Posted on 08/26/2008 7:01:41 AM PDT by Ebenezer
It was way back in 1897 that 8-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to The New York Sun asking an editor there if it was true, as her friends said, that Santa Claus didn't exist.
If she were around today, addressing newspaper writers with her trademark naiveté, one imagines that she'd be asking if it's true that scandal is to New Orleans what Santa is to the North Pole. "Please tell me the truth," she would write, "Is New Orleans as bad as everyone says it is? Is it the worst place around?"
Unlike Francis P. Church, the Sun editor who began his letter to Virginia by telling her that her friends were wrong in saying there was no Santa, I couldn't be so dismissive with the child. The facts are indeed difficult to contend with. And the embarrassment so many New Orleanians feel is real.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Pelican State ping
Typical of a liberal...he blames business for their problems, but then points out how the politicians might have something to do with it. Sorry, Bozo, but bad businessmen can only exist in concert with bad politicians. You seem to have more than your share of both in LA, and NO in particular.
I also don't understand why federal money is being used to rehab private property. You would think that owning homes that are 8' below sea level might suggest that you live in a potential flood plain and might want to insure against flooding. With over $125 billion federal dollars paid for Katrina and Rita relief, not to mention hundreds of millions in private donations, I'd say the rest of us have paid enough to rehab NO. It's time for you guys to bootstrap your city back to health on your own merit and efforts...and I'd start by kicking your corrupt politicians out of office.
Yes to the first, no to the second. Places like Detroit, Washington, DC, and a few other northern "chocolate cities" are probably as bad, if not worse.
And for those who want to give Orleans the benefit of their doubts, I’ve heard it put that while NO may be one of the most corrupt American cities, the place can be seen as one of the most honest and efficient Caribbean cities.
Typical liberal again. Instead of doing something about the problem, they "hope" it goes away. It will always be that way unless somebody fixes it. Maybe using the color of one's skin is not the best way to pick a leader.
Looks like a new Katrina heading that way.
I learned a new word from Oakland. CA radio, “Takeover”.
Armed crooks charge into a restaurant, rob it and all the customers. The assemblywoman speaking said it was bad for business in downtown Oakland. Duhwin award
The truth is, the NFIP is badly under-utilized in flood-prone areas from coast to coast. In 2005, the greater New Orleans area had the highest percentage of coverage in the nation, at just under 60 percent.
That nearly sixty percent, however, was mostly NOT in New Orleans proper... it was in Jefferson Parish to the west and St. Tammany Parish to the north, and even St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes to the south.
The former residents of the city moved out to the suburban areas to get away from a demographic shift that was bringing increased crime and plummeting property values. That was decades ago now. The people who moved out of New Orleans but stayed in the region ovewhelmingly did have flood insurance.
Insuring against flood damage just wasn't seen as important by the entitlement-minded types that had turned much of New Orleans into a gigantic slum. Education and personal responsibility are not exactly prized by such people; it's unlikely that many of them were even aware that their homes were below sea level. "Flood plain"? What's that?
The schools will open on time.
In my mind, those who chose not to buy it are SOL: they gambled...they lost. I fail to see why I should subsidize someone who didn't care enough for their own property to insure it.
“You can take DC off your list. The changes have been dramatic over the last 10 years starting with Mayor Williams and continuing with Fenty. The city has gentrified and the problems moved to Prince Georges County.”
Not according to the statistics. Maybe things have improved in the area you are seeing, but overall, the picture is different.
Washington Population 2006 581,000
Washington (2006)
Murder 169
Rape 186
Robbery 3,829
Assault 4,589
Burglary 3,835
Theft 15,907
Auto Theft 7,321
New Orleans 2003 Population 454,863,
Murder 274
Rape 213
Armed Robbery 1534
Simple Robbery 537
Assault 2037
Burglary 4879
Theft 12726
Auto Theft 6872
New Orleans 2006 Population 250,000
Offense 2006 Corrected for Population
Murder 17 34
Rape 23 46
Armed Robbery 73 146
Simple Robbery 31 62
Assault 220 440
Burglary 904 1808
Theft 950 1900
Auto Theft 685 1370
Washington, DC TODAY is comparable to New Orleans “pre-Katrina” (NO higher for murder and rape, DC higher for the other categories, so I’ll call’em the same), despite the “gentrification”, even correcting for New Orleans current crime statistics for the loss of population due to Katrina, New Orleans is today MUCH less crime riddent than DC today.
Sorry bout the formatting screwup on the data, but I think you can get the necessary info out of it.
The murders are clustered in certain neighborhoods, but are almost nonexistent in others.
It's a strange city- I live in the District and based on my day-to-day interactions (if I didn't know better) I'd think DC was a majority-white young professional city
The cluster around the Green/Yellow line surprises me...
Low-income housing/housing projects located near Metro stops, maybe?
It is easy to say, but for one living on the outskirts of New Orleans I can tell you this. The ones who screamed the loudest, looted the most, and destroyed the superdome will continue to elect corrupt individuals who promise them pie in the sky and a chicken in every pot. It continues to happen. Maybe someday they will learn but at this moment it doesn't seem likely for a long while. Hope I'm wrong.
We had a local female politician caught with her hand in the till and her constituents were chanting "You go girl!" as they hauled her off to jail. Since they probably don't pay any taxes, I guess that explains their attitude. Otherwise, perhaps they'd see they're being robbed.
I did real estate title work in that area for almost twenty years. It's true that mandatory flood coverage is a condition of most mortgages, but many people outside of the "bowl" (Flood Zone A) who don't *have* to buy the coverage were still smart enough to do so. There had been a slow drop-off in non-mandatory (mortgage related) policies before Katrina, mostly due to the city having gone some years since the last bad flood (1997, I think). Hurricane-related flooding was an even more distant memory (Betsy, 1965).
As for the 9th Ward, I know some of the houses were owned by the residents, but a heck of a lot of them were rental properties owned by slumlords. At one of the first "get back to business" meetings after Katrina, some guy managed to get the microphone and began whining about his misfortune. Seems he owned over 70 houses around the city, and although he had rental income flowing in from every last one, he didn't have flood insurance on any of them.
I also knew of an old (*really* old), retired attorney who bought up houses at foreclosure and tax sale auctions, then turned around and sold them to locals who could't qualify for loans with traditional lenders. An okay guy (he didn't gouge them on the interest rates) who wanted to help disadvantaged people feel like they had a stake in their neighborhoods. He died a year or two before Katrina, but I suspect that his succession was still an open matter. I'd wager that he didn't require flood coverage for his loans.
In my mind, those who chose not to buy it are SOL: they gambled...they lost. I fail to see why I should subsidize someone who didn't care enough for their own property to insure it.
As someone who has always had flood coverage, I strongly agree. Paying off those who chose not to purchase coverage is not only picking the taxpayers' pockets, it's a double-dip on the taxpayers who paid for the coverage all along.
I thought this was likely the case. Still, since there was no mortgage, they took a gamble on not insuring. When I had my own software company, I bought a building that was in a 100 year flood plain. Neither I nor the bank knew that at closing, however, and that fact didn't come to light until the next year. The bank said I had to buy insurance, but I pointed out that there was nothing in the loan documents that stated that requirement. It turns out that there was a flood in 1889 (as I recall) and none since. (The flood was caused by work done on a nearby canal that collapsed.) If the property goes 100 years without a flood, its removed from the flood plain list. I gambled that, with only a few years to go, there wouldn't be a flood. I won. It has since been removed from the flood plain list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.