It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Deputy Chief says New Orleans is Completely Destroyed

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Deputy Police Chief of New Orleans gave some stark reality today when he emphasized that New Orleans was completely destroyed. Riley commented that there has been some slight improvements such as: flood water is being pumped out, looting is better controlled, and violence is subsiding. Although he made the point there is no reason to stay in New Orleans and it is currently at best 'organized chaos'.
 



www.cnn.com
Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley said thousands of people were still in the city a week after Hurricane Katrina ripped across southeast Louisiana.

"We are working with them to try to convince them that there is no reason -- no jobs, no food -- no reason for them to stay," Riley said.

"We advise people that this city has been destroyed. It has been completely destroyed.".




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I'm wondering if we are just seeing a lull in the storm, or are we finally on the downhill side of the anarchy?

What will be the result when all the displaced residents come back into the region looking for jobs? How about the repercussions on the economy as a whole?


Related News Links:
www.kbtv4.tv

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Very important question you asked at the end there.
Forward thinking, Not enough of that..

How can we nip this in the bud?..
People are spread out all over the place now..And will soon be itching to
come back..I give it a week or so, from the date of your post..

It's important that we all work together in brainstorming a solution.
I, myself would like to know a location that would be capable of recieving care packages..

Mosquito borne diseases will soon be rampant. Insect Repellent containing DEET would be an important ingredient of such a care package.
Also antibiotic, antiseptic waterless hand cleaner, baby wipes. etc..

Or anything else, any of you could think of..

Gotta start now..spend energy doing something other than the finger pointing/wagging that is going on right now..



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I saw Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley in a TV interview on UK TV yesterday.

I thought he was a very eloquent spokesman. Obviously tired himself he appeared honest and professional.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Uhh, if they can rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan after "shock and awe", then surely they can rebuild New Orleans. What, are they simply going to wipe it off the map now? I guess it's easier to let people fend for themselves than to give them some of their tax dollars back to rebuild their city. And I thought that's what taxation was for. Allocate a few billion in funds, send reconstruction crews into the city en masse and start hiring locals for those crews. The workers have to eat, buy clothes and sleep somewhere. Before you know it, you have a city-level socio-economical system back on its feet. Pfft, maybe I'm naive.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

What will be the result when all the displaced residents come back into the region looking for jobs? How about the repercussions on the economy as a whole?



What economy? What jobs? There will be no one returning other than clean-up workers for a number of months and maybe years. The best advice I could give those who lost their homes and were relocated is to remember you're still an American in the USA. All is not lost. You are still home so pick a place, get a job and make a life there. You'll spend an eternity waiting on life as you knew it to return to the coastal area. Let go, accept it and move on with life.

You will be absorbed into some other area so there's no need pulling a Palestinian trip and camping on the outskirts of something that is no longer there and has no chance or returning any time soon. Many of us have relocated several times. Its not the end of the world and sometimes change can be good. I would also say there will be funding for relocation and grants to help those who need it get on their feet again. Accept it because you paid taxes for it and use it to make a new start. Best wishes.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
10 years from now, a revitalized New Orleans may be a reality, but for now, some of those displaced residents and people so angry that the city was destroyed, should line up for a job to help clean up thier city, because that is all that will occur in the next 6 to 12 months. There will be more work in NO now and maybe this can help turn around it's economy. I heard plenty of cmplaints of no work, well, maybe this is the wake up call that is needed.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
As bush said...
New Orleans will be even better than before...

Well of course it will, with all that prime real estate being sold to Rich Land developers over the next month...
There will be New motels from one end to the other... and not one of the former residents will even be able to afford to vacation there...



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Uhh, if they can rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan after "shock and awe", then surely they can rebuild New Orleans. What, are they simply going to wipe it off the map now? I guess it's easier to let people fend for themselves than to give them some of their tax dollars back to rebuild their city. And I thought that's what taxation was for. Allocate a few billion in funds, send reconstruction crews into the city en masse and start hiring locals for those crews. The workers have to eat, buy clothes and sleep somewhere. Before you know it, you have a city-level socio-economical system back on its feet. Pfft, maybe I'm naive.


There's a big difference between "shock and awe" and a cat 4 hurricane. If bombing Iraq was like hitting a car w/ 100 hammers, Katrina was a wrecking ball! There's no comparison between the two.

Although I would still be very suprised if they didn't rebuild. They really need to take a step back and consider how they can keep this from ever happening again though. Not only from the standpiont of the flooding, but how the responce could be improved if this (God forbid) ever happens again.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
It should not be rebuilt - at least not in it's entirety, and certainly not in the same manner.

We tried to tame mother nature in New Orleans, and mother nature won - as will always be the case.

River deltas naturally "subside", or sink, as sand and organic materials compress to form denser rock. Normally, though, additional silt is deposited when the river floods, keeping the level of the land relatively constant.

