Race, class & N.O. Rebuilding Plans

Parent Cafe
1

<p>I don’t have a link to this, but you might still be able to find the whole story on the Wall Street Journal’s site.</p>

<p>"Old-Line Families Escape Worst of Flood And Plot the Future</p>

<p>By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 8, 2005; Page A1</p>

<p>NEW ORLEANS – On a sultry morning earlier this week, Ashton O’Dwyer stepped out of his home on this city’s grandest street and made a beeline for his neighbor’s pool. Wearing nothing but a pair of blue swim trunks and carrying two milk jugs, he drew enough pool water to flush the toilet in his home.</p>

<p>The mostly African-American neighborhoods of New Orleans are largely underwater, and the people who lived there have scattered across the country. But in many of the predominantly white and more affluent areas, streets are dry and passable. Gracious homes are mostly intact and powered by generators. …</p>

<p>The power elite of New Orleans – whether they are still in the city or have moved temporarily to enclaves such as Destin, Fla., and Vail, Colo. – insist the remade city won’t simply restore the old order. New Orleans before the flood was burdened by a teeming underclass, substandard schools and a high crime rate. The city has few corporate headquarters.</p>

<p>The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people. “Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically,” he says. “I’m not just speaking for myself here. The way we’ve been living is not going to happen again, or we’re out.”</p>

<p>Not every white business leader or prominent family supports that view. Some black leaders and their allies in New Orleans fear that it boils down to preventing large numbers of blacks from returning to the city and eliminating the African-American voting majority. </p>

<p>Rep. William Jefferson, a sharecropper’s son who was educated at Harvard and is currently serving his eighth term in Congress, points out that the evacuees from New Orleans already have been spread out across many states far from their old home and won’t be able to afford to return. “This is an example of poor people forced to make choices because they don’t have the money to do otherwise,” Mr. Jefferson says.</p>

<p>Calvin Fayard, a wealthy white plaintiffs’ lawyer who lives near Mr. O’Dwyer, says the mass evacuation could turn a Democratic stronghold into a Republican one…</p>

<p>Copyright 2005, Dow Jones, Inc. All rights reserved.</p>

2

<p>The devastation of New Orleans is a catastophe of epic proportion. Allowing it to be Rebuilt in the same way would be an even worse cataclysm. The poor people of New Orleans DESERVE a LOT better, than was there before September 1, 2005. </p>

<p>I am not sure how sarcastic the moniker “Jewel of the South” is, but, except it is hard to fathom a city that had a worse future. For years, the economy of New Orleans had been maintained artifically like an dying patient on IVs. The true commercial activities happen dozens of miles away, and only hostage companies would think about maintaining corporate headquarters there. The high paying jobs from the oil industry are numbered, and severe quetsions linger about the cost of continuing to reroute the Mississippi away from its natural bed. Its only future seems to become a real life Disneyland for adults seeking a good time and an high-priced indigestion. </p>

<p>As far as the commentary about votes, one has to wonder how well the elctected officials -at all level- defended the interests of the displaced poors. It seems that ANY change would be beneficial, especially at the local and state levels. It is obvious that the poor might have had a large voice, but that it remained unheard in a city that was a poster child for corruption, ineptitude, and lazy ignorance. If you let the good times roll for too long, it is hard to wake up and go to work. </p>

<p>Now, the people of New [New] Orleans will have a chance for a better future, and so will the displaced families. Isn’t the dream of most people who live in god-forgotten places throughout the United States to … get out?</p>

3

<p>xiggi, I dare say that some dream not to run away from the problem, but to make the place they call home better.</p>

4

<p>“The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people.”</p>

<p>Yeah, might as well send those poor folk off to Uganda. Hey, we’ve already got the cruise ships. </p>

<p>I hear the far-off hymns of the compassionate conservatives…</p>

5

<p>Mini, there ought to be many options between sending people to Uganda (or to Freetwin, Liberia) and rebuilding the SAME New Orleans.</p>

<p>We could spend billions in rebuilding the homes and schools, but wouldn’t the community essentialy be the same community that nobody truly cared about before September 1? They would still have low-paying jobs, abysmal schools and services, and a mostly bleak future. I understand that the place was called home, but how many would have left if they had the means and courage to do it. It seems that the citizens who could not get out when facing imminent and deadly dangers were not really able to leave the city altogether. </p>

<p>If I were a 15 year old from New Orleans, I believe that I would welcome the opportunity to start fresh at a new school and take advantage of the numerous safety nets that will come my way. Given the choice between leaving a sinking, rat-infested and God forgiven area or TRY somewhere else, I would jump at the chance of getting new housing, a new school, substantial aid to come in direct and indirect way. Does anyone doubt that many colleges will create special funds and “spaces” for New Orleans survivors? I am not saying this in a cynical way, but right now, the country is so embarrassed by its response to the people of New Orleans that you can count on an ever growing support. One of the best ways to see this support dwindling and failing to help the truly needing is to let it fund the pipe dream of building a better New Orleans. Let the local authorities get their greedy paws and claws in the pot of gold, and you can count on a minuscule portion going to the PEOPLE. Anyone want to bet that the first buildings erected will be spanking new police stations and city offices? So, will we simply put a bunch of bandaids on a cangrenous leg? Will we bury the flooded neighborhoods under 30 or 40 feet of fresh topsoil? Is helping the poors return to their hell hole a REAL solution? Even if we don’t get another Katrina for a few decades, is it really smart to allow humans to face and defy the wrath of Nature? </p>

