I am curious- why no criticism of the people in the Midwest who live in flood plains?

[Cali Coug]

After Katrina, many people on this board lambasted those who lived in New Orleans for owning a house in a city that was susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. Several said we shouldn't even bother rebuilding.

Why no criticism for those in the Midwest now? The people who are losing their homes now are the same ones who lost them in 1993. Should the government help them?



And yes, I think the government clearly should help them. Just pointing out the clear hypocrisy that I am guessing was largely race driven.

[MikeWaters]

Notice how many of the people being affected might be descended from Missourians who persecuted the Saints?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

After Katrina, many people on this board lambasted those who lived in New Orleans for owning a house in a city that was susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. Several said we shouldn't even bother rebuilding.

Why no criticism for those in the Midwest now? The people who are losing their homes now are the same ones who lost them in 1993. Should the government help them?

And yes, I think the government clearly should help them. Just pointing out the clear hypocrisy that I am guessing was largely race driven.

Well I wasn't one who was critical of anyone for living in NO, but might it have something to do with the fact that the people living in the flood plain aren't blaming their plight on a racists government? I agree that there is a racial component here.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

After Katrina, many people on this board lambasted those who lived in New Orleans for owning a house in a city that was susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. Several said we shouldn't even bother rebuilding.

Why no criticism for those in the Midwest now? The people who are losing their homes now are the same ones who lost them in 1993. Should the government help them?



And yes, I think the government clearly should help them. Just pointing out the clear hypocrisy that I am guessing was largely race driven.

My thoughts:

1. No, the govt shouldn't help them. They built in a floodplain, it's their tough crap if they didn't have flood insurance.
2. The amount of whiners crying for a govt bailout is significantly less in this case than in the Katrina case. I'm guessing that lack of major outcry on the part of concerned citizens like yourself is largely race driven.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well I wasn't one who was critical of anyone for living in NO, but might it have something to do with the fact that the people living in the flood plain aren't blaming their plight on a racists government? I agree that there is a racial component here.

So the people in the Midwest are just more "likable" and therefore can rebuild with the help of the government?

New Orleans has been devastated by Katrina level flooding only twice in its history now. The Midwest seems to get hit with massive flooding around once every 10-15 years. I have no problem with either them or the people in New Orleans rebuilding- it is their home, and no matter where you live you are at risk for a catastrophic event (like SLC which would be totally destroyed in a massive earthquake as the sandy base of the valley would liquify and sink, the Great Salt Lake would then flood the valley, and the homes and buildings in the region would be crushed).

I just wanted to point out the sheer hypocrisy of those who complained so vociferously about the people rebuilding in New Orleans.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

After Katrina, many people on this board lambasted those who lived in New Orleans for owning a house in a city that was susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. Several said we shouldn't even bother rebuilding.

Why no criticism for those in the Midwest now? The people who are losing their homes now are the same ones who lost them in 1993. Should the government help them?

And yes, I think the government clearly should help them. Just pointing out the clear hypocrisy that I am guessing was largely race driven.

The very same ones?? I am not so sure that applies to the majority. The media paints with the very broad brush. Seems like some of the towns and areas hit before were either 1) not rebuilt, 2) built higher and stronger levees.

There is some policy in FEMA, etc, to not grant loans for rebuilding in the flood plains, thus, leading people to NOT rebuild in the same spot.

New, bigger levees actually add to the effect downstream. I get the sense that many people in the Mississippi flood plain chose the land because its very fertile. They actually have a reason to live/farm there. They just need to put their house in town above the flood plain (where possible, 150 year floods notwithstanding).

My issue: if you are going to live in a flood plain at least get yourself and movable property (car, etc) the heck out before the flood gets there and have freakin' plan. For that, I am sure the people of Illinois, Iowa and Missouri were 10 times better prepared than many of the people and public officials in New Orleans.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

My thoughts:

1. No, the govt shouldn't help them. They built in a floodplain, it's their tough crap if they didn't have flood insurance.
2. The amount of whiners crying for a govt bailout is significantly less in this case than in the Katrina case. I'm guessing that lack of major outcry on the part of concerned citizens like yourself is largely race driven.

Outcry for what? The government is heavily mobilized and is working diligently in the Midwest. Compare that to the total ineptitude of the government in dealing with Katrina (at the federal, state and local levels). The lack of outrage in the Midwest isn't due to race, it is due to a lack of outrageous conduct.

At least you are consistent in saying they shouldn't rebuild in the Midwest either. I can't say that makes a whole lot of sense, though. Many of the people who have lost their homes and property are farmers who supply the nation with food and energy. It is in the country's best interest to have them living where they live.

Should the government help people in SLC if SLC is destroyed by an earthquake? Most there don't have earthquake insurance, despite the obvious risks.

How about in California which is being hammered by wildfires? Should the government assist?

What about Florida and Texas when the hurricanes come (and they will)?

Every region in this country has risk associated with living in it. Everyone can be harmed, and most cannot possibly protect against that harm adequately with insurance. The role of the government in such instances is to provide the assistance it can provide to the people in need. Everyone bears the burden because everyone stands to benefit from the government's assistance at some point or other.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by hyrum

The very same ones?? I am not so sure that applies to the majority. The media paints with the very broad brush. Seems like some of the towns and areas hit before were either 1) not rebuilt, 2) built higher and stronger levees.

There is some policy in FEMA, etc, to not grant loans for rebuilding in the flood plains, thus, leading people to NOT rebuild in the same spot.

New, bigger levees actually add to the effect downstream. I get the sense that many people in the Mississippi flood plain chose the land because its very fertile. They actually have a reason to live/farm there. They just need to put their house in town above the flood plain (where possible, 150 year floods notwithstanding).

My issue: if you are going to live in a flood plain at least get yourself and movable property (car, etc) the heck out before the flood gets there and have freakin' plan. For that, I am sure the people of Illinois, Iowa and Missouri were 10 times better prepared than many of the people and public officials in New Orleans.

You can compare the flood maps from 1993 with those of today and you will see a lot of overlap. The bigger and better levees are possibly part of the problem (they have led to the rivers running faster and deeper which is causing even more flooding in some parts, additional stress on the levees that wasn't anticipated leading to breached levees, etc.).

To my knowledge, FEMA doesn't prohibit loans if you live in a flood plain, your lender will just require that you obtain flood insurance from the government which corresponds to the flood plain risk FEMA has allocated.

[SteelBlue]

I just want to know why God is punishing them. They haven't allowed any gay marriage yet.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well I wasn't one who was critical of anyone for living in NO, but might it have something to do with the fact that the people living in the flood plain aren't blaming their plight on a racists government? I agree that there is a racial component here.

This is what I sarcastically alluded to a few weeks ago as well. Cali didn't get it then either.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...56&postcount=8