New Orleans - WHY?

Page 4 of 5  


the report I saw was two female officers with shopping carts full of Woman's SHOES!
Police ARE allowed to commandeer needed items,but I don't believe ladies shoes falls into that category.

I would not bet on that. Besides,it's easy enought to have your own magazines of ammo;the AR-15 uses the same ammo and mags as the M-16's.
*I* sure would have ammo.
Also,civilians could and should shoot looters on the spot. In Florida,it's legal;burglary is a forcible felony,and one can use deadly force to stop forcible felonies. I'd write "looter" on their foreheads,too.
"Not in my neighborhood".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik writes:

No, there is more to it than that, my friend. Deadly force is not always legally justifiable in such circumstances.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are for antiwar events, such as the Kent State student protest against the Vietnam war. Then the National Guard murdered 4 students, just for fun.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bert Byfield writes:

I'm talking about today. Not the 60s.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It happened in the 70s.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bert Byfield wrote:

....
Absolute nonsense...they were put in a tenseful situation and, essentially, panicked...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

People like you make me SICK.You think they shot people "just for FUN". They were surrounded by a large,hostile crowd,with people throwing things at them.You have absolutely NO evidence that the shootings were FUN for them.
G-D socialists.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uh... The students that were shot were not even participating in the protest, and were not throwing anything. That was the government's findings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That still does not show they shot for FUN. I also did NOT say that the people shot were the ones throwing things at the Guardsmen. The shots likely were not even aimed fire,that's common with soldiers who are SCARED and inexperienced.Probably poorly thought warning shots to get the hostile crowd to disperse,to allow the Guardmen to get to safety.
Those four learned the hard way to not be around riots. Innocent people often get hurt in "civil" unrest.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard J Kinch wrote:

Absolute nonsense...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What is equally disturbing is the fact that the government and the insurance companies continue to condone and insure building in areas where it is known that they will have disasters and large insurance losses.
Because they do this the rest of us that refuse to build in these danger zones must pay higher premiums to cover such losses.
I sent contributions to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army; but, it will be very annoying if my premiums go up because others will not learn

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, and what ticks me off, the state I used to live in forced me to pay lots of money to install a new septic system, simply because the septic was old. It worked fine, it hurt no one, did not cause landslides or damage other property or any of that. But the government was right there to protect me from myself.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
barbarow wrote:

Floida made pretty severe restrictions after Andrew - if 50% damaged, have to rebuild on stilts, etc. I can imagine the howling if anyone even THOUGHT of passing laws against building "on the water". There is a feeding frenzy already, town ignores it's own regs on density, etc. There are lots of folks wealthy enough to gut a nice waterfront home and rebuild 3x as large; those same folks are wealthy enough to make large campaign donations to political party of their republican choice :o)I have met only one person, in 10 yrs. in Florida, who admits to being a Democrat. Honest. I wouldn't kid ya'. A local planner recently suggested a moratorium on building permits, and they haven't found his body floating yet, but the response was negative.
I grew up in a nice city that didn't build up to the water's edge and knew how to reverse rivers when they flowed the wrong direction :o)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have given some more thought to you question...
It is a classic "slippery slope". The problem came on gradually over 200 years. Every decision made sense at the time; it is just that all of them together, viewed years later, look stupid. At exactly what point were they supposed to bit the bullet and abandon the city? It is alway worth an incremental improvement; even when the whole thing thereby becomes untenable.
The issue of what to do now, is a good example. I presume they will rebuild; what else are they supposed to do, tell 500,000 people they don't live anywhere anymore? And when they look at the decision 50 years from now, it will look idiotic; but we won't be treating New Orleans like Chernobyle; there is neither the political will not the compelling reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Furthermore,if the gov't told them they could not live there anymore,they would have to reimburse the landowners for the taking of their property.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good point, Jim. The emotional and political need to rebuild likely trumps the potential practicality of abandoning the city. But until someone does the cool calculation of numbers, who knows what is "logical". It may be a wash, economically, whether to abandon and rebuild upriver on real "land" , vs tear-down and rebuild, all on the government ticket. Current crapped-out infrastructure, utilities, housing standards, and potential future floods would seem to argue for a rebuild/relocation elsewhere, somehow saving the French Quarter by walling it in with an affordable (smaller) dike and pump system protected from electrical outages. The rebuild of water, gas, communications and sewerage, plus the giant sump pumps, now ruined, would likely be a huge cost, not to mention 100's of thousands of ruined homes. Re pure speculation, if you had an upstream new town on dry land, say just downriver from Baton Rouge, you could have high speed ferries and elevated strengthened causeways to feed tourists to the Quarter, and workers to the docks, much diminishing the future damage by hurricanes, which are certain to come, no matter what our hopes and good wishes for New Orleans are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually that is the solution. Take the low lying areas under eminernt domain, pay fair market value based on the 2005 tax assessment and fund it by selling the property to developers who will be more than willing to fill it in and build mcmansions. Make the developers build a percentage back as "affordable" homes They are doing that all over the country and the SCOTUS just said it was constitutional.
The average "lift" on currently developing property here in SW Florida is running about 4 to 6 feet to meet the FEMA. When you are sitting at a light, half of the vehicles around you will be dump trucks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually I'll bet that would still be cheaper than re-engineering the levee system to try to stop the "next one".
If I was a landowner there, and already lost everything, I might be quite content to take what I can get and get the heck out.
Imagine what insurance rates are going to be for the ones who rebuild and stay. Unless the govt. subsidizes it and throws more good money after bad.
AMUN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Amun wrote: ....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.