posted on September 7, 2005 11:21:43 AM new
mingotree
I heard someone on a radio show yesterday commenting on the land grab thing. I can't remember the state he was referring to, though. There was a hurricane or tornado or some other natural disaster that destroyed a town. The government bought the people out for pennies on the dollar and sold the land for millions. The poor were left with less than they started with.
We don't take care of the poor and elderly in this country. We just toss them aside and forget about them.
posted on September 7, 2005 12:31:37 PM new
How will "land grab" figure in the story regarding the response to Katrina? Are you suggesting that local and federal authorities decided to delay their response in order to make it easier to land grab at a later time? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense given the findings of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London or as you described - "that flap out east." In Kelo, the court basically made it open season on property, regardless of its condition. The court has histroically made broad interpertations of the phrase "public use" which is the phrase used in the fifth amendment. In Kelo, the court inexplicably aserts that "public use" can basically be interchanged with "public purpose." And we are already seeing legal filings being made to seize property all over the country. My opinion is that the decision in Kelo is not only wrong, its un-consitiutional.
So given the Kelo decision, I don't get how the response to Katrina is tied in with land grabbing. The land could be grabbed with or without Katrina.
posted on September 7, 2005 01:01:12 PM new
RedStateRising, you can't just expropriate land for no reason. Although parts of LA might be poor and the houses shacks, the land they're on is still owned by these people. In a disaster such as this, isn't it easier to offer these people money for their destroyed homes/land, than pay all those expropriation fees and land transfer taxes? We'll have to wait and see just what's rebuilt.
posted on September 7, 2005 01:26:44 PM new
I never said you could claim land "for no reason", kraftdinner. I said the Supreme Court made it quite clear that eminent domain, when used to serve a "public purpose" satisfies the Fifth Amendment. The subtlety you may not be thinking about is that "public purpose" can basically mean anything. In the Kelo case, the public purpose was that the project (for which eminent domain was being sought) was "legitimate" and "not irrational" and allows private property to be transferred to another private owner. So while it may be easier to offer people money for property which is basically underwater, it isn't necessary. If an econoimic planning board in a local town determines that the corner lot on Main Street would be better served by having an office complex instead of mom & pop stores, the Kelo case paves the way to make it happen.
[ edited by RedStateRising on Sep 7, 2005 01:27 PM ]
posted on September 7, 2005 01:58:58 PM new
Kraft - why do you think I said last week that New Orleans will probably be never be low income again. Those that owned homes probably did not have enough insurance to rebuild and many of those that left are not going to be returning. There is going to be a lot of land picked up at bottom dollar prices (especially given the enviromental issues) and that land is eventually going to be used to develop high end condos, retail and commercial properties. That's just reality.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 7, 2005 02:00:46 PM new
BTW - I don't believe that there is going to be a lot of government intervention involved in this process - this is going to be developers with stars in their eyes and evacuees not eager to return.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 7, 2005 02:21:08 PM new
fenix, I think you maybe correct. EPA has already stated high amounts of lead in the water and if it doesn't get pumped out it will soak into the ground.
But I think the people will get fair value for their properties. I can't see a pennies on the dollar outcome.
posted on September 7, 2005 04:21:57 PM new
IMO, anyone who rebuilds or builds new there has a screw loose. What retail giant or developer would want to take such a chance? Even with a new levee, there's still the chance a hurricane can destroy everything again. From what I've been told by my father, he can't get homeowners insurance in Florida (Port Charlotte) since the big one last year. Who will insure these new places and if they do at what cost? I would also think that the topography has changed and what was one a property border may not be anymore. At any rate, it's a mess. If it were me, I'd live almost anywhere else.
posted on September 7, 2005 04:24:50 PM new
I'm sure your father can get insurance... but he probaly can't afford it. I've heard it's been raised threefold or more.
posted on September 7, 2005 06:15:47 PM new
When you really think about it...why shouldn't people return & rebuild the city? After all, the city was founded in what--1719 or thereabouts? So it's been around for about 286 years. And in all that time this is only the second disaster of major proportions that they've had. The other was in 1927 during the great Mississippi flood. Pretty good record if you ask me.
Yes, this has been a disaster of epic proportions, but if people were to never rebuild after a big disaster for fear it might happen again, there would be a lot of empty space about.
