Shame on you America

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by JohnW

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05329/612494.stm

In reply to Billcats remark about diverted funds. Here is a report from Anne Carns of the Wall Street Journal, a reasonably respectable publication. I would direct your attention, particularly, to paragraph four. But read the whole article, it is quite enlightening.

Interesting article. A quick read confirms what I had said earlier. No evidence in the article that funds earmarked for levee maintenance were diverted. Did the levee board branch out? Certainly. As the construction of marinas, etc., would directly affect the levee it may well have been appropriate. Not saying that they had their priorities straight, but I won't admit such a claim about most governmental bodies.

Thanks for the confirmation!

[LancYorkYankee]

SteelJack, Post #43, very well explained!

[JohnW]

Originally Posted by Billcat

If things are that fine in Florida and San Francisco, then how did the billions of dollars of damage done in those natural disasters come to pass?

Truth is, those buildings in Florida and San Francisco are built to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes of a given magnitude, just as the levees in New Orleans were built to a given level of protection.

If there is an objection to spending money to rebuild after one type of recurring natural disaster, then why not be consistent and avoid the expense of rebuilding after other types that also are likely to recur? If it is a waste of time and resource in one case, then it may well be in all these cases. I don't agree with that idea, because I think that it is worthwhile rebuilding Florida, San Francisco and, yes, New Orleans.

Just remind me, what was the year of the San Fransisco earthquake? Wasn't it just a hundred years ago? They have advanced a little in the building codes since then.

Many of the houses destroyed in Florida are what are called Mobile homes, in England they would probably be called pre-fabricated homes. These homes are, in the main, owned by what we call snowbirds who only come down here for the winter months from their main homes in the north. When conventional houses are destroyed, they are rebuilt to the new codes which give them a far better chance of withstanding a hurricane.

As I said. What is the point of re-building houses below sea level? All they have to do is move a few miles north and there's plenty of land above sea level to build on. It doesn't matter what standard you build the new houses to, there is no protection against sea water coming in if they are below the level of the sea. The whole area is reclaimed swampland. Not the best foundation for levees or houses.

Most of America is subject to some kind of disaster. Hurricanes in the south, tornados in Oklahoma, Kansas etc. Earthquakes in California. Terrible winters in the far north, especially near the great lakes. It's a matter of picking the fights you think you stand a chance in. To my mind, New Orleans is a fight from which to flee. Just my opinion of course.

[JohnW]

Originally Posted by Billcat

Interesting article. A quick read confirms what I had said earlier. No evidence in the article that funds earmarked for levee maintenance were diverted. Did the levee board branch out? Certainly. As the construction of marinas, etc., would directly affect the levee it may well have been appropriate. Not saying that they had their priorities straight, but I won't admit such a claim about most governmental bodies.

Thanks for the confirmation!

Yep, the airport will hold back the floodwaters, people can take shelter in the casinos, the parks will make nice swimming pools, and at least all the boats will all be smashed up in the same place.

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by JohnW

Just remind me, what was the year of the San Fransisco earthquake? Wasn't it just a hundred years ago? They have advanced a little in the building codes since then.

Many of the houses destroyed in Florida are what are called Mobile homes, in England they would probably be called pre-fabricated homes. These homes are, in the main, owned by what we call snowbirds who only come down here for the winter months from their main homes in the north. When conventional houses are destroyed, they are rebuilt to the new codes which give them a far better chance of withstanding a hurricane.

As I said. What is the point of re-building houses below sea level?

Let's get the facts:

The big San Fran earthquake was 1906. Most of the damage from the quake was not the result of buildings fall, it was from the fire that consumed the city due to ruptured gas mains. Also, many of San Francisco's buildings are older and are not built to a high standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_Sa...sco_earthquake

Let's not forget the 1989 San Fran earthquake, which was a strong (but not the BIG ONE, by any means) 7.1 on the Richter scale. That's at the small side of the major earthquake category. The 1906 quake is estimated to have been a magnitude 8.0, many times as powerful as 1989's quake. In 1989, the quake caused almost $3 billion in damage in San Fran proper, about twice that in total. A lot of the damage to buildings resulted from the liquefacton of soil, something that improved building techniques can't help. Perhaps this is another location we sould just walk away from?

Similarly, the Northridge quake of 1994 was only 6.7 on the scale. This falls into the category of a strong earthquake, but it was only a fraction of the size of the 1989 quake. However, it did $44 billion in damage, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of building was done in this area well after the San Fran quake of 1906 and with full awareness that the Los Angeles area was vulnerable. While I am sure that improved building techniques helped to lessen the damage, it's not a panacea.

