New meme; 9th Ward shouldn't be rebuilt (but wealthy sections okay)

[Atman]

The media is running with two biggies today; be afraid, very afraid, of bird flu. And, now that they've surveyed it, the powers that be are thinkin' that rebuilding the 9th ward isn't such a hot idea.

Now, I agree, certainly from the science perspective. It's lunacy to build there at all. But I can't help but be struck at how the rich white sections (read: attractive to land speculators and developers) are up and running, restaurants re-opening, land being grabbed up faster than you can say "SHOW US YOUR TITS!" But now that all the poor black democrats, er, uh, residents of the 9th ward have been scattered far and wide across America, it's perhaps not worth rebuilding there.

How convenient for BushCo. Everything is working out very well for them.

[ret5hd]

1. kinda like eminent domain...but without the nasty court battles. (nt)

[Lerkfish]

2. yes, I was very suspicious at geographically far-flung evacuees.

seemed almost intentional.
especially the splitting up of whole families.

[MercutioATC]

9. Why?

These people lost their homes.

Some had relatives in other areas of the country. Some decided to try their luck in a different place. Especially among the poor, there's not a lot to keep them in NOLA. They no longer have jobs and most of the economically disadvantaged rent rather than own. Why is it surprising that they'd pull up stakes (actually, the stakes were already pulled) and move to different parts of the country?

[Lerkfish]

10. They didn't choose their destinations, those were choices made by FEMA

I'm not talking about individuals who scattered.

[MercutioATC]

11. I think FEMA just put people where they could.

I haven't seen an article describing what you're talking about. Where did FEMA place people that's disturbing?

[Lerkfish]

12. I'm disturbed by the whole process...

that housing evacuees on cots in athletic stadiums instead of more suitable housing.
That family's only ability to reconnect with other family members seemed to be through the media, instead of being handled by the very people putting them in shelters.
I'm disturbed by chaos of the entire process.

It would be hard to single out something. Perhaps it would be easier to say what I don't find disturbing.

I don't find it disturbing that many evacuees have been charitably relocated and cared for, usually in spite of the govt. rather than because of it.

:shrug:

maybe you can give your opinion of what you think was done well?

[MercutioATC]

14. I don't think anything was done WELL...

However, I believe that sports arenas were used for a couple of reasons:


Before, during, and immediately after the hurricane:

1) The Superdome was used because it was part of the emergency plan because it was relatively weather-proof, sat on higher ground, and was capable of sheltering a lot of people.

Afterwards:

The Astrodome was used because:

2) It's easier to distribute food and medical care to a centralized group of people.

3) The logistics of transporting people to thousands of private residences/shelters was problematic, especially in view of the number of people being evacuated.


Obviously, things were not handled well, but I do understand the use of large covered buildings as temporary emergency shelter.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Government works for some, but not for others.

[MercutioATC]

4. The world over, the wealthy build on the high ground...

It's not a conspiracy, it's a global fact.

The lower-lying land is prone to flooding. This has two effects:

1) It's less valuable (the wealthy don't live there).

2) In a reconstruction, it's the least likely to be rebuilt (because it'll just be flooded again).

Basically, the poor live on the garbage land, which is the least cost-effective to save and redevelop. No conspiracy, just logic.

[EFerrari]

6. Let's not confuse fact with logic.

Habit might be a better characterization. The habit of treating the poor as dispensible. Logic would dictate that you house the poor on the most cost effective land because there's more of us. :)

[MercutioATC]

8. I believe you're putting the cart before the horse...

We don't "house the poor" anywhere (except for government-run housing). That's not the topic, anyway.

The poor live on land they can afford to buy or rent. In areas with flooding issues, that's the low-lying non-waterfront land. They live there because it's land they can afford, we don't "house" them there because it's "cost-effective".

[EFerrari]

13. Well, parse it if you must.

We collectively do decide where the poor will live, i.e., "house" them, by valuing their lives at their net worth. So, no, I'm not putting the cart before the horse. You are deducing truth from a subjective value system.

And, it is very much the topic here, this murder and disaspora of poor people, which is set up in the first place by where we allow them/us to live.

[MercutioATC]

15. That's my point. We don't "house" them anywhere...

...they live where they can afford to live. It's a simple question of means.

As long as land has value, the poor will occupy the less valuable land. We don't "do" that to them, it's a function of relative values. Without moving to a completely communistic system (where the value of everything is artificially the same) I don't see this canging....nor do I see it as something that should change.

[EFerrari]

16. Communistic values?

:rofl:

[MercutioATC]

17. Those weren't my words.

What don't you agree with?

[EFerrari]

18. Then, I respectfully disagree with you.

When you have land value as your priority over people, you lose me. And many like me.

The whole philosophy makes people like George Bush and his administration possible.

And, frankly, I'm just too old to scare with the whole "communism" bait.

You'd have to do oh so much better than that.

Accept it. The system you defend is the system that had under a thousand Katrina victims but 10,000 MISSING.

I really have no desire to upset you or anyone. None.

But don't even TRY to tell me those people died because they were LOGICALLY supposed to die.

[MercutioATC]

19. Some issues with that:

1) I'm not prioritizing land over people, I'm simply explaining the simple fact that land that does not flood is generally more valuable (and less accessible to the poor) than land that floods.

2) I wasn't trying to "scare" anybody with communism. My point was that, in an economy such as ours, different land has different values. Unless we decide to move to a system where all land is considered to be of the same value, this will not change.

3) I'm not defending any system, I'm telling it the way it is. All over the world, the high ground is more expensive and less accessible to the poor. It's not some sinister plot, it's the way things work.

4) I didn't say that anybody was "logically supposed to die". However, since the areas that were most likely to flood were less expensive (and more accessible to the poor), more of the poor were negatively effected. That IS logical.

[EFerrari]

5. It gets even worse. These people aren't going to be allowed to

rest.

Last night, Paula Zahn ran a segment that began with words to the effect, "If you all of a sudden had 10 thousand new neighbors, it could be alarming and disturbing." And they had a reporter out in a town near Baton Rogue, interviewing locals who were already afraid of their new neighbors. Chilling.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Then they shouldn't rebuild any where else along the Gulf Coast

that was destroyed by these storms either. And while they're at it maybe they should not rebuild the NC coast that was hit by Ophelia or anywhere along the Mississippi River that floods or anywhere in Florida for that matter. You can never be too safe you know.