As for New Orleans being below sea level...so what? So is Holland, for pity's sake. If they could just go back to doing what they were supposed to be doing, which was make the levees able to withstand storms of that magnitude, instead of cutting the funding and spending the money elsewhere, New Orleans can eventually get back on its feet.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on September 8, 2005 04:05:02 AM new
Bunnicula - What about the toxins that have seeped into the ground? Oil, gasoline, sewage, household chemicals, chemicals left from dead bodies, industrial chemicals. That will take years and years to go away, if it ever does. It's an environmental nightmare. I don't think that I, personally, would take the health risk.
posted on September 8, 2005 05:17:02 AM new
From a purely practical point of view, most of the evacuees will have no choice but to rebuild their lives elsewhere. Officials have said they don't expect New Orleans schools to be open for at least a year. The estimates on how long it will take to dry out and clean up the city vary - but none are particulary quick.
Most people are going to have to look for housing, schools and jobs elsewhere. I suspect it will have to be rebuilt to some extent - if only to be able to use the port again. Once the cleanup is done - some may come back, some new entrepreneurs may come in - but I suspect a lot of people will stay where they ended up after the storm.
posted on September 8, 2005 09:05:53 AM new
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
The New Orleans hostage crisis
From an important posting in Dispatch from the Trenches (emphasis in the original):
"OK, let's get this straight: Michael Brown is most likely an incompetent stooge but the fact of the matter is that when he refused to release supplies, National Guard troops, and construction equipment, and then ordered the Superdome locked and checkpoints set up along the roads leading out of New Orleans to turn back anyone trying to escape the destruction, he was following orders. None of it was accidental, none of it was a matter of poor decision-making or the wrong priorities. It was a deliberate attempt by the Bush Administration to blackmail the state of Louisiana into handing the city over to the Federal government.
On Friday, four days after Katrina hit, National Guard troops finally arrived, supposedly bringing food and water to those trapped in the Superdome. It's true that there was an initial delivery of emergency supplies, but it was hardly adequate. Everyone assumed more would be coming. But the NG came armed, supposedly to defend itself against bands of looters with handguns and rifles. Soon after, it became clear that the NG's real orders were to lock down the Superdome and prevent anyone from leaving.
Between Wednesday morning and Friday night, ships loaded with food, water, and medical supplies arrived. FEMA refused to allow them to be off-loaded. Michael Brown then ordered the communications lines cut that tied emergency workers together.
Shortly before midnight, the Bush Administration essentially delivered an ultimatum to Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco: before they released the emergency supplies, they wanted her to sign the city of New Orleans over to the Federal government."
Note that the link is to the infamous article in the Washington Post, the one in which the Post reprinted the lie told to them by a 'senior administration official' (presumably Karl Rove or someone working for him), that Blanco had not declared a state of emergency as of Saturday, September 3, when in fact, as the correction at the top of the article says, Blanco had declared the state of emergency on August 26 (many feel the Post has an ethical obligation to reveal the name of the 'senior administration official', as any promise of confidentiality was rendered inoperative by the lie, and the fact of the lie is now part of the news). The spinning that is going on is part of the blame-shifting exercise by the White House, but, as Dispatch from the Trenches points out, has a darker purpose as well. Based on Bush's supposed authority to use the National Guard to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act, Bush wanted to declare martial law and take over the city of New Orleans. Why? Dispatch from the Trenches gives four reasons, the most important ones being the third and fourth (emphasis in the original):
"Declaring martial law would give the Federal government total control of the city: the Army would be brought in to police it and - perhaps most important to this corporate president - the Federal government would have charge of all the rebuilding contracts, giving it $$$billions$$$ to hand out to its corporate sponsors.
There's also the little matter of taking decisions about how and what to rebuild out of the hands of the people of New Orleans and putting them into the hands of people who see New Orleans as 'Sin City', effectively ensuring that New Orleans would never again be the Big Easy."
Bush used the starving people of New Orleans as hostages to blackmail the Governor into turning the city over to his troops so he could:
hand out all the reconstruction contracts to friends of the Bush Crime Family such as Halliburton; and
use his soldiers to control the exit and return of the inhabitants of New Orleans, to ensure that 'undesirables' - blacks and poor white race traitors who like living in a predominantly black culture - never come back so he can rebuild the city as an amusement park for white tourists.
posted on September 8, 2005 10:40:46 AM new
the upper class white elites of New Orleans are meeting in Dallas to discuss the rebuilding of New Orleans,the mayor is invited.
The welfare recipients will not be coming back as they are renters and I doubt building govt housing and section 8 housing for them is top priority.
As for the middle class homeowners,some dont have flood insurance,it will depend on where their jobs are.
