Slashdot Mirror


Mayor Orders Mandatory Evacuation of New Orleans

Pickens writes "City officials ordered everyone to leave New Orleans beginning Sunday morning — the first mandatory evacuation since Hurricane Katrina flooded the city three years ago — as Hurricane Gustav grew into what the city's mayor called 'the storm of the century' and moved toward the Louisiana coast. 'This is the real deal. This is not a test. For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life,' said New Orleans mayor, C. Ray Nagin. Already, hundreds of thousands of residents had begun streaming north from New Orleans and other Gulf Coast areas stretching from the Florida Panhandle to Houston. Bush administration officials took pains not to be caught as flatfooted as they were in Hurricane Katrina, announcing that President Bush had called governors in the region to assure them of assistance and that top federal emergency officials were in the region to guide the response. 'We could see flooding that is worse than what we saw with Katrina,' said Louisiana Governor Jindal." The US Geological Survey will be running a real-time "Map of Hydrologic Impacts" to monitor flood levels, and the National Weather Service has charted direction and wind-speed probabilities. Reader technix4beos points out the need for IRC transcription of FEMA and NOAA feeds.

26 of 712 comments (clear)

  1. what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there?

    Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

    1. Re:what the hell? by eebra82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone places on earth. Why are rebuilding and living there? Make it an industrial zone and be done with it. Use the money to permanently relocate the population, not rebuild their soon-to-be blown away homes again.

      Although New Orleans had its share of tough hurricanes, Katrina was the first big one that turned it into the costliest hurricane in US history. It was also ranked the sixth strongest hurricane to hit the US.

      Your comment is insightful, but I'd only argue like this if this troubled area was hit by hurricanes more frequently than it currently is. Forcing people to leave their homes is more than just a material loss. There's history, lost ones and more.

      At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

    2. Re:what the hell? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can't force millions of people to move, but they can't force millions of taxpayers in other regions of the country to fund their decision to live there either.

    3. Re:what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can't force millions of people to move, but they can't force millions of taxpayers in other regions of the country to fund their decision to live there either.

      Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. A million times yes! Let people live there if they want, but there's a huge time consistency problem that creates moral hazard when you give people federal money to build there again.

    4. Re:what the hell? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Last time, Bush probably did the right thing in staying the hell away from the rescue efforts and not getting in the way. The problem was that the emergency planning was utterly incompetent, not that the President was not on site.

      This time they are going to make the opposite mistake. And McCain-Palin (sounds like a comedian) will be going off to campaign in the disaster zone during the disaster.

      This is the reason they have a VP, or rather one of the few uses that has been found for a VP. You send the VP off to the disaster zone because they have the same clout and get it fixed capacity as the President in those situations but only require one tenth the amount of secret service etc. entourage. When Bush visited New Orleans to make a PR stop after it was realized he had blundered, they shut down relief for a day.

      It is all deeply unserious, its about managing the next news cycle, not getting stuff done. Bush did not need to go to NOLA, he could have demonstrated he was in the loop by holding daily press conferences in the White House.

      James T. Kirk made the exact same mistake in Star Trek TOS. When it came to TNG they realized that it somewhat strained credibility to have the captain of the ship lead the away teams each week. That was clearly Riker's job.

      And talking about unserious choices, manipulation of the news cycle etc, I wonder which VP would be more competent in a situation like this.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:what the hell? by schnikies79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree.

      The town closest to me (on the Ohio River) was was nearly wiped out during the '97 flood. The government helped them once to move out of the area. The response for those that decided to rebuild in the flood plain? No flood insurance, no disaster insurance and no help if happens again. Private insurance won't touch it. Good luck.

      Don't forcefully stop people from making dumb decisions, but don't subsidize it either.

      --
      Gone!
    6. Re:what the hell? by jlarocco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh yes they can. They federal money to rebuild after Hurricane Flossy, Hurricane Betsy, and Hurricane Katrina and they'll get more money this time.

      Any politician with the common sense to say "Hey, rebuilding here again is a bad idea" would be demonized as wanting to move people from their homes and probably called a racist.

    7. Re:what the hell? by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seeing as New Orleans is the largest port in the world by gross tonnage, I don't think it'd be too easy to just shut down.

    8. Re:what the hell? by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      === Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. A million times yes! Let people live there if they want, but there's a huge time consistency problem that creates moral hazard when you give people federal money to build there again. ===

      The Microsoft campus is built on solidified mud that flowed down during the last big eruption of Mount Rainer. In fact the entire Seattle/Tacoma area is at risk from such an eruption including Microsoft, the PacNorth software industry, and Boeing. Where do you suggest we move Seattle?

      And while every local area should have good emergency planning in place, and Louisiana's prior to Katrina was not and did not, it was always my belief that in a true disaster situation the federal government, backed by the goodwill of the entire nation, should and would step in to help to the limits of human capability. Turned out, not so much.

      sPh

    9. Re:what the hell? by snoogans126 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At the same time, you could easily use this argument for places like Tokyo and other areas that are and will be struck by tremendous earthquakes.

