|
|||
|
|
|
Defending New Orleans
The letters are still flooding in about Beaumont's Bonus Column--"Just Say 'No' to N.O." The new ones, each in thir own way, unanimously condemn Beaumont for questioning New Orleans' rebuilding. Read all of the letters--new and old--here.
Dear Editor: The only way that your columnist Vance could support his sweeping argument for the abandonment of New Orleans is by leaving out some very important facts. These facts include that the flooding in New Orleans wasn't a natural phenomenon, it was an engineering failure. Similar to the collapse of the Boston Tunnel's roof or the Minneapolis bridge, the New Orleans catastrophe was at least 80 percent caused by poor design and maintenance of critical infrastructure. Vance is obviously not advocating the abandonment of Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Miami and other areas at high risk for disaster. Why, then, abandon the essential port city of New Orleans? Mr. Vance failed to inform his readers that much of New Orleans is above sea level and that many of the areas that flooded had never flooded before in history. He also failed to mention that New Orleans may be well ahead of other coastal cities in preparing for the expected increase in climate-related disasters. Vance also neglected to inform his readers that the insurance industry posted record profits for big hurricane years of 2004 and 2005, so why then whine about that?
I don't expect people in other parts of the country to follow the issues here in New Orleans as closely as I do. But I do so wish that people in the national spotlight would stop misinforming the public about the situation. An intelligent, informed discussion of the issues and attempts to deal with the serious infrastructure problems in this country won't be possible as long as people like Vance are perpetuating myths and falsehoods about New Orleans and Katrina. Shame on you for publishing his column. Marion D. New Orleans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Editor: I just read Mr. Vance's column about New Orleans in the current newsletter of Risk & Insurance.
He might want to think about rewriting the column. He could substitute any city/town for New Orleans and substitute any disaster for a flood. Then he could retitle the column as "Rebuilding anywhere is simply a horrible idea." The new article would work wonders for the insurance business, would it not?
Alan Mayne, P.E. New Orleans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: Surely being in the risk business you must realize that no place on Earth is a risk-free place to live. So do we tell people in Florida or California that they can't live there because a hurricane, earthquake or mudslide could destroy everything they own? Are we willing to force citizens from Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas from their abodes because they live in "Tornado Alley?" No, we implement the best building practices that we can to deal with the real world, to reduce the risk of loss of lives and infrastructure. The real question that needs to be addressed concerning the rebuilding of New Orleans is why we're not encouraging (or even mandating) safer, more practical (and risk-reducing) building practices? Homes need to be raised in areas of extremely low elevation. I lived in Gentilly where 10 feet of water destroyed my one-story double apartment. The landlady has renovated the house at the same elevation, where it is poised to be affected by the next 8- to 10-foot flood. It would also be a good idea to make sure the levees can withstand the flood they are designed to withstand. In America, and particularly in New Orleans, we need to see the wisdom in the age-old slogan, "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." If only politicians would pony up and say what really needs to be done to ensure the sustainability of one of America's most revered cities, and help (in terms of both moral and financial support) be provided, it might just be possible! I thank you for your time. Carol A. Wilson Boston University ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Editor: I just got done reading your article on people building houses "on train tracks." I live in New Orleans and I live above sea level. I have lived here for 25 years and only had one "disastrous flood" caused by the failure of the levee system. My house had three and half feet of water in it. I guess that made up for the two 11-year floods that I missed!
You state that "even after 27 disastrous floods, the most recent deluge was treated as a shock." Of course we were! There has never been another flood like the one caused by the Army Corp's failures right after Katrina. We had been told by the government that we had levees that would hold for a Cat-3 storm, and that was not true. So I did not willingly buy a house on the train tracks but did so by the misrepresentation of safety by the Army Corp and our government. They hide the train tracks from us. They were buried under I-walls levees incorrectly built on silt and under the Mississippi Gulf Outlet.
The reason why the government should take care of the people in New Orleans who lost everything is that it was their fault. Some people don't understand that Katrina did not hit New Orleans. In fact, my house was dry on Monday night after the storm. I had electricity and telephone for almost 24 hours after Katrina, a Category-3 storm, had left the Gulf Coast. It wasn't until Tuesday did my house fill with water.
You state, "Being below sea level is fine, provided that the sea is nowhere nearby." By the way, the Netherlands is well below sea level and surrounded by water but it doesn't flood. And why not? Because its government does what it can to keep it from flooding. They are not told lies about the level of flood protection. Nor are its wetlands, the first and best defense from flooding, sold off to the oil company like in Louisiana so that it can provide a major percentage of our country's domestic oil.