Baton Rouge property values have skyrocketed since Katrina,it may replace New Orleans as the largest city in LA.
Also does it make sense to spend a lot of money rebuilding a city below sea level??
-sig file -------
Eat grass,kick ass,never go belly up!
posted on September 8, 2005 12:12:21 PM new
Now that post was a load of crap mingotree, at least colin had the courtesy to post the writer identity and it was identified as the op ed piece it was.
posted on September 8, 2005 01:36:02 PM new
About NO being rebuilt. With all the Federal dollars that will be going in there to not only clean up the place, but rid it of all toxins , to keep the environmental extremists happy, it will/can be brought back to being a decent place to live. The levee's can be made to withstand a catagory 5 hurricane. All it costs is taxpayer dollars.
It will be interesting to see just who wins on this one....once the mess is cleaned up. It's my understanding that the casinos want to rebuild. They and the tourism were about the ONLY things going for NO, imo.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 9, 2005 06:16:18 AM new
From the black viewpoint.
New Orleans Population has the Right of Return.
The people of New Orleans have a right to return. It is not too early to say so. In fact, it is imperative that we demand the Right of Return now, before the circumstances of the displacement of this population create facts on the ground that cannot be reversed. We have seen, elsewhere in the world, how those who have been displaced are effectively shut out from returning to their origins, and how quickly the public says, well, that’s just water under the bridge – or over the levee. Others, newcomers, will benefit from the tragedy of the previous population’s displacement. This cannot be allowed to occur in New Orleans.
Not only does the Black two-thirds of the city have the right to return, but the federal government has an obligation to direct every resource to making it possible and practical for them to return, and to live productive lives in the city from which they were driven.
The circumstances of displacement are clear. The Bush regime set New Orleans up for a fall, cutting back on funding for the levees in every year of George Bush’s administration. The scenario for precisely the catastrophe that Hurricane Katrina wrought was played out in a regional and federal computerized hurricane war game, just last year, involving a hypothetical Hurricane called “Pam.” The Bush men chose to ignore the data. In legal terms,
they showed a depraved indifference to human life – or worse.
After the deluge, this official depravity was compounded by the Bush men’s indifference – or worse – to the plight of those who had no choice but to stay in New Orleans. The facts of federal depravity are so manifest, there is no need to elaborate in this commentary. But the New Orleans diaspora is spreading, uncharted, with no paper trail, and only an ad hoc, improvised charitable money trail. The displaced persons of New Orleans, like the Blanche DuBois character in the Tennessee Williams play, “Streetcar Named Desire,” are now largely dependent on “the kindness of strangers.” That is nothing to celebrate about.
The people of New Orleans have the right to be made whole, again. They are citizens, wounded by their own government. The rights of citizens cannot be privatized, or churched-out, or Salvation-Armyed out. All help is appreciated, but we must also focus on rights – the right to not be permanently displaced by depraved government policies or the corporate greed that will certainly try to swallow New Orleans whole – just as whole as did the waters of Lake Pontchartrain.
Displacement based on race is a form of genocide, as recognized under the Geneva Conventions. Destruction of a people’s culture, by official action or depraved inaction, is an offense against humanity, under international law. New Orleans – the whole city, and its people – is an indispensable component of African American culture and history. It is clear that the displaced people of New Orleans are being outsourced – to everywhere, and nowhere. They are not nowhere people. They are citizens of the United States, which is obligated to right the wrongs of the Bush regime, and it’s unnatural disaster. Charity is fine. Rights are better. The people of New Orleans have the Right to Return – on Uncle Sam’s tab. For Radio BC, I’m Glen Ford.
posted on September 9, 2005 07:25:44 AM newIn New Poll, 54 Percent Say Flooded Areas Below Sea Level in New Orleans Should Be Abandoned
Friday, September 09, 2005 10:14:46 AM
More than half the people in this country say the flooded areas of New Orleans lying below sea level should be abandoned and rebuilt on higher ground.
An AP-Ipsos poll found that 54 percent of Americans want the vast sections of New Orleans that were flooded by Hurricane Katrina moved to a safer location. About 80 percent of the city was flooded at the height of the disaster. The city, home to about 484,000 people, sits six feet below sea level on average.
The fate of the flood-prone areas of the city is an open question. The aid pricetag already runs tens of billions of dollars. In the days since the hurricane, House Speaker Dennis Hastert has questioned whether the worst-flooded areas should be rebuilt.
The skepticism about restoring New Orleans below sea level comes as the public mood has darkened after one of the nation's worst natural disasters. Those most likely to say that low-lying areas of New Orleans should not be rebuilt are whites over 45 years of age and Republican women.
