GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Report: Exposure to weather wrecked FEMA housing units

• 19844
  

  My friend, I hope that the incredibly safe location in which you apparently live never has any type of catastrophe which places you in the shoes of those who live on the Gulf Coast. If your area is disaster proof, I hope you do not complain of the population explosion if this country were to evacuate the "dangerous" areas of this country and all move to the "safe" areas.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 29, 2006 6:05 PM
• 19765
  

  Tangerines and avocados? Now you're talking about the oil industry. Fine, let the companies provide safe housing for their employees, not the federal government. Next, you're wrong again regarding the safety issue. Katrina proved conclusively that New Orleans is not a safe, viable city. Further strengthening of the levees will, of course mess up the environment, but that apparently isn't a negative in your opinion. Also, I never stated that I supported building anything in earthquake zones or other catastrophic areas around the country. If private investors and companies wish to take the chance, fine. But why should Big Daddy (aka the federal government) be forced to pay for greedy, stupid capitalistic expansion? Help the displaced Americans as per my previous comments, take FEMA to the trashcan, and let the states wake up to their responsibilities!

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 22, 2006 3:15 PM
• 19750
  

  While I missed your point, I think you are missing my main point. 1. A very large infrastructure of the oil industry exists in the New Orleans and surrounding areas. Many of the oil refineries run along the Mississippi river. The wells in the Gulf require the infrastructure. Would you have these wells supported from hundreds of miles further north, where it is safe? 2. There is no reason why the New Orleans area cannot be safe. Proven technology exists that this country could easily afford to build strong levees, floodgates, etc. Had the Corps of Engineers done their job, we would not be having this conversation. 3. I just don't understand how you could on one hand advocate permanent evacuation of an area that has been inhabited for hundreds of years, while at the same time defending the building in major earthquake areas, and along all of the nation's coasts. What do you suppose will happen when the inevitable earthquake hits California? Will you advocate permanent evacuation as well? Do you suggest we move 300 miles from every coast line? You are right I missed your point. I will never get your point, because it is from such a narrow perspective.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 21, 2006 5:24 PM
• 19740
  

  This is comparing apples and oranges. Why drag in wartime damage, or other countries' efforts to control Mother Nature? Only someone sympathetic to developing natural areas could approve of the damage done by the Army Corps of Engineers. And, you missed my main point; help fellow Americans live and work productively somewhere else that's safer. Nobody has an inalienable right to live wherever they want to at the taxpayer's expense.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 21, 2006 9:37 AM
• 19727
  

  Yep, New Orleans protection was artificially built. That is true. So was the protection in the Netherlands, which was built by a very poor country in the years following WWII. They could protect their country from floods, but we cannot. But we can spend billions on bombs to destroy other countries, then billions more to rebuild those countries. By the way, have you traveled the Mississippi River corridor lately? There are levees all over the place. Do you suppose it is free to build earthquake resistant buildings in San Francisco, or hurricane proof buildings along the entire coast of this country? Another point: 60 percent of this country's oil supply comes from the Gulf -- the oil companies have destroyed our wetland barriers that protect the coast. If you do research and you still feel the way you do, then, more power to you!

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 20, 2006 1:51 PM
• 19660
  

  "IT Supervisor, Navy," is wrong! All parts of the United States are not artificially constructed, as is New Orleans. Yes, most have problems, but this is a side issue. New Orleans is a stupidly designed city, and shouldn't be re-built. Other parts of the country have occasional meteorological problems, but nothing like the "Big Easy." Let it go.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 15, 2006 8:54 PM
• 19634
  

  Yes, that is a good idea to clear out of New Orleans. Let's relocate everyone to California, where they can wait out the next earthquake or fire or mudslide. No, well how about Kansas? Oh yeah, tornados. Maybe everyone should move north and enjoy bitter winters with several feet of snow. Perhaps New York. (Or do people realize that a hurricane could very well hit New York City as well).

  Perhaps we should all move into nice safe caves. But come to think of it, doesn't more than half of the nation's internal oil supply come from the Gulf? Wonder who will work the rigs when we permanently evacuate. Guess we could drill wells in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean? Nope can't do that either, not sound ecologically.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 14, 2006 4:33 PM
• 19624
  

  Taxpayer, I was on the Mississippi Gulf Coast for a week last month doing volunteer Katrina clean-up work, and you can have no idea of the devastation resulting from Katrina unless you see it for yourself. FEMA, AmeriCorps, and legions of volunteers are going to be needed there for at least another couple of years. The scope of the destruction in Mississippi (never mind New Orleans, a different problem) was so massive because Katrina was so massive. An article in a Presbyterian newsletter describes what hit the coast as a combination tornado 100 miles wide and a 30-35-foot high tsunami. That is why the coast was basically scoured clean, and the Gulf waters so filled with debris and dangerous substances that swimming is prohibited. We all share in the responsibility to help these people begin to get back on their feet, which will take a longer time than you imagine, or I imagined until I saw the damage for myself.

  Long-time Fed

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 14, 2006 12:12 PM
• 19600
  

  Why am I not surprised? The real twin disasters here are FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers! Forget rebuilding New Orleans because the Big Easy is just too easy to knock down in the next storm, which will occur someday. Since most of the people displaced by Katrina were renters, why waste taxpayer money rebuilding someone else's homes? Take the same dollars and help relocate these folks elsewhere! FEMA doesn't work, and rearranging the deck chairs is not a solution. Perhaps more state involvement is needed, with the federal government standing by for evacuations?

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 14, 2006 6:17 AM
• 19584
  

  This is an example of wasteful spending, which is brought about due to a lack of planning and research. Why would FEMA officials allow the procurement of modular housing units that can't survive one year of exposure to Arkansas elements, when Louisiana elements are more severe?

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 13, 2006 11:41 AM
• 19576
  

  Yet Thompson who is from Mississippi will not hear of FEMA closing offices in Mississippi even though they should not be necessary a year and a half after the storm. How long are we going to be required to pay for these people? Sounds like Thompson is starting out just as the old Congress acted and will offer nothing new in terms of fraud, waste and abuse! This simply proves that the party is not the source of the problems -- I still believe it is "professional" politicians! We have to figure a way to get meaningful term limits on congressional positions and other elective offices or we never will see a government with officials who act in the best interest of the country and not in the interest of getting themselves re-elected!

  Taxpayer Posted November 13, 2006 7:24 AM