Speaking of which: If you don't think New Orleans should exist anymore, how much more are you willing to pay for energy? How about bananas and coffee? (Did you know that we have the second largest marine transport company in the world here in New Orleans? The biggest in Japan.) So without people able to have houses here (on your train tracks), we will not have the necessary labor to run the port nor the oil companies.So keep in mind if you were to get your wish that my beautiful old and wonderful city should no longer exist, your life would not be the same.
Just a couple more notes:
You said in your article that we don't pay a premium for living on the train tracks. My 1350-square-foot townhouse cost twice as much to insure as my father's 6000-square-foot house in Michigan. I have a hard time believing that my location doesn't have something to do with that.
And while The Economist might say that "no one in his right mind would build London today," they did not say London should not be rebuilt.
And when you state that New Orleans will be destroyed again, it becomes quite apparent that you are not aware of what is happening down here. Houses are being raised. Some as much as 20 feet. Some of the low houses are being turned into green space. The Mississippi Gulf Outlet is being closed. The levees are being built better (or so we are told). We now have flood gates, which, if the 17th Street Canal and the London Canal had had before August 28, 2005, would have keep most parts of the city dry. Dry enough that you would not have written your article and I would not be writing this e-mail.
May you have a great New Year and I hope before you write another article about the great city I live in. Please come visit, experience my hometown and then maybe you will know why we have to rebuild.
Betsy New Orleans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Editor: As a former New Orleans resident (and at present a resident of Ft. Lauderdale), I find Mr. Vance's column "Just Say No to N.O." offensive and, in fact, misleading. First and foremost, Hurricane Katrina--although clearly damaging to New Orleans--did not produce the flooding debacle that ensued. The "disaster" involved, and the source of "harm's way" was, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, whose fecklessness, hubris, deception and lies--not to mention faulty engineering--put residents of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish at risk. The levees that failed were designed and constructed by the USACE--and even it has acknowledged its responsibility for those failures. Moreover, its personnel apparently learned nothing at all from the experience, because initial reconstruction of some critical levees used compacted sand, a highly erodible material, instead of compacted clay, and they would have concealed this additional malfeasance if not for the heroic efforts of a few university and other outside engineers who have sacrificed their own time and money to make sure the job is done right. Yet the Corps is "untouchable" because it serves as a reliable source of pork for our congressional "leaders"--who routinely cut the budgets of badly needed projects to help themselves. You're concerned about future risk? Let's look at MRGO (the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet). The Corps has a fondness for cooking economic numbers, as was revealed in the 2000 scandal involving lock reconstruction on the Upper Mississippi River. The original economic analysis showed a benefit-cost ratio of far less than 1.0--meaning the American public would be subsidizing a handful of freight operators so that the Corps could expand its budget with make-work. If not for the courage of the economist who made this finding, we would never have known that it was changed--surprisingly, showing a B/C ratio of something over 1.0--before its release to Congress and the public. Shame. MRGO not only suffers from the same economic deficiency, but none of its purported benefits could have possibly outweighed the deaths of 1,300 people, $200 billion in economic losses, nor the hundreds of square miles of wetland loss that have put New Orleans at greater risk. While we're on that subject, please note that the Corps has so channelized and "managed" the Mississippi that not only is its silt load a mere 25 percent of its original capacity, but that silt overshoots the mouth of the river and drops off the continental shelf--rather than renourishing the abused wetlands. (The river will have the last laugh, too, when it breaks through the Old River Structure north of Baton Rouge--another wonder of Corps engineering-- and roars down the Atchafalaya Basin.) Compounding all of this malfeasance was the state of Louisiana's Department of Environmental "Quality" (ridicule added), which NEVER saw a permit application from oil or gas operators that did not merit approval. The hundreds of miles of canals and passageways these companies carved through the coastal wetlands created hundreds of miles of edges, hastening erosion and drowning vegetation. I am sure you would argue that Big Oil "handles" risk appropriately--but only their own. Imposing risk on others is all in a day's work for these captains of capitalism, who are happy to receive public subsidies but have no care for the public that subsidizes them. Why internalize risk and other externalities that can be shirked onto others? So much for the truth about New Orleans. Now let's look beyond: If New Orleans should not be rebuilt, then all construction and population growth should be halted immediately in San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, Jacksonville, Houston, Corpus Christi, Las Vegas (water, anyone?), Wilmington (N.C.), and perhaps even Washington, D.C., and residents should be given $10,000 per household to leave. Oh, and while we're at it, let's depopulate Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, Denver and a host of other communities north of the 36th parallel because--my gosh!