Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mayor Orders Mandatory Evacuation of New Orleans

Posted by Soulskill on from the everybody-out dept.

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.

13 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.

      --
      Full Tilt
    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 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.

      --
      Maybe not
    5. 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.

    6. 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."

    7. 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!

  3. 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?'

    --
    Smivs on the intertubes!
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.