Similarly, while mobile homes are particularly vulnerable to wind damage in hurricanes, many other buildings are also vulnerable. All one has to to to debunk the myth that most of hurricane damage is to mobile homes is simply to look at the damage done by Kristina in Biloxi and Pass Christian. Historically, an awful lot of the damge done by hurricanes (and the vast majority of lives lost) is not due to wind, but to the flooding associated with the huge storm surges. An argument not to rebuild in large portions of coastland Florida?

[JohnW]

Exactly, most damage is caused by flooding. Florida is not below sea level. Therefore, if it does flood the water can receed. New Orleans needs pumps to get rid of the water which just sits in the 'bowl' otherwise. Many of the pumps failed, probably due to lack of maintenance as the cash had been spent on a park or some damn thing. We are obviously not going to agree on this Billcat, so we may as well agree to disagree.

Personally, I would not live in New Orleans rent free. But, if people want build their houses there, who am I to try to stop them. However, I would think that insurance companies will charge an arm and a leg to cover houses built in the flood area after their mamoth losses last year. That is providing people can get insurance cover at all. This may well prove to be decisive in the building of new houses there. We shall see.

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by JohnW

Exactly, most damage is caused by flooding. Florida is not below sea level. Therefore, if it does flood the water can receed.

Yes, but the natural disaster is, just as it is in New Orleans, quite likely to recur. Indeed, there are some areas of Florida which have seen storm damage far more often than New Orleans has see flooding. Why should we subsidize rebuilding in those at-risk areas of California and Florida? Why not, as you suggest, just tell folks to relocate to somewhere where they will be less likely to lose their homes?

Frankly, we can't afford to just walk away from places. Nor can the U.K., which is why they spent such big bucks to protect London from flooding.

Truth is that a lot of the world's most economically productive land is in areas where natural disasters are likely. Simply put, it is a big economic problem if any of these productive areas are abandoned, as you suggest be done with New Orleans. Coastal land carries an inherent risk of repeated flooding, or tsunami damge in many locales, but that is where the world's ports and fisheries are located. The floodplains of rivers are often incredibly productive agricultural land (due in part to both the availability of water and the deposition of silt by floodwaters), but there is a real ongoing risk of flooding. Similarly, volcanic soil is highly productive farmland but the risk is pretty obvious. The geology of the California coast combines to provide some excellent agricultural land, oil reserves, ports and a scenic beauty that ensures a large tourism industry, but it is also subject to an annual brushfire risk during the dry season, mudslides, and major earthquakes. New Orleans is located in one of these areas and is both a major port, with a major fishery adjacent, services a substantial porton U.S. oil production, and with one heck of a tourism industry.

The fact that New Orleans carries a different risk is not, in and of itself, a reasonable justification to abandon. By your logic, the one-third of the Netherlands that is polder land (reclaimed, but below sea level by as much as 30 feet), should also be subject to abandonment - yet this is some of the most productive agricultural land in the world.

Do we need to improve New Orleans flood defenses, if there is to be a future for the city? Yes, of course. Does it make sense to abandon one of the most charming, historical, culturally rich and economically important cities in the USA? I believe that the economics of rebulding the city and improving flood defenses will provide an emphatic "No!"

But then, I have a thing against just giving up and packing it in!

[JohnW]

Actually, and this is my last word on the subject, I'm really bored with it now. If you look at one of my previous posts you will see that I said we cannot compare Holland and N.O., because the Dutch have no option but to build on land which is below sea level, so please don't put words in my mouth. N.O. doesn't carry a different risk it carries additional risk. I visited the city prior to Katrina and far from being charming and cultural, I found it to be the most seedy, dirty, disgusting place I have ever visited in the U.S. It has long been acknowledged as the most crime ridden and politically corrupt area in the whole of the country, with the possible exceptions of those corrupt (all party) elected people in Washington D.C. and of course, sin city itself, Las Vegas. We are just going over the same old ground now, but, as you have a thing against just giving up and packing in, I am sure you intend to have the last word. Please understand, however, that I will not be replying to any more rhetoric on this particular thread.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by JohnW

I visited the city prior to Katrina and far from being charming and cultural, I found it to be the most seedy, dirty, disgusting place I have ever visited in the U.S.

...which just goes to show that there's no accounting for taste. Because Mrs H and I totally fell in love with the place. Far from being seedy, dirty and disgusting, we thought it was vibrant, lively and friendly. And as I've said earlier in this thread, we stayed in one of the so-called "rough" areas...the people couldn't have been nicer. If the city ever recovers, we'll definitely go back.