--they lost power due to a vicious winter storm (or was that two storms, or three?). Think of all the bursting pipes and water damage! And why should the folks living on those arid mountainsides near San Diego be allowed to rebuild? What about St. Louis and the New Madrid Fault? And now that the Seattle area has suffered hurricane-force winds, flooding and landslides (and don't forget that earthquake in 2000, nor the potential for a catastrophic tsunami, nor that Mt. Rainier is an active volcano), shouldn't it, too, be declared uninhabitable and abandoned? So let's get our facts straight: New Orleans was harmed by the federal and state governments; and none of us will ever hear someone like you recommending that Los Angeles be vacated permanently. So let's vacate this foolishness. An expert in risk and insurance analysis should know better. If you feel so strongly about this, perhaps you should campaign for reform of the Corps and leave the beleaguered, victimized residents of New Orleans alone. Joyce Levine, Assistant Professor Department of Urban and Regional Planning Florida Atlantic University Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Editor: Oh, the whining, the misery, the travail--the poor insurance companies. Beaumont Vance' insidious article is dishonest and hypocritical. Dishonest, in railing against "risk" (to insurance companies), while ignoring their profits. Hypocritical, in comparison to his own writings. And he reveals a nasty political edge in siding with companies over citizens. On his own Web blog, Vance defended sub prime "... woes as great news." ("Subprime woes are actually great news") Why? Because Vance states that with all the media focus on "loss", there was a complete ignoring of the lending "gains" in the "subprime" mess. He even refers to financial institutions possibly knowing there would be a meltdown, and, if so, then "... we have a massive case of fraud to sort through." There is ample comparison within the insurance industry. Despite all claims paid in 2005 (Hurricane Katrina year), the insurance industry posted RECORD PROFITS. Where is the "risk" in that? And yet, countless citizens are still fighting insurance companies to settle their claims. Furthermore, the insurance industry exists solely because their business IS "risk." Why do consumers need insurance if there is no "risk?" And to focus an obvious ire toward New Orleans is disgusting. Why no accusations toward Californians, who burned out a mere four years ago and experience Santa Anna winds EVERY year? Where is Vance's disapproval of Midwesterners, who live in "tornado alley" and who face "tornado season" EVERY year? But he saw fit to slam New Orleans. Why? Is he reinforcing some political agenda intent on ignoring the plight of those citizens? Is he supporting insurance company efforts to deny homeowner claims? Mr. Vance's article is hypocritical, dishonest and blatant in partisan political undercurrents. Shame on anyone giving him credence. Ken Conner Consultant, Arts and Economic Development Charleston, S.C. P.S. By the way, Charleston was hit by a hurricane. Afterward, no one blasted the citizenry for their foolhardy life beside the ocean, despite much of the city being "below sea level." And no one condemned citizens for rebuilding their homes here. Locally, everyone knows that Charleston was awash with insurance money after the storm. It is equally common knowledge that the storm brought an overwhelming period of economic development to this region. Now, Charleston frequently rates as one of the top places to live in America. No such goodwill occurred for New Orleans. No such insurance claims payments occurred either. Why not? Perhaps I should have mentioned the blatant racial component of the Katrina disaster images. I guess it's much harder to extend good will toward flood and hurricane victims if they are black, fat, poorly educated and screaming with terror. And many had missing teeth--a bonus visual detriment. New Orleans deserves AT LEAST equal understanding. It is quite obvious the city will NOT receive equal treatment from government or insurers. It is disheartening as an American that a great American city can be treated as New Orleans has been treated. The citizens there did make one major mistake--they trusted their social contracts. They trusted their insurance companies, their government, their levees--built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (another subject entirely). They merely represent what most other citizens around the country equally do--trust. Tragically, I fear they equally represent what can happen (and may well happen) anywhere in this country--betrayal of that trust. