the time. Why? Because a lot of wealthy white people live there. New Orleans is exceedingly poor and black and people don't want to pay to put them on their feet.
Yes, NO has its problems. But it deserves to be rebuilt. Indeed, this tragedy can serve to recreate the city.
The big problem with new orleans (and baton rouge) is not the coast. It's the river. But for (or because of) the Old River Control, it could jump its banks and join the Atchafalaya River with ease. this would leave Baton Rouge, New Orleans and the Port of New Orleans (the largest port in the US) without a river. That would (or will) be a problem.
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/oldriver.htm
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/LA3126/
Although I usually despise his writing, John McPhee has an excellent discussion/analysis of the issue in "The Control of Nature."
|
|
| and Let's not be too generous |
| posted by: horsebeater |
10:17 9.8.05 |
I don't think 2 articles could sum up my sentiments more:
Jack Shafer on not rebuilding New Orleans:
http://www.slate.com/id/2125810/
Steven Landsberg on not giving too much cash to people in New Orleans:
http://www.slate.com/id/2125822/
|
|
|
|