<p>Right now, the country needs to blend in 100,000 evacuees and offer them a better environment. The number of displaced equates to just a few weeks of immigration of people who come from the South with NOTHING but the promise of a better, yet illegal life. The evacuees are not really part of a biblical exodus from Sodom and Gomor’rah or face an uncertain voyage across a deadly desert. They are sent to communities that accept them with a heart and mind filled with love and compassion. Yes, those small things that were sorely missed in the place they unfortunately called HOME.</p>

6

<p>Xiggi - I am a realist. I know they aren’t going to be building 200,000 units of low-income housing in New Orleans any time soon. It isn’t a matter of whether I think they should or shouldn’t (hey, they could turn it into America’s Venice if they chose); it simply isn’t going to happen. If an investor (getting government tax credits) was going to rebuild where insurance was impossibly difficult to get, workers in short supply, etc., he’d build only units that he could rent/sell for the highest possible price.</p>

<p>The test will be whether the government invests in 200,000 units of low-income housing ANYWHERE. The waiting list in most major cities for Section 8 housing is around 5 years give or take without the NOLA evacuees, and there has been no effort to date to lessen the gap. I cannot imagine major politicians of either party in any major American city agitating from substantially more public housing. For one thing, it’s not just about housing, but emergency rooms, police and fire services, medical care, job training, schools. For another thing, there is that little matter of skin pigmentation…</p>

<p>Bush has a grand opportunity to step up to the plate. It is a special opportunity, precisely because he is a lameduck. Hope he doesn’t muff it.</p>

7

<p>Xiggi, you are right. I have heard countless flood victims say how awful the NO education was and they do not plan to go back. I think there will be much better opportunities for them in new communities. We’ll see.</p>

8

<p>Not necessarily- to loss churches, friends, schools, families, all of that…getting out is not always the desire…</p>

9

<p>Section 8 is old news. Most low income housing now is done under the tax credit programs that have slots for low income residents at varying levels as a percent of local income levels. I have worked on the financing of several of these projects and the developer incentives are very attractive. The program works very well with rehabbing old projects so the damaged NO projects would be good candidates.</p>

<p><a href=“King County Housing Authority > About Us > Housing Programs”>King County Housing Authority > About Us > Housing Programs;

10

<p>CC is a changed forum NSM. I am sure you didn’t expect these sorts of 'ship ‘em out for their/our own darn good’ responses–especially from a 19 year old.</p>

<p>I hear you, but it isn’t worth posting decent discourse anymore. Sad, but true.</p>

11

<p>“Section 8 is old news. Most low income housing now is done under the tax credit programs that have slots for low income residents at varying levels as a percent of local income levels. I have worked on the financing of several of these projects and the developer incentives are very attractive. The program works very well with rehabbing old projects so the damaged NO projects would be good candidates.”</p>

<p>That’s true, but this assumes there is money to be made in rehabbing both projects and large number of low-income single-family homes in below-sea-level NOLA. </p>

<p>The tax-credit programs in my state have been drying up, or at least so the local housing authorities tell us, though we do have significant state funds. There is quite a bit of money currently available for “housing with services” (that’s what the interagency councils on homelessness, about to be dismantled by the Administration, have been pushing), but cities - with some notable exceptions, New York City being one - have been very slow to access it because of the strain on other federally supported services that are on the chopping blocks.</p>

<p>An additional 200,000 federally supported units, for poor, Black folks. Let’s see if the compassionate conservatives step up to the plate.</p>

12

<p>“CC is a changed forum NSM. I am sure you didn’t expect these sorts of 'ship ‘em out for their/our own darn good’ responses–especially from a 19 year old.
I hear you, but it isn’t worth posting decent discourse anymore. Sad, but true.”</p>

<p>Cheers, I find your implied comment particularly offensive. Could you please point out where my post stepped beyond the boundaries of decency? Obviously, that may require trying to understand the real message. I believe that I can discuss issues with Northstarmom without the blessing or approval of a decency police. </p>

<p>CC is indeed a changed forum, but I can talk about the negative changes as well as you do, and this despite my age. </p>

<p>As far as the issues, this is not a case of SHIP 'EM out against their own will. Unless the BBC forgot to boardcast that part of the news, the people are OUT. We are talking about the conditions to which they would EVENTUALLY return. That’s a huge difference. </p>

<p>While you may think that my posts are insensitive and maybe racist, I believe that they are just the opposite. My point was that a plan to send the displaced back to the SAME communities would be the waste of a real opportunity of gentification. Is it a crime to point out that the conditions before September 1 were pretty bad? So many people lived in unacceptable levels of poverty that they were not even accounted for. If there was racism and economic insensitivity, it was well in place in the Old New Orleans. From some of your posts, I can sense that the city has a well-defined place in your heart. However, that should not stop you from recognizing that the city was one the worst places to live. </p>