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: We rebuilt our home, flooded by federal levee failures in New Orleans, by replacing it with a new home with its living space above the Katrina flood line and above sea level. Next time, we can probably just move home after they get the water out of the city and get electricity restored. We rebuilt as best we could with whatever money we could come up with--and no one offered us a better deal to get back in a home other than to return to the same location. So far, we have not received government assistance for the expense from rebuilding higher--well above the flood line. You would think they would at least encourage homeowners to build higher. So, it is too late for your tough love. If your opinion were to be policy, it should have been declared policy a little sooner than 28 months after our losses. Hundreds of thousands of American's lives are in limbo. Telling us, at this point, we cannot live on our property, would be inhumane. We are at almost 70 percent of our pre-Katrina population. About a third of us flood-zone homeowners have either already completed our rebuild or have started. Unless you can enact your bright idea, (put your money where your mouth is--immediately), your voicing your "ignorant of all the facts" opinion on our situation only serves to further harm your fellow American citizens who fell victim to the worst engineering disaster in the history of this country. If you want to help those less informed about considering risk in decisions, pleased help the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who think it is appropriate to design for only a so-called "hundred-year storm" and base their "never tested until you need it" levee designs on a safety factor of only 1.3--for levees protecting a city full of people and their property. It would make more sense for all of you people who feel New Orleans and South Louisiana should not rebuild to lobby to force a succession of South Louisiana. That would be fair to the country and fair to the levee failure victims. You broke it, you pay for it. Otherwise, cut us off. Leave us to deal with our problems on our own. Don't worry, we'll be able to get by without your economic help--thanks to our port, oil, gas, shipbuilding, our tourism niche, fertile farm lands and seafood. Don't blame the victim, and don't take out your frustrations on the victim. This thing shouldn't be about my flood insurance--if you smash your car into my parked car, who's insurance should pay for my losses? Not mine! The peril was clearly engineering negligence by federal engineers--not storm surge. The levee designers made many very simple engineering errors leading to the catastrophic structural failure of the levees they designed in over 50 locations, flooding the homes of more than 100,000 families. The same designers are rebuilding our flood protection system. Yes, it will happen again. Ray Broussard New Orleans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Editor: An alien from outer space reading the January 3rd column by Beaumont Vance might be lead to believe that the city of New Orleans is completely destroyed by flooding once every 11 years. Truth is, sometimes, when it rains it floods. This is the case in every watershed throughout the world. To say New Orleans was flooded 27 times is disingenuous. Depending how one defines a flooding event, this could be said about nearly any city in the United States. Yet nothing on the scale of the 2005 disaster has ever occurred in New Orleans prior. When New Orleans was incorporated in 1718, it was a conglomeration of thatch huts. When the two 18th century hurricanes mentioned in Mr. Vance's column struck the city, it was not flooded. Rather, its weak structures were blown apart by wind. I invite Mr. Vance to pore over the Cabildo's historic archives where these events have been splendidly documented. In fact, New Orleans' oldest sections were built on high ground and historically have been quite safe from flooding. One might argue in favor of charging higher premiums to those living in areas of New Orleans built in the 50s, 60s and 70s on reclaimed marshland. After all, it is only these areas that lie below sea level (a recent study by Tulane and Xavier Universities found that 51 percent of the urban area is actually above sea level). Yet in the past 50 years, poor engineering has created a dire (but reversible) problem with coastal erosion.
Thus, I submit to you the following: When a 30-foot wall of water, unhindered by a vanishing coast and funneled by a shipping channel that never should have been built, smashes through a shoddily constructed flood-control structure and destroys property, sea level is irrelevant.St. Bernard Parish, much of the Lower Ninth Ward and much of Midcity New Orleans are above sea level and were flooded. The real issue is this: the state of Louisiana contributes an estimated $20.5 billion to the federal treasury per year, and we expect our tax dollars to be used properly. Yet a hurricane that missed New Orleans somehow punched 53 holes into a federal levee system that was poorly designed, carelessly built, not invested in and supposed to withstand Katrina's surge.This travesty claimed almost 1,600 lives in Louisiana alone and resulted in billions of dollars worth of damage. One would have expected the insurance industry to scream bloody murder! Because of failed federal infrastructure, they experienced record losses and these losses were entirely preventable. If Americans choose to construct civilizations rather than swing from trees, they must have infrastructure. Yet the United States currently invests less in civil works as a percentage of GDP than ever in its history. Whether a bridge collapses in Minnesota or levees buckle in Sacramento, insurance companies are left to pick up the slack as the federal government continues to avoid its responsibility. This is not fair.