[LancYorkYankee]

Originally Posted by JohnW

I visited the city prior to Katrina and far from being charming and cultural, I found it to be the most seedy, dirty, disgusting place I have ever visited in the U.S. It has long been acknowledged as the most crime ridden and politically corrupt area in the whole of the country,

Hey John, I appreciate your insight throughout this thread. I travelled to New Orleans 4 different times in the 1990s and definitely agree with the aforementioned quote.

The food was great but used to try to get in before sunset. The few times I stayed out (on Bourbon Street/French Quarter) I saw, actually was propositioned by, prostitutes as young as 13 or 14. I saw drunken brawls and heard vile language. Public nudity was almost encouraged and folks puking in the streets was quite common.

Lake Ponchatrain can have it back!

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by LancYorkYankee

The food was great but used to try to get in before sunset. The few times I stayed out (on Bourbon Street/French Quarter) I saw, actually was propositioned by, prostitutes as young as 13 or 14. I saw drunken brawls and heard vile language. Public nudity was almost encouraged and folks puking in the streets was quite common.

I take it you've not been out in a British city at night for quite some time then?

[SPUGGIE J]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I take it you've not been out in a British city at night for quite some time then?

Looks like we have exported our worst weekend behavior to other countries shame on us.

[Wynonie Harris]

Well, I can only speak as I find. We spent a fortnight in New Orleans four years ago and loved it. We went out every night to the French Quarter and other parts of the city and usually walked back to our accommodation in an inner city area. We found a great atmosphere in the bars, clubs and restaurants with fantastic music and really nice (if somewhat boisterous) people. I was not propositioned by any prostitutes (even when Mrs H was elsewhere), we saw no violence, throwing up, very little bad language and no public nudity (worse luck! ).

What a refreshing contrast to Manchester city centre!

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Well, I can only speak as I find. We spent a fortnight in New Orleans four years ago and loved it. We went out every night to the French Quarter and other parts of the city and usually walked back to our accommodation in an inner city area. We found a great atmosphere in the bars, clubs and restaurants with fantastic music and really nice (if somewhat boisterous) people. I was not propositioned by any prostitutes (even when Mrs H was elsewhere), we saw no violence, throwing up, very little bad language and no public nudity (worse luck! ).

Wynonie, I'll readily admit that New Orleans has a seedy side and some dangerous neighborhoods. So do most cities, especially port cities. And I have little interest in New Orleans at Mardi Gras time as I avoid large crowds in general and large boisterous crowds in particular. But I'm very happy to see you sticking up for a great city.

I do love New Orleans, though! Love the beauty of the Garden District, the charm and history of the French Quarter. Love the music, although it is a bit sad to see a good deal less jazz than there used to be. Ohmigod, do I love the restaurants! There are so many great ones and the competition makes it difficult for bad eateries to survive. Love the galleries, the street performers, the cathedral, the streetcars, the gardens, the parks, and the crazy "gumbo" of many cultures and ethnicities. Love going upriver to the plantations, and late-morning coffee and beignets at the Cafe du Monde. Love being in a great Amercian city with a distinctly foreign flavor!

Wynonie, I do believe that you've got me thinking about a return visit.
Laisse les bon temps roulez!

[LancYorkYankee]

Originally Posted by Billcat

I do love New Orleans, though! Love the beauty of the Garden District, the charm and history of the French Quarter. Love the music, although it is a bit sad to see a good deal less jazz than there used to be. Ohmigod, do I love the restaurants! There are so many great ones and the competition makes it difficult for bad eateries to survive. Love the galleries, the street performers, the cathedral, the streetcars, the gardens, the parks, and the crazy "gumbo" of many cultures and ethnicities. Love going upriver to the plantations, and late-morning coffee and beignets at the Cafe du Monde. Love being in a great Amercian city with a distinctly foreign flavor!

Each time the Government scheduled us to go down there for training, appeals, taking disciplinary actions, was always in or around Mardi Gras or the Super Bowl (funny (actually very sad) how the Government would plan many trips like this more for the entertainment then the work, but that's another story!) That would most definitely explain the high degree of extra boisterous activity I observed.

Dag Billcat, you got my mouth watering! The crawfish etoufe', jambalaya, and yes, the gumbo's and soups. Too many restaurants, too small a stomach! We could plan an Accy trip down there, just make sure I get in before 9 p.m.

Wynonie, out and about in London during the World Cup and was festive but not at all excessive. Maybe if England had won eh?

Brian


.