Bizness in New Orleans

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

When I lived in Huntington Beach, CA I was required by the city to buy flood insurance as it was in a "flood plain." As I recall I paid about $450 per year to the feds to be covered. I use the term covered very loosely as it was bare basic insurance. It covered only the structural integrity of the house and not a bit more. For example, it covered the wood framing, roof and the flooring but NOT the drywall, wiring, floor covering, or any of the fixtures within the house. This insurance was NOT paid for by anyone other than me. There was no subsidy. And, there was no alternative than the U.S. government. Currently I don't have flood insurance as my home is approximately 1,000 feet above sea level and in a foothills area. But, at my own expense, I buy earthquake insurance. Should my house be leveled in an earthquake I'll be covered, less the 15% deductible. I do not expect the rest of the country to pay for my repairs after an earthquake. A low interest loan might be appreciated but that's all. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "ctibodoe" wrote in message news:6b327547.29@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > You are correct, flood insurance is a government thing that me, you, and > osbornew have paid for, are paying for, and will continue to pay for, > because doing bidness and having populations that support that bidness > will continue to be located near water. I had excluded myself from the > insurance calculation because I have never had any flood damage or claims, > but have paid flood insurance as long as I can remember. But, even so, I > am in proud receipt of many government endeavors, starting with not the > least...national defense. So, yes for me or anyone else to say the > government doesn't provide anything for me with some else's tax dollars is > an over simplification that just doesn't hold 'water'. > > Same with my tax dollars, if it goes to something worthwhile that is in > the long run good for all or us, then I'm for it.

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

The flood insurance is only issued by the feds, true. But, according to what I remember it is never in the black. After every big flood, the feds (you, me and everyone else) pump it back up with enough money to pay the claims. So, I believe you will find you subsidize, and have been subsidized. And you are correct, the policy is just about enough to rebuild the stucture, and does not cover contents. I personally don't think the rest of the country should pay for any area to have all of the houses rebuilt after any disaster. I am 18 feet above sea level, have flood insurance, and cannot have duplicity of coverage with Fema. And I have a problem with those who chose not to have flood insurance and then wish to be bailed out with no strings attached. But that is not the question. What about doing business with New Orleans? What is the feeling there? Then, after thinking about that, what about doing business in other disaster prone areas? Doesn't the same set of rules apply? The question is not about rebuilding everyone's house, or housing projects or anything like that. There is valuable commerce with the rest of the nation that takes place here. Protection of that commerce with the proper infrastructure that government provides anywhere else in the country is essential to any recovery. There are some mistakes that are being made down here, and most of us can see some of them. Learning from these will be valuable for where ever you live when disaster strikes you. A question about California...when that quake that collasped those double decker interstate roads near San Francisco took place, did not California receive alot of Federal Help? I don't remember anyone from anywhere saying they didn't expect the feds to help. And I sure don't remember California saying...you know what, keep that money, we can handle it all by ourselves. Or, am I mistaken?

[David Abramowitz]

Bizness in New Orleans

I agree. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

Its not about rebuilding homes and the people of New Orleans, heaven forbid getting anything on a personal level for what is percieved to be free. Its about, take your city and put a hole in it takes out about 400,000 people, but leave those people alive, scatter them around the country, then leave all or their houses standing, but unlivable, then leave all of their work places unworkable, take about half of those and deny their insurance, drag it out for 4 months and you still haven't told any of them for certain if they can get re-insurance, don't tell anybody what the plan is, or better yet, confuse the hell out of em. Its a mess, that can't be appreciated unless you drive thru it, and then transfer that mess to any other metro area in this country. And someone earlier said it right, we will pay and pay dearly, so I say its worth talking about. So, if you had paid your mortgage for 30 years and never missed a payment, paid your insurance, flood and homeowners, paid your taxes to local and national entities, and all promised you that everything is just fine, you are an all American Joe, all paid up and deserving of the full weight and promise of the American government standing behind you and taking care of your piece of the levee. I don't have the answer, but I know it ain't what is happening. (There are ways to rebuild all of New Orleans in ways that make sense, reducing the threats)(Just like there are ways to rebuild after earthquakes, with structures that reduce the threat, but none of those strategies eliminate them). But here and now it is not about rebuilding a home, it is about what needs to take place before the first one is rebuilt.