Still, it is far easier to blame the citizens of New Orleans than it is to address the root of the problem directly. Infrastructure might not be a "hot topic," but it is essential both to your industry and to our lives. New Orleanians share many mutual interests with the insurance industry. Let us work together to truly address these problems. Vincenzo Pasquantonio New Orleans, La. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: I read your recent column on "Just Say No to N.O." In addition to not rebuilding New Orleans, your column cites the Economist's take on London and also mentions the Outer Banks. By extension, then, we really should not build on any coast. Much of Boston was created from fill and New York has been shown to be in danger should a hurricane ever threaten it. Miami has obviously been rebuilt and prior to the national market bursting was a prime real estate darling. To be sure, much of Florida in general is an unlikely place to build, as is the Gulf Coast of Texas, including Houston. Why stop at the Outer Banks -- the entire Eastern seaboard is at threat. I haven't even mentioned the Pacific coast, which is not only threatened by the ocean's fury but also by earthquakes and devastating winds. Do you feel that we should all become your neighbor in Colorado? Those wide open spaces might get a bit crowded. Your reasoning views an area's habitability in a vacuum. While risk is certainly the angle you've hung your hat on, you miss the qualities that make an area desirable or attractive. Could New Orleans or London or Boston be rebuilt elsewhere? Not likely. And while some risks are greater in some areas, these areas have lesser risk of some other disasters, not to mention the value they hold in specific industries and cultural concerns. You also state that those in higher risk areas don't pay an excess premium. Not so, if you take rising Eastern insurance rates as an indicator. Wise homeowners also add on flood insurance. In fact, despite reports to the contrary, many neighborhoods in New Orleans had a greater percentage of flood insurance coverage than other flood-prone areas across the country and a significantly higher rate of coverage than California residents' coverage for earthquakes. You say that on average New Orleans residents rebuild every 11 years. This suggests that all residents rebuild every 11 years, which is not true. Mitigation techniques should be encouraged in areas that have repeatedly flooded, but an entire city should not be penalized. Finally, you express amazement that the most recent deluge in New Orleans was treated as a shock. Yes, it is shocking that the federal government determined years ago that levees could protect the city and the organization selected to build those levees insisted for years that they were done correctly. Decisions were made based on those promises. But the reality was that poor design and shoddy engineering were used, a fact that is outlined in reports by a number of organizations including the National Science Foundation. And you wish to blame the victims? The Netherlands, a country where a large percentage of residents live below sea level, has successfully managed this risk through engineering and wise planning. Why can't we do the same in the U.S.? We do not all want to become Midwesterners. Deirdre Boling New Orleans, LA (formerly Boston, Mass.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: Fabulous article!!! You did not mention directly that with global warming, the seas are expected to rise some three feet over the next 20-30 years, according to some environmentalists. Plainly, this makes rebuilding in New Orleans, Florida, California, Long Island, N.Y., etc. even more stupid. You are correct that between the government and the insurance industry (I am an insurance broker) people are not only enabled, but actually encouraged, to rebuild in harms way. It would be very interesting to know what actuarial calculations the insurance industry may be using to spread a portion of this risk over to those of us who live "high and dry." I live in the Midwest, which is prone to tornadoes, of course, and it is my understanding that insurers have factored into their rates this broadened exposure, so perhaps we are all paying a few bucks for a lot of folks to have ocean views. Tom Davis President Davis American Ltd. Oak Brook, Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: Your column about not rebuilding in New Orleans brings to light several common sense ideas you failed to research or at worst chose to ignore. The failures of the levees in New Orleans were a design and/or construction flaw. They did not face forces exceeding their design specification during Katrina. Later it was discovered much of the areas of failure were "I" walls instead of the inverted "T" walls that should have been built, and the pilings were not dug past the layer of silt which would have kept the levees vertical. Secondly, New Orleans is not destroyed every 11 years on average. It was hit hard during the time of its founding as a wooden village on the site of the French Quarter which was high ground. Wind damage was the worst that area took (as any east or gulf coast area could take during a storm...and the buildings certainly were not built to specification of modern construction). Secondly the only event close to Katrina was the hurricane of 1915; the city has not been destroyed over and over again as you recklessly claim. Finally you don't know the history of this area and its importance to oil/gas, seafood and the importance of this area as the only deepwater port on the Mississippi River. I work for a Fortune 500 company in New Orleans and for you to spout off about something you know little about makes you a fool. Take a closer look at Sacramento (levee failures), Los Angeles, San Francisco (earthquakes), Seattle (earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis), Miami (hurricane storm surge), Tampa Bay (hurricane storm surge) or even New York City (hurricane storm surge). Do not bad mouth my home and my city, if you cannot even do your own research. Undergraduate college students would not write such drivel. Nicole W. New Orleans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: Thank you so very much for your article on New Orleans. I, like you, scratch my head over the whole situation. From the press reports, I am led to believe that these inhabitants look at Federal Aid as an entitlement. If I could write above a third grade level, I would have written your very article nine months earlier.
