the report I saw was two female officers with shopping carts full of
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".
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
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 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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
Unless the govt. subsidizes it and throws more good money after bad.
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.