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

Yes, the feds, through FEMA, aided California through the earthquake. But the state paid for most of the rebuilding of the freeways. I, myself, received a low interest loan and a FEMA grant. But I don't think that the amount FEMA gave out to Californians is anywhere near the staggering amount being poured into N.O. The problem I have with spending all this money is that had we spent only a fraction of this money beforehand we wouldn't spending so much now. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "ctibodoe" wrote in message news:6b327547.32@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > The flood insurance is only issued by the feds, true. But, according to > what I remember it is never in the black. After every big flood, the feds > (you, me and everyone else) pump it back up with enough money to pay the > claims. So, I believe you will find you subsidize, and have been > subsidized. And you are correct, the policy is just about enough to > rebuild the stucture, and does not cover contents. > > I personally don't think the rest of the country should pay for any area > to have all of the houses rebuilt after any disaster. I am 18 feet above > sea level, have flood insurance, and cannot have duplicity of coverage > with Fema. And I have a problem with those who chose not to have flood > insurance and then wish to be bailed out with no strings attached. > > But that is not the question. What about doing business with New Orleans? > What is the feeling there? Then, after thinking about that, what about > doing business in other disaster prone areas? Doesn't the same set of > rules apply? > > The question is not about rebuilding everyone's house, or housing projects > or anything like that. > > There is valuable commerce with the rest of the nation that takes place > here. Protection of that commerce with the proper infrastructure that > government provides anywhere else in the country is essential to any > recovery. > > There are some mistakes that are being made down here, and most of us can > see some of them. Learning from these will be valuable for where ever you > live when disaster strikes you. > > A question about California...when that quake that collasped those double > decker interstate roads near San Francisco took place, did not California > receive alot of Federal Help? I don't remember anyone from anywhere saying > they didn't expect the feds to help. And I sure don't remember California > saying...you know what, keep that money, we can handle it all by > ourselves. Or, am I mistaken?

[bharder@nlrha.ab.ca]

Bizness in New Orleans

To me, it just doesn't make sense to build below sea level. Not for homes, not for businesses. I generally understand how things got that way, one little thing, and even some big things, at a time. But now it's a time and an opportunity to change that. Below sea level structures are wholly dependent upon the levees. It's not just during hurricanes either, but all the time. And there's not much more damaging to a structure than flooding, when you count all the primary and secondary effects. So that puts all the occupants at risk for their lives, never their livelihoods, never mind all the wider economic effects. By all means rebuild. But make below sea level buildings taboo, however that needs to be done. That should be reserved for things that are actually designed to be submerged, because it's only a matter of time until it happens.

[David Abramowitz]

Bizness in New Orleans

The fact of the matter is that so many man-made projects on the Mississippi River, north of New Orleans have prevented a natural deposit of silt in the basin in and around New Orleans. This has caused many areas particularly the 9th ward, to sink. Over years the residential areas that were once above sea level, are now below it, thanks to things taking place in other areas. Reseidences were built in New Orleans on good land, that is now below sea level not because of natural occurances. In essence, what is being said here to the citizens, is that because of projects in other states, you cannot have your land back! While blatantly unfair, the arguement does have some merit. Perhaps the building codes should be modified. Perhaps a buffer zone should be created. This would deprive some people the right to reclaim and rebuild, but the majority could return. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

I agree in concept with everything you said. Everything built below sea level to flood plain level plus should be elevated or built to survive submersion, no exceptions, no insurance. I won't build a house below sea level either. I haven't lived in the bowl since since 1980. You are right the low lying areas flood with a good rain, and many refuse to live there. After it has flooded a ranch house below sea level a few times, go for it, bulldoze it, and mandate how high to build and cover nothing below that level. We build things in water here all the time. Oil rigs, sulfur mines, elevated homes, elevated camps, water is a big part of everyone's life down here. Look at any picture of an antebellum home and you will see the living area is on the second floor. We the people here, need you the people over there to demand that what takes place here makes sense, not that nothing be done. When rebuilding is elsewhere, I want it to make sense there too. It is the opportunity to make it right.

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

What is fair is usually what is most damaging to the individual, and most accomodating to the masses. If things down here are ever going to be straightened out then quite a few individuals will be removed from their land. The mechanism exists and is used, and needs to be used. The 9th Ward is poor, Lakeview is middle class to affluent. Both are bad choices to place a home or any other structure that can't survive flooding. Both areas were not populated in the citys early footprint, because they were low and flooded or the land was not hard land. While the subsidence that you mention is true, I don't think it can be blamed for these either of these areas flooding. I may be wrong about the next thing I am going to say. The 9th ward is not the end all example of flooding in New Orleans. It is just another neighborhood. The flooding did not single out anyone in particular, just the ones below the level of the water when it was at its highest. When the discusion centers on the 9th ward and nowhere else, I have a problem with the agenda. I don't know if you have an agenda here or just familiarity with the 9th ward because of the media. To be fair in talking about the 9th ward, this area probably should not be rebuilt for a number of reasons, but not for the reason of hurting the people that lived there, and none should be treated any different than someone who lived in Lakeview (there will be some in Lakeview that will lose their land too). What has been done to shortcut the deposit of silt is a major problem for many reasons, number one the destruction of wetlands by not being rebuilt constantly by flooding. The biggest culprit here is the levees themselves.

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

Chuck said, 'The problem I have with spending all this money is that had we spent only a fraction of this money beforehand we wouldn't spending so much now.' Go back and find out how many times La. tried to get the right stuff done with fed help, since they are the only ones who do levees. The money is just being thrown because there is no plan. Help shape the plan....that is what is needed. This fema trailer situation is and is going to be a real nightmare. The fema checks have been sent to countless people who don't need em and never asked for them (I'm included here, trying to figure out who to give the money back to and get a hard reciept) while denying monetary help to many who really need it. I also was contacted a month ago to let me know my fema trailer was ready. They need a plan, help em shape it. One question? If California needed a staggering amount, would you for it or against it?