"There's a lot of history, but the fact remains that it remains below sea level," said Kate Rehfus, a Republican from Fort Thomas, Ky., who loves New Orleans for its blues, beignets and Cafe Du Monde coffee. "It wouldn't be the same by any means, but if it could be done, that would be best. This would never happen again."
Members of New Orleans City Council are vowing to rebuild the city _ a task that would cost billions of dollars. The city has a long history and a rich tradition of distinctive jazz, matchless cuisine and Mardi Gras.
The Big Easy is a magnet for tourists, with more than 10 million visiting in 2004, spending almost $5 billion, according to the New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau.
More than four in 10 of the Americans polled said they want the city rebuilt where it is and the levees strengthened.
Some New Orleans residents were angry about any suggestion that their beloved city should not be rebuilt as it is.
"How many of those people have been to New Orleans?" said Alec Phoenix, a New Orleans resident who is currently in Los Angeles. "To say the city should be abandoned because it's below sea level is an irresponsible statement."
Joyce Jones, a retiree from Modesto, Calif., said: "If the levees were built stronger, they should put it back the way it is. We're a nation of lots of smarts. Those Corps of Engineers can do just about anything."
The nation's pessimism after Katrina is reflected in the two-thirds, 65 percent, who say the country is headed down the wrong track _ compared with 59 percent who said that last month.
President Bush's job approval was at 39 percent, the first time it has dipped below 40 percent since AP-Ipsos began measuring public approval of Bush in December 2003.
Just over half, 52 percent, disapprove of Bush's handling of hurricane relief.
Blacks were especially upset with Bush; 78 percent of blacks blamed the president for the poor response, compared to 49 percent of whites.
Two-thirds in the poll said state and local governments deserve much of the blame for the response.
The rapid rise in gas prices past $3 per gallon may have played a role in Bush's 39 percent job approval. Seven in 10 said they disapprove of Bush's handling of gas prices.
Despite their gloomy mood, people are donating to hurricane victims at record levels. Almost two-thirds in the poll say they have already given money _ with about $600 million donated so far, according to groups that monitor donations.
The poll of 1,002 adults was conducted by Ipsos, an international polling firm, from Sept. 6-8 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
___
AP's manager of news surveys Trevor Tompson contributed to this story.
___
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Sep 9, 2005 07:26 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2005 03:44:33 AM new
cmsspu, by now I believe you understand.
Linda_K,dblfugger9 and Karl Rove are now in charge of damage control for this White House and the CON-servative movement in regards to the New Orleans mess.
If you read their post they say lots of people are dumb,stupid or brain dead. I am sure they all feel the same way about the 2/3 of Americans that believe Bush can no longer be trusted both here and overseas.
It was just a few months ago that all 3 were "dancing in the streets" about Bush being re-elected. Now all 3 spend 100% of their time defending Bush's failures.
"BRING IT ON" Linda,dblfugger9 and Karl Rove "BRING IT ON".
Somewhere in Texas a small village is missing its VILLAGE IDIOT.
The conservative right wing Wall St. Journal describes the proposed rebuilding of New Orleans after the displacement of poor blacks. Such ethnic cleansing will return the city to Republican party control.
"""""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.""""""
posted on September 11, 2005 09:57:09 AM new
The plan is to condemn the property the rich want(hence the slowness of the response), screw the low income people, take their land, and help the rich get richer.
posted on September 11, 2005 10:12:05 AM new"And I suppose you are 'opposed' to the concept of fewer poor people??"
I am opposed to outsourcing all the poor people out of New Orleans who will not have an option to return. They should have the right to return to their homes and that return should be paid for by the federal government.
But too bad...That will not happen. Like 9/11, Katrina will provide opportunities for the neocon machine. It will clear an entire city of poor black people while at the same time blaming the poor black victims and Democrats....
posted on September 11, 2005 10:13:35 AM newIf you wait and pay attention you will see.
No, if YOU had anything but a derogatory vision for the poor-You!might ever see something different!
Besides, not 'everybody' in New Orleans was poor. Although we speak to the large percentage of poverty that was there, I am sure the city had it's share of middle class and upper class residents, too.
Since this has gotten so much national attention, I sincerely doubt your aristrocratic imperialistic predictions will come to pass. Even though that is exactly what YOU'd like to see - just so you can continue to pound the toms-toms from atop your ivory tower.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Sep 11, 2005 10:45 AM ]