<p>So, we may have different opinions about what is sensible or not. However, I believe that a plan of ROUND "EM UP and SEND 'EM BACK to their old and insalubre conditions is a lot more indecent. So, is the plan to build a few hundreds of HUD projects and make sure the inhabitants remain segregated from the rest of the city? I DO hope that we have something better in mind! </p>

<p>What happens when Katrina’s little sister strikes again and in the same place? The people may get out faster, but the damages to their souls and property will just be as bad.</p>

13

<p>Wait, did NSM send a pm to Cheers about Xiggi’s post? I’m missing something here…don’t see a post where NSM is saddened by the lack of “decent discourse”.</p>

<p>Surely everyone is entitled to their opinions and analyses, it’s not being foisted on anyone else. And nothing rude was said. I for one enjoy reading the posts from the young’uns.</p>

14

<p>Its the attitude that they will be better off somewhere else and that anything will be better then what they had. It needing to realize that people lost everything. Their communities are gone, and those communities were valuable. Those relationships, those ties. To not recognize that is callous.</p>

<p>It is insensative to imply that what they had was so bad, they don’t want to go back and rebuild.</p>

<p>Many lived in poverty, many were the working poor, with apartments, photo albums, and more that is gone forever.</p>

<p>It is important to remember that no matter how much or little they lost, they lost it all.</p>

15

<p>I think the point where your post was insensitive were your comments directed at NOLA prior to Katrina. Similar conditions exist in cities across the country, and have been exacerbated by the past three Administrations. </p>

<p>You made it “feel” worse with your references to “real opportunity for gentrification”. All well and good, and likely even true, but you could have used the opportunity to think about the plight of individuals and families who lost everything in what was, for the most part, a man-made disaster (for which the Clinton Administration is every bit as responsible as the Bush), and, unlike other heavily African-American cities around the country, where large numbers of poor residents actually OWNED their own homes. </p>

<p>So how can the Administration make housing possible for 200,000 families (without them competing for already sparse low-income housing, and pushing other local residents out of their homes as rents rise)? How can the Administration assure home OWNERSHIP opportunities for 100,000 families who previously owned their own homes in NOLA, but who likely are not going back?</p>

<p>These are not easy policies to pursue. Most importantly, they require the political will to pursue them. I hope, Xiggi, you can apply your own shoulder to the wheel.</p>

16

<p>What they lost in goods is what we call a sunk cost. Gone forever. You mignt want to greave the loss but it is not changing.
I have seen NUMEROUS interviews with evacuees who are looking NOT to go back–and some who want to go back. There is nothing inherently wrong with either desire. Those choosing not to return obviously see more future in starting over somewhere else and taking advantage of some of the current goodwill that their status currently enjoys.</p>

17

<p>The point is that it should be a choice. However, the thrust of the article is that those doing the chosing are not the ones who occupied the destroyed portion of the city.</p>

18

<p>I know what the point was, I read the entire article last week when it was published–it was a borderline opinion piece with a couple of random quotes thrown in. The rest of the discussion here was somewhat broader and has been ongoing in other threads.</p>

19

<p>Mini, I recognized the losses and devastation. I also said that the poor DESERVED A LOT BETTER than simply be sent to their old neiborhoods, if no improvement were made. </p>

<p>As far as the Old New Orleans and the “real opportunity for gentrification”, I won’t take anything back. In neighborhoods such as Mid City and Central City, a great number of properties that were lost were rented properties that would barely qualify as slums. With interest rates at an all-time low, the government has the opportunity to transform perennial renters into homeowners. As you noted, there are similar situations in many cities of the US. However, in the case of NOLA, we HAVE an opportunity of collosal importance, as opposed to many cities where there is simply a barrage of excuses for not being able to DO anything. </p>

<p>If have to stand accused of being insensitive, I may find some consolation that I would be far from being the only one in the accused box. AOL has a similar discussion on its front page, as well as a link to this NYTimes article: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/national/nationalspecial/12rebuild.html?[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/national/nationalspecial/12rebuild.html?&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>Embedded in the NYTimes article is a great interactive map of New Orleans that shows the impact of Katrina on the various parts of the city as well as socio-economic data.</p>

<p>I agree that the “going back” should be a choice. However, how many do we think would be happy to go back to the same conditions? It seems that before September 1, the poorest did NOT have a choice but to stay where they were. Now, they may in fact have not only a choice, but the support of an entire nation, instead of the barely present local support.</p>

20

<p>xiggi, I agrree that most people – given the choice – would seek to improve their lives. But the question is: at what cost? I once asked essential the same sort of questions you are asking, and I got some answers that showed me just how ethnocentric I was. For example, when I once asked someone why they did not simply move to where I lived, they replied: “And who would cut my hair?” “And where would I find my foods?” “And how many hours of traveling on public transportation should I spend to obtain these thing?”</p>

<p>Sure, to you and I these are all obstacles that can be dealt with and overcome. But to some, these are monumental questions that lead one to choose the familiar.</p>