New Orleans wasn't BUILT on land below sea level! In fact, it was originally build on and behind "natural" levees. The town eventually grew beyond this area, but that isn't even the reason it is now below sea level. The reason it is below sea level now is because it has actually been slowly sinking since the building of artificial levees, which have deprived the land of new silt.

Additionally, due to global warming (or a natural cycle, depending on who you believe), the sea level has risen.

Unfortunately, human nature is such that we just don't take seriously known threats that take many years to play themselves out.

Sure, the French Quarter will come back as a tourist trap. And there are critical oil and shipping facilities that will have to be maintained, and workforces for these industries will have to be housed nearby - hopefully not in the lowest-lying areas, though, and with more flood-resistent building techniques. Better provisions will have to be made for evacuationduring inevitable hurricanes and floods.

But "New Orleans" - as we know it - can not and should not be rebuilt. Yes, it is a loss of a true American gem, and is to be lamented. But let's not foolishly make the same mistake twice. The first time, at least, we simply didn't know any better.

Our science has improved greatly since, but our engineering is not yet able to conquer mother nature. The fact is, if somebody wanted to build a city where New Orleans is today, it would never get past the first Environment Impact report.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by Bay_Watcher]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bay_Watcher
It should not be rebuilt - at least not in it's entirety, and certainly not in the same manner.

We tried to tame mother nature in New Orleans, and mother nature won - as will always be the case.

River deltas naturally "subside", or sink, as sand an organic materials compress to form denser rock. Normally, though, additional silt is deposited when the river floods, keeping the level of the land relatively constant.

New Orleans wasn't BUILT on land below sea level! In fact, it was originally build on and behind "natural" levees. The town eventually grew beyond this area, but that isn't even the reason it is now below sea level. The reason it is below sea level now is because it has actually been slowly sinking since the building of artificial levees, which have deprived the land of new silt.

Additionally, due to global warming (or a natural cycle, depending on who you believe), the sea level has risen.

Unfortunately, human nature is such that we just don't take seriously known threats that take many years to play themselves out.

Sure, the French Quarter will come back as a tourist trap. And there are critical oil and shipping facilities that will have to be maintained, and workforces for these industries will have to be housed nearby - hopefully not in the lowest-lying areas, though, and with more flood-resistent building techniques.

But "New Orleans" - as we know it - can not and should not be rebuilt. Yes, it is a loss of a true American gem, and is to be lamented. But let's not foolishly make the same mistake twice. The first time, at least, we simply didn't know any better.

Our science has improved greatly since, but our engineering is not yet able to conquer mother nature. The fact is, if somebody wanted to build a city where New Orleans is today, it would never get past the first Environment Impact report.


I have to agree, I can see the sentimental side of why they what to rebuild there, but I for one would never feel comfortable there after going through something like this. Sure they could make the levees bigger & stronger, but it seems like it would only be a matter of time before the rising sea or another hurricane put the place under for good.

Hopefully most people from NO have a way to start a life elsewhere, I mean hurricane season runs through November. If another comes through, well, I don't even wanna think about that...



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
There will be New motels from one end to the other... and not one of the former residents will even be able to afford to vacation there...


Well, I doubt that is true. Of course if billions of federal and private funds are put into redevelopment, they aren't going to rebuild substandard housing and slums. Duh. Thats a given. However, I wouldn't say those who lost the slums would be neccesarily unable to vacation or even live there. The abundance of jobs and careers created by new construction should afford a great many jobs in the private sector. No, they can't sit on their cans and expect the rest of us to work and pay taxes so a brand new house could be built for them but they can take advantage of the opportunities which will present themselves on down the road. This rebuilding is way ahead of the current situation so lets not count our chickens.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
On the ITV News reports [British T.V. station] someone actually said it'll take 80 days to pump the water out if they were at their full level [all of them working.]

Making it 25th of November before the water is gone.

You then have the clean up process and the removel of everything.

It'll take years to get the South back up again and their is a possibility of 4more hurricanes this year. Each one being able to add to the damage which already exists.

It might pain people to see it, but you can't beat nature and New Orlean's isn't a good area to build a large City.

But impact as a whole?

This can have two outcomes.

Increase jobs to do the clean-up, building work, etc and loss of jobs from residents.