      I get real tired of hearing the earthquake or {Insert misc. disaster here} argument. It's generally rather large areas that are vulnerable to earthquakes, the same can be said for tornadoes and hurricanes. The difference is that while there is a wide coastal area that is vulnerable to destruction from hurricanes, New Orleans is the one that's frigging underwater.

    10. Re:what the hell? by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the fed. The fed does NOTHING quickly. Why this is so fucking hard to understand amazes me. The vast majority of blame for the Katrina aftermath must fall upon Nagin and Blanco. Unless you want to give Bush the power to order the national guard into other states as he sees fit. But I would think that would twig your tin-foil hat receptors.

    11. Re:what the hell? by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... the federal government, backed by the goodwill of the entire nation, should and would step in to help to the limits of human capability.

      And therein lies the problem - entitlement. Folks seem to think that they're entitled to live wherever they want, without repercussions. If something bad happens, the Fed will bail them out, right?

      Folks seem to have lost an ability to take responsibility for their actions. If you choose to live in an earthquake/flood/volcano zone, fine. I respect your freedom to choose. However, don't come complaining that something bad happened to you, expecting me to pay for your decisions. I think the country's goodwill response to folks displaced by Katrina was phenomenal. I'm completely offended by the folks who bitched about it being "not good enough."

    12. Re:what the hell? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "I agree - seriously, if we have to pay to rebuild NO every couple of years, we really should just re-engineer its flood production systems to be impenetrable. Of course then they'll be so damned ugly that nobody will want to live there, so..."

      Actually, that is exactly what we need to do....do it right like the Netherlands did for Amsterdam, which is much farther below sea level than NOLA is.

      One major thing that would protect NOLA, is to rebuild the wetlands, nature's barrier to the storm surrge. That alone would help...and much of it was destroyed by the laying of all the oil pipelines from the gulf into shore, which helps bring in much of the energy needs of the country as a whole. Also,fill in the MRGO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet), which should have been closed off before Katrina...it acts as a direct pipeline for storm surge, and as it narrows increased its speed and force...that is what largely wiped out the 9th ward and the lower parishes.

      The city of New Orleans IS important not just to the people there, but, to the nation. It is there for a VERY special reason, as the port city at the end of the MS river. A great deal of imported goods comes in through there, and a large majority of the goods exported from the middle of the US goes through there. It does not make sense to go further up the river. Also, a great deal, I think 30% or more of the oil/energy comes through there and is refined not far away...you have to have a city close to house the people that work those oil rigs and refineries...not to mention the fishing industry that works out of near there and below NOLA...supplying a large amount of seafood to the country.

      Those are just the practical economical reasons that NOLA is important to the nation...and is worth the investment...don't even have to mention the contributions to US culture from there, nor the fact that the city is historical, and pre-dates the United States itself.

      But for those that bitch about the rest of the country footing the bill for idiots that live there...do consider that most EVERY city in the US is in some danger zone from nature. How many times (annually at least) do we hear about the wildfires and mudslides that plague CA? You do know that New York city has the same nightmare hurricane scenario that NOLA does don't you? It is way overdo....SF has its earthquakes, the midwest has floods and tornadoes (Didn't we just see Iowa flooded out for the 2nd time in like 5 years?)...

      The thing is...we all are in this country together, and need to help each other out...but, it should be done right, and unfortunately in this day in age, it seems impossibe somehwo to get things fixed right. The Army Corps of Engineers blew it on the levees that failed during Katrina. There has been a great deal of evidence of substandard repair on the levees this time around, and they haven't even attempted to build them to greater standards to resist a Cat 5 storm, which should be the plan. Do it right once, and be done with it....

      But really...it isn't like NOLA is the only city that is in almost constant jeopardy of natural disaster...yet we don't hear people bitching about all the other cities that keep getting damaged or blown away. And at the very least, do consider the base economical importance that NOLA and the surrounding regions have to the US as a whole before you start spouting off nonsense like moving an entire fucking city and its people. If that is the argument, then lets be fair and suggest to most everyone else in CA that in in wildfire zones to relocate, and lets move NYC, since it is a hotspot for terrorist attacks, and the coming hurricane there...just to be proactive. Does that sound ridiculous? Yep...on all counts.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Oh for goodness sake... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get the freaking hint - New Orleans is in one of the worst possible places, stop spending federal money rebuilding it. If people want to live there, let them suffer the entire burden of living there! If you want to spend federal money, spend it on relocation allowances and get people permanently away from the problem!

    1. Re:Oh for goodness sake... by Zerth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      About 100,000 people got the hint last time(unless it's taking them 3+ years to walk back from Texas), so 2 or 3 more large hurricanes in close repetition should have the place cleaned out.

  3. Re:Is this allowed in the US? by satoshi1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, think about it this way: How many people will be upset at the governor/government if NO evacuation is ordered? A TON of people will be because this country is full of idiots who can't think for themsleves and NEED the government to think for them.

