White House rejects Louisiana buyout proposal

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-24-la-buyout_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-24-la-buyout_x.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that must have been a no-brainer when witnessing the support of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. I would not put the name of those two clowns on any proposal and expect an approval. </p>

<p>By the way, this issue came up in Prez. Bush morning conference, and a journalist expressed the view that the government turns its back to the poorest of the poorest who could NOT have known the levees may break. </p>

<p>Yeah, laissez the bons temps rouler!</p>

2

<p>I’m confused, are you saying the reporter implied denying this request was another example of the government turning a blind eye to the poorest of the poor? How could giving people 60 cents on the dollar and turning property over to developers do anything to help the truly poor? How could any of them, even the poor that owned their houses, afford to buy them back from developers??</p>

3

<p>As far as the allegation by the journalist, I believe he was critical of the decision and played the poor ignorant card.</p>

<p>As far as the percentage, I believe that most owners did not have any or inadequate insurance. I also have to wonder how many displaced families from the poorest areas where truly homeowners and renters. </p>

<p>FWIW, I support large relocation packages, but consider the spending of ANY money in rebuilding the most ravaged neighborhoods as foolish as the decision of the people to WANT to live there. Any attempt to compensate the families beyond the level of insurance is plain theft of federal resources. New Orleans and Louisiana bear a HUGE responsibiliy in the EXTENT of the devastation by their repeated attempting to make it a federal issue and refuse to pay the price for a comprehensive plan. The United States has spent way too much to save a city that is irrevocably doomed without a massive plan to rerout the rivers and rebuild the destroyed natural barriers. Relying on the levees and pumping system is irresponsible. Expecting the federal government to bail out financially irresponsible cities is dumb, but that is exactly what this city and state have done. </p>

<p>Allowing people -or helping- them to return to the most ravaged areas is dumb and … almost criminal. Those areas should never be developed again and money should be used to rebuild areas of the cities that have economic reasons to exist. If New Orleans believes it should be rebuild, let it do with its own resources and borrowing capability. </p>

<p>The amount pledged by the government is obscene, but does not seem enough to some.</p>

4

<p>I actually agree with Xiggi, but I have not seen the federal government spend a single nickel on new low-income housing in ANY of cities to which New Orleans residents evacuated, and I haven’t seen a single nickel’s worth of proposals for same from the Administration, or their Democratic counterparts.</p>

5

<p>dunno about other hurricane areas (Florida, and east coast), but the federal government spent ZERO dollars to rebuild PRIVATE homes in California after the Northridge earthquake. I know of many people without (or with inadequate) EQ insurance who turned over their keys to thier mortgage company and walked away with a total loss.</p>

6

<p>Ah, lovely government, so far billions have been spent on rebuilding the south…but what has actually been rebuilt?</p>

<p>Anybody know?</p>

<p>Its a good thing we are taking care of our own so well</p>

<p>And I love that Trent Lott is SUIING his insurance company, big hypocrit, tries and takes away the rights of others to sue to get what the are due, yet, when it comes to his own, well, he sues using those darn lawyers</p>

<p>Blech</p>

7

<p>Before I say much, this is not backed by hard statistics. I as a tax payer believe that the slum lords of the ninth ward got their money a long time ago by renting substandard housing. I am not anxious to line their pockets. Also, I think Nagin and Blanco are counting their chickens before they hatch. I’m not sure that people will be heading back just because housing is there. My daughter’s hs has many evacuees and stories I hear from many indicate they are not in a hurry to return. Many evacuees were in the service industry and are not anxious to return to higher rents in NOLA. Also, many of those people had kids in NO public schools and have expressed great satisfaction with the public schools in our area. Many have found jobs here and are now able to move on with their lives. They are not anxious to move back to a city whose fate rests on levees.</p>

<p>My son spent his freshman year in NOLA, and it is a great city, but one whose footprint should shrink significantly. Many of the restored wetlands should probably be in the Ninth Ward and Lakeview areas. This will significantly reduce the population, probably back to numbers of the 1800’s. I have to agree with xiggi that spending precious dollars to redo devestated neighborhoods simply because people want to go back is bad. </p>

<p>I heard an interesting piece on NPR about the gentrification of Charleston after Hugo. If Nagin’s Disneyesque vision comes to fruition, the same could happen to NOLA. Many lifetime Charleston residents have been displaced due to high taxes and real estate prices. If that happens in NOLA and service industry wages do not rise proportionally, I really doubt you will see a mass exodus back to NO.</p>

8

<p>I think much of the change in Charleston has more to do with the endless search by those with money to find the “next best place”. Also RE looked like a much better investment than stocks the last 5 years. With its historic charm and warm weather location Charleston certainly qualifies. The same thing is happening in the mountains of Montana, the villages of Vermont, the Washington Islands, etc etc. None of those have been hit by hurricanes.</p>

<p>On the evacuation issue, has anyone else noticed the large numbers of flood damaged cars in the 9th Ward. I thought the reason many did not leave was lack of access to cars. I see lots of cars. Now maybe they were not running or something but there were cars in front of most houses.</p>

9

<p>AlongFTR, from anecdotal observation, I think you’re correct about many refugees never returning to NO. The number of Louisiana license plates has shot up around here and there’s a “here to stay” feel to them. Certainly, the family that our parish “adopted” and has given free housing to for a year is becoming integrated into the local economy.</p>

10

<p>Louisiana Purchase? Wasn’t that 200 years ago?</p>

11

<p>“Louisiana Purchase? Wasn’t that 200 years ago?”</p>

<p>Yes, and too bad we did not buy it from Costco. Do you think we could trick the French in taking Louisiana back and leave us the other states?</p>

12

<p>1) I may be wrong about this, but I think it is NO East that needs to fall back into the swamp - it is a mixed use area, predominantly black, but once predominently white, and still with some more integrated neighborhoods, mostly developed in 60s, 70s, 80s, little historic value, middle class to lower middle class - lots of apartment complexes, but single family homes - I know someone who lived in this area, and moved right before Katrina - she and all her neighbors are ready to be bought out, and bulldozed, very few have any interest in staying.</p>

<p>2) Even though Mrs. B Bush said it in an insensitive way, what she said was true, many of the evacuees are much better off out of NO, don’t want to go back, don’t need to go back, they may need some additional help where they are - which can be difficult to provide, they are widely dispersed, many have lost all proof of residency, ownership. They still can use some help</p>

<p>3) The Ninth Ward - it has its share of slumlords, but there are also poor black families that owned their own homes, and lived there for years, many are elderly, and I bet there a number of them that don’t even have their deeds now, because they didn’t trust banks, and they just all washed away. This is the saddest, because most of the Ninth Ward probably should not be rebuilt - don’t know how much that developed after 1927-28, but probably the pre-20s areas flooded a lot, those people were poor, and everybody dealt with flooding back then, on an almost yearly basis.</p>

<p>4) This is a little different than classic gentrification, this isn’t rehabbing houses for better heeled buyers, this is reducing the footprint of the city, so that the remaining land instantly becomes more valuable - how do you do affordable housing with those economic incentives</p>

<p>5) If some of the levees aren’t demolished and some of the wetlands restored, and the river allowed to take a more natural course, NOLA will be like Venice in a few years anyway, so who cares, it’ll never survive even a glancing blow from another 'cane.</p>

<p>There was a very good editorial in our paper today, I believe it originated in the Washington Post - I’ll give a link if I can find one.</p>