[OzzieH]

Bizness in New Orleans

I am in central Florida, so I understand Hurricanes & damage. Again, I think it's foolish to build below sea level, especially next to the Gulf Of Mexico. But hey, I do believe that you should be able to build wherever you choose. If you got the cash, then go for it. The problem comes when I am asked to pay for that person's decision. Would I like to have enough money to own a beach front home on a Florida beach? You betcha. But, were I in a position to afford & own such a place, it would be my sole responsibility to insure it against loss, not some guy in Kansas. And it doesn't matter to me that the guy in Kansas only pays pennies per year to cover other's losses---the fact that he is forced to pay any amount greater than ZERO is the rub with me. This whole topic is just part of the bigger problem of entitlement. From some's point of view, New Orleans is great, and how could we allow it to just sit there and rot? That's fine, but the problem is, I've never been there, I have no need to go there, and will probably never go there. I simply don't care. It's not that I don't care about the people, it's just that I CAN'T AFFORD TO CARE. If this is too radical for some, then how about this? Why can't Louisiana foot the bill? It's their city for gosh sakes, and they are the next level of "government", if you will, on the totem pole. They could fund it with bonds. Then if you wanted to invest in the rebuilding, go for it. In the end it doesn't matter much anyway. If the feds end up sending $200-billion to that great place, that's $667 for every man, woman, and child in the USA. Nice huh?

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

OS said: "From some's point of view, New Orleans is great, and how could we allow it to just sit there and rot? " That's exactly right. Many cities have rot without the help of a hurricane, it just happened over many years. Yet we do little or nothing to help them. It's only when a disaster occurs that we seem to jump into the fray. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[bharder@nlrha.ab.ca]

Bizness in New Orleans

I guess I don't really agree on the issue of allowing people to build wherever they want. You see, the problem is that people are faced with a million little decisions in their lives and they usually make each one independently. Each one makes sense, but only on it's own, or in the context of their own lives. In a larger context or over longer spans of time these things can fail the test of logic. A lot of it is the whole issue of exposure to risk, balanced by the individual's ability (and desire) to afford protective mechanisms. When a large scale incident like Katrina happens, we want the unaffected citizens to help the affected citizens. Perhaps you don't want the federal government to spend that $200 billion, but it's a collective decision and not yours alone. That's why we have things like laws, bylaws, restricted development areas, zoning, and so on. Certain things need to be regulated because we can't trust individuals to make good decisions in the collective interest. Fair disclosure, I live in a landlocked province in Canada. We are not subject to hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunami. Flooding, tornados, and drought can all happen but are relatively uncommon and usually limited in scope. Severe weather in the form of winter storms is probably the main thing we deal with. We're pretty good at responding to that. Also, being Canadian, we are more willing to consider governmental intervention. They can be inadquately funded, ignorant, corrupt, hamstrung by special interests, blinded by party affiliations, incompetent or just plain stupid. But we'll give them the chance first. Government doesn't always fail, just more often than we'd like.

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

I don't think anyone should be able to build anywhere they want if they can afford it. There are many legal exclusions in place all over that prevent this, and the list is dynamic as it should be. Issue as I see it: individuals making choice to build where ever they want, vs where higher authority tells them its okay and promises to make it right if something happens. Brian, we are close on alot of things, let me include in this reply some respone to others... Levees are not a handout, they are infrastructure paid for by all citizens of the U.S. and protect U.S. soil owned by all citizens, so, something that was paid for by all, has failed all of us. Just like we can't ignore India if we work in MIS, Florida and California can't ignore La. for many reasons. Do I have the answer? No. I don't even pretend to myself. But, I am a U. S. citizen, I pay a good amount of taxes, I am a veteran, I have raised children that are raising children, paying taxes, serving in the military, none have had any free lunches in jail and all of that dribble allows me to think that I don't just owe the government, but that the government is also there to protect me and live up to its promises. When the federal government builds a levee, then sells flood insurance to individuals that allow them to build a house inside the levee, then the government has made a promise...if that same government tells a lot of the citizens that you live behind a levee and we have decided that you don't need flood insurance and the the house floods, then that government shares some of the liability (a good number of people in St. Bernard Parish had just dropped flood insurance after this very scenario happened). But, forget all of all of that. If my government can use my money to rebuild foreign countries on a regular basis, what the hell is wrong with them helping my region when it has been nuked? I will tell you what I am hearing. New Orleans go fly a kite. Fine, but remember, you will be flying the same kite. But, that was not the original question of this thread: Business, Business, Business....that is what will rebuild New Orleans, and even tho my business is fine for the moment, if enough other business doesn't happen, then I will be outa here. This link is something good for the business outlook, I hope to see more of this: http://neworleans.dbusinessnews.com/...pe_news=latest

[Guest.Visitor]

Bizness in New Orleans

I heard about some progress being made in recovering N.O. There's something called "the strip" or "island" of dry land that is pretty much normal. Also, many night clubs are opening and there are debates about whether the Mardis Gras party should happen in '06. It's a start. Tom.