  4. You can't defeat nature by Smivs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So New Orleans is likely to be flooded yet again, but this is not a unique occurance. Florida is often trashed by hurricanes, and here in the UK much of our housing is on flood-plains, and some of our villages are crumbling into the sea due to coastal erosion.
    You can't beat nature, but we've all got to live somewhere, and there is normally a very good reason for a settlement to be where it is.
    It's a balancing act. Sometimes you need to put resources into sustaining a town/city, and elsewhere this may be inappropriate. The big question is 'Who decides?'

  5. Re:The Shock Doctrine by hanssprudel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Cato Institute is a neo-liberal/neo-conservative "think tank" and lobby group. Of course they're trying to attack Naomi Klein

    And your point is? By the same token: Naomi Klein is a leftist, so of course she is trying to attack free economies. But that isn't what undermines her argument, what undermines her argument is that it is false.

    Read Norberg's full report here:
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9384

  6. Where is "safe"? by anyGould · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where in the world *isn't* there a natural disaster waiting to happen. If it isn't hurricane, it's general flooding. If not flooding, then earthquakes. If not earthquakes, then wildfires, or tornadoes, or whatever your local flavor of emergency is. Make sure you're willing to pay for your emergency before you decide you don't want to pay for theirs.

  7. Re:Fuck it by pcolaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Racists are racists. There are republican and democrat racists. Let's not discriminate on which racists we choose to hate. Plenty to go around.

  8. Re:Huh? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they were to give me a choice of where my taxes went, I'd tell them to take all that money that is being spent "protecting" us in Iraq and send it down to protect one of the most beautiful and unique cities in the world.

    There is nothing wrong with people devoting their time, energy and money preserving New Orleans. It's your life after all. The problem is when you discover that you don't have enough and need to take some of my money too.

  9. Re:Sigh by papabob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because the last time a hurricane hit the Netherladns was... uhh... never? The fact that it's deep below sea level is not what makes new orleans problematic, but its proximity to one of the few places in the world that have big big storms.

    Ok, katrina was the first big one, but now is coming the second one, and maybe in five years we'll see the third and so on. I call it basic survival instinct to leave and put your family in other place.

  10. Re:Fuck it by rukcus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And immediately right after LBJ (Democrat) worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 he told his advisors that he signed the South to Republicans.

    Ever since, the South has been voting Republican.

    So yes, they are still racist.

  11. Re:Fuck it by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Byrd's a Republican now? Shit, when did he switch parties?

    When his party changed around him, Byrd saw the error of his ways, apologized, and set to work trying to undo the damage he had done. Most of his "Dixiecrat" contemporaries, like Thurmond and Helms, never did ... so they went over to the Republicans, who welcomed them with open arms.

    It's simultaneously amusing and sad how Republicans have to reach back decades to find slurs for Democrats, while the current Republican Party presents such a target-rich environment for those Democrats with the guts to take advantage of it.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  12. Wrong on all counts by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funnily enough, I happened to be in Louisiana during Katrina and happened to be working for the government at the time. A small portion (like 25%) of our state's national guard was in the process of standing down from Iraq when Katrina hit, and they were actually rotated into the city during the aftermath because our governor wanted to try and save face and look tough by deploying "combat hardened troops" that will "shoot to kill." One of the main Reserve bases in Louisiana, funnily enough, is IN New Orleans and the other 75% of our National Guard was sitting on their asses waiting for orders, as they were under control of the state government, not the federal government. Bush moving in and federalizing those troops would have been seen as a huge violation of states rights and an assurpation of power, as essentially the only legal basis he could have used for it would have been to declare the state of Louisiana to be rebelling and essentially removed the state government from power. In hindsight, that probably would have been a better option.

    FEMA, funnily enough, responded more quickly to Katrina in New Orleans than they did to Andrew in Homestead, FL. The cynic in me would say that's because of the demographic differences between the two locations, but such baseless theorycrafting serves no one. FEMA (and pretty much any federal disaster relief agency) is in fact paralyzed without local and state government support and cooperation, as their primary role is organization and logistics; ie: figuring out who needs what and seeing that they get it. They need state and local governments (like the national guard, state police, etc.) to provide the actual manpower to accomplish anything, and in the case of Katrina our lovely (and unsurprisingly deposed) governor just sat around and dithered while people died. She even admitted herself (not realizing that the cameras were on) that she should have sent the guard in earlier and when the president offered to take over for her (since she was obviously in over her head) she told him she'd think about it and get back to him in 24 hours.

    But of course, it's obviously Bush's fault, he's such a big meanie that Blanco was too scared to call and ask for help...

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  13. What I'm sick of by nilbog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sick of people calling out Bush for a slow response to Katrina. There's plenty to dislike about Bush we don't need to make crap up.

    For anyone who for some reason doesn't know this: The federal government cannot go in and provide aid in a place like post-Katrina New Orleans unless the governor asks for it. It's against the law and the very basic nature of our country for the federal government to just go and do that kind of stuff. The governor in Louisiana was slow to ask for aid and was therefore slow to get it.

    Bush actually tried to pass a law that would allow the federal government to quickly respond to such disasters and he was accused of trying to take over with an oppressive hand.

    Seriously, I dislike Bush as much as the next guy but I'm not so stupid that I can't see the reality of a situation.

    --
    or else!