I frequently comment over there, and today I voiced the opinion that Governor Blanco screwed the pooch during the Katrina exercise. One of the commenters, Michael, took exception and issued the following comment:
Pawpaw--here's a question/challenge: find the money in the NOLA or State budget to handle the disaster response--make an accurate estimate of total operational costs, identify who and how many responders (where they are pre-storm, how they'd be deployed post storm), identify shelter locations, identify and price equipment like spare pumps to handle the task of draining the city, identify specific instances of malfeasance by local and state officials as to levee maintenence...should be pretty easy since there's blame to spread.That is certainly worth fisking. Lets begin, shall we?
Finally, I'd like to know if, on the evacuation side, how a scenario like Hurricane Ivan would be handled, i.e., a dramatic near-miss that fortunately didn't hit the city but did force an evacuation.
Feel free to suggest taxes, revenue enhacements, specific budget cuts in other areas, or existing state Treasury funds.
Michael, lets begin with your first paragraph:
find the money in the NOLA or State budget to handle the disaster response--make an accurate estimate of total operational costs, identify who and how many responders (where they are pre-storm, how they'd be deployed post storm), identify shelter locations, identify and price equipment like spare pumps to handle the task of draining the city, identify specific instances of malfeasance by local and state officials as to levee maintenence...should be pretty easy since there's blame to spread.Not my job. I am a street cop. It IS the Governor's job. She wanted the job, directly campaigned for it. She should be doing it. Mayor Nagin shares responsibility because he is the CEO of the city. It is his job to answer those questions too.
We've known about this scenario for a long time. The basic scenario of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans was too doomsday to contemplate. Well, contemplate it now. All of our Governors since 1927 failed to take the warnings seriously. It happened to occur on Blanco's watch. She will take the heat, and frankly, a lot of her constituents have seen just how good the roads and bridges and infrastructure are in other states. If they come back to Louisiana, they are going to want to know why the roads here are so terrible. Politics in Louisiana changed on August 25, 2005. The Democratic leaders of this state failed their constituents. The Democrats have been in virtual control of this state since reconstruction. We still have the worst roads, one of the worst education systems, one of the most corrupt governments in the nation. Failure exists at every level. We need to start getting it right.
Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that the Governor of a state or a Mayor of a city should be held directly responsible for everything that happens during their watch, but I am naive enough to believe that if they don't take corrective action then the voters should take corrective action. I'm not campaigning for their job, nor am I saying they should be impeached, but I think that this disaster has opened the eyes of a lot of people and that politics as usual won't be tolerated in Louisiana. We have a hard task ahead of us. The citizens of Louisiana deserve leadership and the leadership displayed by Governor Blanco has fallen far short of the mark. I voted for Governor Blanco last time. I thought she would do a good job. I was wrong.
As to Mayor Nagin, his list of failures is too weighty to list here, but the simple fact that he hasn't fired Eddie Compass is enough to make me question his competence.
On to the second paragraph:
Finally, I'd like to know if, on the evacuation side, how a scenario like Hurricane Ivan would be handled, i.e., a dramatic near-miss that fortunately didn't hit the city but did force an evacuation.It's called personal responsibility. I understand basic physics, like the immutable fact that in a gravity environment, water flows downhill. I have lived in floodplains and made arrangements to evacaute, to do what I had to do. When water threatened, we took time to attend to our livestock and neighbors and got the hell out. I now live on top a hill. A big hill.
Take the Ivan scenario. If everyone is personally responsible, they grab their SHTF bag and head out the door. Check on the neighbors on the way out. Go to a pre-arranged location in another longitude. Wait three days and go home. I know that is simplistic, but the simplest plans are the best.
What about all those folks who couldn't get out? They couldn't get out since 1927? Hell, in seventy years you can walk a long way. The trek from St. Louis to Oregon didn't take that long. Millions of Americans made that trek on foot, back in the 1800's. Granted, the day before a hurricane is a little late to get started. You're probably going to get wet. It is about personal responsibility.