Michael E. Stamp, CIC President E.C. Cooper, Inc. Watkins Glen, N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: I can see your point of view and I respect your point of view, but you need to see and understand the history and culture of the national treasure that is New Orleans. It's not about risk/reward, it is about peoples history and family traditions. It's about Americans taking care of and caring for Americans. Your article promotes an attitude of not only indifference, but distain for the people who decide to rebuild and re-establish the area. As an American, the power of your pen should be used to help fellow Americans, not to break their spirit. I invite you to go down to New Orleans to see exactly why we all feel so strongly about this issue. Alex Yoncak Dingmans Ferry PA Carpenter local #157 & Founder of the Hammer and Nails Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Editor: I have lived in New Orleans all of my 47 years; only once has my home been flooded, and that was due to the failure of the Federal levee system (built and managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers). My family has lived in the New Orleans area for many more years and has never experienced any flooding, and certainly not one in 11 years as Mr. Vance suggests.
Mr. Vance clearly does not understand nor has he educated himself in the reason for this flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina. Before allowing uninformed and uneducated pieces of self-serving fodder to be published, perhaps someone should do their homework. If Mr. Vance breaks someone's possessions, then he should be made accountable to replace that item. As such, the federal government broke not only our homes and destroyed our life-long treasures, but it has taken away at a minimum two years of our lives that can never be replaced or be fairly compensated.
I hope Mr. Vance is never a victim and made to suffer the devastating losses that New Orleans was dealt at the hands of his government. If he should, I think he would look for recovery to come from those at fault.
Perhaps if he had been stripped of his home, his family, his friends, his job, his pets, all of his family heirlooms, then maybe he might understand the emotional side of this manmade disaster. People want to come home and rebuild and recover, not be displaced without their support network. New Orleans is not a transient society; there is a long history going back many generations. Ask anyone who is "wiped" out by any disaster, and the answer will be the same, they want to be back home with family and their history. This is the largest manmade disaster in our history, which is why it gets so much attention. No one can control the press; we take the good with the bad. I have traveled throughout the United States since Katrina, and people still think New Orleans is under water; when it fact the entire city did not flood, and the flooded areas have been dry for over two years. There are many misconceptions about this manmade disaster, which is why we feel so strongly about accurate and responsible journalism. To compare this manmade disaster to other natural disasters is unfair in that the cause or fault of the disasters is completely different. As far as the government paying for rebuilding, maybe Mr. Vance should have interviewed some of the federal flood victims to see what, if any, compensation they received for their losses from the government. Again, if you break, you buy it. Why shouldn't there be compensation for not only the physical loss, but also for other damages/losses. The insurance companies turned their back on us and denied claims because the government admits the fault of the federal flood; and yes, the government should be held accountable. Where do you suggest people live? Where is your Shangri-La that is without risk: natural, manmade or otherwise? I'll agree to disagree, as we are not even on the same page of dialogue here. Understanding what happened here and what has occurred since takes a lot of education and personal participation. Only when someone comes here and sees the vast expanse of this manmade destruction will someone have a true appreciation of the effects and the emotions of this manmade disaster.
Ilene Powell Formerly New Orleans, now Jefferson LA (due to the Federal Flood) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Editor: This article was fantastic. Thanks for allowing this to be printed. Richard Stephenson Scottsdale Marketing & Advertising Group Scottsdale, Ariz. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Beaumont: Missing from your analysis was the fact that the city did not flood from Hurricane Katrina. It flooded from the failure of levees built by the Army Corps of Engineers, using federal tax dollars. Had the levees been built correctly, and the way the city had been told they were built, 1,570 people in Louisiana alone would be alive today, and I would be sitting in my house, which had not had a drop of water in it since it was built in 1931. That's is, not a drop until August 29. 2005, which put 10 feet at the street and 6.5 feet in my house. There are established facts, typically overlooked in facile arguments about saving tax dollars since we were, apparently, asking for it. Including the 1570 dead. Neil Fears New Orleans, La. January 7, 2008 Copyright 2008© LRP Publications |
|
|
|
Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.
|