You'll have to weight them against one another to come out with an outcome.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Every home or building that was flooded whether it was one inch or up to the roof line will have to be destroyed. Mold and mildew will make all the buildings and homes uninhabitable. Unless levee's can be built that can withstand 200 mph winds and 30 ft storm surges then most of the city should not be reclaimed. The people should never be allowed to rebuild in a flood zone. Take the Billions of dollars that it would cost to make NO livable again and use it to give the victims a new start, new homes, new jobs in a new location. That would be a better use of the money.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
With the polar caps melting, the ocean levels rising and monster storms increasingly more likely and the city itself actually slowly sinking into the mud like Venice, the time really is not so far off that it, like Venice and probably Amsterdam and the other low lying cities of the world will actaully have to be abandoned. And so, if this administration actually had any foresight and thinkers worth the name, instead of corporate hacks and dogmatists, we would have a discussion about the matter and, yes probably abandon it. But since this administration is only composed of dogmatists and corporate hacks who will obviously smell a fortune to be made, we won't really have this discussion, money will be wasted, and in the long run, more people will needlessly die. A pity really though you cannot blame the people who have called it home....but the political hacks and the corporate vultures and the like, now that's a different story.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
The people should never be allowed to rebuild in a flood zone. Take the Billions of dollars that it would cost to make NO livable again and use it to give the victims a new start, new homes, new jobs in a new location. That would be a better use of the money.



Well, I am not for telling a land owner where or when they can build on their property. I can say I am against allowing an incorperated city to be built in a known flood plain and about way think those who knowingly build in a flood plain should be personally and finacially responsible for their own losses.

Secondly, your last assertation is logical and fiscally solid therefore it will never be considered for a number of reasons. The large developers, the fear of the dreaded racial label, the fear that things will not be like they were before. For all those reasons vast amounts of money will be spent to revitalize a swamp. With only about 5% of the landmass in the US developed, there are plenty alternatives but if they have to cut down a tree or two, then we get into another situation with the uneducated enviro activists and believe me they are fuming at the EPA already for relaxing restrictions on gasoline. Granted not as fuming as they were when facing rationing but fuming nonetheless.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

if they have to cut down a tree or two, then we get into another situation with the uneducated enviro activists.

Gee it has been my experince that us enviro-activists are generally better educated all the way across the board than the right wingers that fume over us.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Gee it has been my experince that us enviro-activists are generally better educated all the way across the board than the right wingers that fume over us.


no, you just use different reasons to complain about different things.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Here's an eeriely appropriate analogy from the Bible/Torah and an analysis from a Jewish viewpoint:

www.torahbytes.org...

See the link above for the biblical quote and a more complete analysis. However, here is the gist of it as applies to the current situation:

----------
Notice that the decision to preserve or destroy the house had nothing to do with the house, its location, or its owners. The use or intended use of the house made no difference. People's feelings toward a particular dwelling were not to sway the decision. It was only the seriousness of the mildew that determined what to do.

Too often we try to resolve problems by leaning too heavily on what are really side issues. Our desire to preserve should never override the true dangers of a situation.
-----------

Substitute "city" for "house"...

(FWIW, I am neither Jewish nor particularly religious. I stumbled upon this when following some links about toxic mold on Wikipedia...)

It strikes me that - for non-fundamentalists, at least - much of what is in the Bible is straightforward practical advice, often with wider implications that go well beyond surface subject.


(There's another obvious passage that comes to mind. Actually, I don't know what actual passage is, nor even what book it is in. When I was a kid, my grandparents - who I visited during every summer vacation - thought that I should "do I as say, not as I do" and get some exposure to religion. So, they handed me over to the Nazarene neighbors for a couple of hours a day for Bible School. Anyway, one of the songs we used to sing has kept running through my mind of late. The lyric goes, "The wise man built his house upon the rock..." )

The people of New Orleans, and our government at various levels, now face - both literally and figuratively - the decision addressed in Leviticus 14:43-45.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by Bay_Watcher]

[edit on 6-9-2005 by Bay_Watcher]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bay_Watcher
It should not be rebuilt - at least not in it's entirety, and certainly not in the same manner.

We tried to tame mother nature in New Orleans, and mother nature won - as will always be the case.





Unfortunately, human nature is such that we just don't take seriously known threats that take many years to play themselves out.

Sure, the French Quarter will come back as a tourist trap. And there are critical oil and shipping facilities that will have to be maintained, and workforces for these industries will have to be housed nearby - hopefully not in the lowest-lying areas, though, and with more flood-resistent building techniques. Better provisions will have to be made for evacuationduring inevitable hurricanes and floods.

But "New Orleans" - as we know it - can not and should not be rebuilt. Yes, it is a loss of a true American gem, and is to be lamented. But let's not foolishly make the same mistake twice. The first time, at least, we simply didn't know any better.



[edit on 6-9-2005 by Bay_Watcher]


Excellent points..
With a lot of studying, I believe it could be rebuilt. In a different way.
This is a chance to show off new methods of construction that might work WITH nature, instead of against it..

But how would we do it?
I certainly hope any rebuilding is done methodically, and with caution..



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Completely destroyed? Not likely, plenty of infrastructure there. Roads, sewers, etc. How about those high-rises. Plenty will have to be rebuilt but, it will be. Too much there to leave behind.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join