If people choose to live in New Orleans, then they should be willing to accept the risks. If you live in a place you can't get away from, then you probably should take a good look at your life. Understand the risks. Make decisions that will minimize those risks. And if necessary, start walking. Americans have done it before.
Now, having said all that, I'm still helping to care for internally displaced persons. Some of their stories tear at my heart strings. I hope and pray that they get their lives together, and make some decisions about how to spend the rest of it.
Frankly, I hope that New Orleans comes back stronger, more diverse, more exotic than before. I like visiting there and have lots of memories from that town. I hope to make many more memories there. But I won't live there, because water flows downhill.
Aw, Pawpaw--not my job? That's the best you can come up with?
ReplyDeleteYes, we've known since before 1927 that New Orleans was vulnerable to flooding, although check the record--NOLA didn't flood in 1927. Plaquemines flooded, thanks to deliberate dynamiting of levees below NOLA--and the data suggests that NOLA wouldn't have flooded even if they hadn't done that.
Mississippi flooded--badly. Check out Rising Tide, a VERY good book (in fact, thanks to Oyster's recommedation, I went & got it from the library--it's a true page turner, with enough science and history for anyone like myself who's an amateur on both counts, but who appreciates those lucky enough to do either for a living), for all the details.
It seems as if, judging from your post, that you have a certain yearning for the 19th century, which in a certain sense is actually a pretty good thing--for instance, at that time, levees, dredging, canal construction, etc., were in their infancy. As a result, marshlands, mudflats, etc. existed which might have reduced the effects of a severe storm like Katrina.
As to your suggestion re: foot toddling (see The Sweet Science by A.J. Liebling, also the author of The Earl of Louisiana for more on that)...present laws prohibit foot travel on highways, I presume for public safety reasons. Should we rescind those laws? As for walking the levee, I believe industry along the Chemical Corridor had made that a tad difficult. And I'm sure you've heard about the kind folks in Gretna who, um, made it clear that "those people" couldn't get out on foot.
I took about an hour to examine some logistics re: evacuation of upwards of 100,000 people lacking cars in a major metropolitan area without significant mass transit, and have come to the conclusion that, yes, it could be accomplished in less than 24 hours--at a cost of approximately $4 billion dollars--with existing resources. I'd be happy to provide the details if you're interested. Logistics aside, neither the state nor the city of New Orleans has that kind of money--however, Washington has that kind of cash--routinely, larger sums are simply lost.
Finally, your point re: water flows downhill, i.e., those schmucks should've known--well, the reality is that LOTS of folks with decidedly better resources than the dirt poor also have total losses...well, they've presumably got some sort of insurance to cushion the fall. However, survivors of 9/11 victims who were on the upper end weren't told to shove it--in fact, compensation was pro-rated based on factors like income (do you think this was wrong?).
Yes, in some ways it would be really nice to go back to a quaint 19th century existence--up at dawn, milk the cows, sow/reap the cotton, read Shakespeare by candle after sundown...but it's not gonna happen. We've got a federal government, that, like it or not, spends $2.5 trillion dollars annually--and, given the exigencies of modern society, cannot spend much less, whether anyone wants it to or not ("it's the system," as a weird acquaintence of mine used to say). Costs and logistics--and planning -- for a natural disaster can and should be handled by the federal government, and, whether or not we like it, it's the right thing to do. For every queer in San Francisco affected by an earthquake, for instance, there's someone who is the epitome of a family man. For every nutjob who chooses to live in a floodplain in Illinois, there's a farmer simply looking for a fair price for his corn (or wheat, if it's North Dakota--and don't forget that those folks also live in blizzard country). For every dumbass who lives in tornado alley, there's a rancher who's goal is to make a living providing what the public demands.
By pooling our substantial resources--which is already done, as anyone who's compared their federal versus state/local tax burden knows--we both express our national heritage as Americans and look out for our fellow citizens.
I'm interested in seeing your response. I'll be out for a while, but will check in tomorrow.