Those who still refuse to leave, should they be removed from there homes

[MagicKingdom05]

Hi,

Someone brought up this subject on tv and I was wondering what you guys thought. Since there are a bunch of people who refuse to leave should the authorities force them to leave.

[Saffron]

I can't say yes or no, I can't judge anyone whose been through hell here on Earth, who may want to stay to find a lost child, or parent, or several lost children or a spouse or whatever reason they want to stay. God bless them is all I can say, because it won't be easy or even possible for them to do so. :guilty: :guilty:

[Junebugwv]

I think it would be a good idea for the local govt to decide what should be done with the affected areas before forcing people out of their homes. If the health/fire officials determine the area should be temporarily condemned, then I think mandatory evacuations are reasonable so the area can be safely rebuilt.

[msdis]

The only one's I have seen refusing to leave is because they will not leave their pets. For gods sake why can't they take these people and make arraignments for them AND their pets. I would not leave either. My pets are my kids. Period!!!!!! That is such horror!!!!! I cannot believe they are not offering to help these people. This is the one thing that has angered me so much in this whole horrible ordeal. Pets are family too, sometimes the only family you have.

[WaltD4Me]

I really don't know the answer to this one either.

Some of the people they showed seemed to be a little mentally unbalanced and some seemed fine, but determined. One guy they showed was floating around in that filthy water on a tire saying he refused to leave his dog. I'm not sure why he was floating around on the tire, but I wondered why they just didn't pluck him out and put him on the boat.

I don't know how people can't understand how serious the situation is, but then again, those are their homes and one man said he wasn't leaving because his house basically survived, but if he left no one would be there to protect it.

Tough question, but Mayor Nagin did say they have authority to remove people by force...which seems a much better plan than to stop giving them water.

[MagicKingdom05]

I agree. I think they should either say, the city can't be lived in anymore as is and everyone most leave no ifs ands or buts, or they let them stay if the house isn't going to fall and give them some food and say good luck.

Also at this point, if the only thing holding them up is that they don't want to leave there dog or cat, let them take it with them.

[Planogirl]

I definitely think that they should the leave the people staying in the dry areas alone if that is what they want. As for the flooded areas, I would say judge on a case by case basis. I don't like the idea of forcing adults to do anything unless it's absolutely necessary.

[MagicKingdom05]

Planogirl,

I agree that maybe a case by case basis would be the best way to handle it unless the completely condemm the city.

[goin2disneyagain]

The only one's I have seen refusing to leave is because they will not leave their pets. For gods sake why can't they take these people and make arraignments for them AND their pets. I would not leave either. My pets are my kids. Period!!!!!! That is such horror!!!!! I cannot believe they are not offering to help these people. This is the one thing that has angered me so much in this whole horrible ordeal. Pets are family too, sometimes the only family you have.
Exactly!! I don't understand it either. The pets are all these people have left. I would NEVER leave my dog behind. They are making these people suffer more than they already are. The animal rescue organizations are moving in so why can't they work with these groups and make at least temporary arraignments for them until they get out of the city. At least that way they would know their pet was taken care of and where to pick it up in a couple of days. It would be better if they would evacuate people out of the city with their pets (I know that's what I would want) but at least it would give them an alternative to completely abandoning them. Maybe then people would be more likely to leave.

[Planogirl]

The animal rescue groups haven't been allowed in many areas just yet. Which is silly IMO.

[cteddiesgirl]

People who are refusing to leave are just endagering their lives and their health. There is no running water, no electricity and no way to drain out the water faster at the moment. And the water is breeding bugs and bacteria. Imagine, there is no place to get rid of waste. It's in the water they are in.

It's unsanitary and unhealthy. They need to leave or they will have even worse problems. And they do need to arrange for these people to take their animals with them if possible.

[ducklite]

I definitely think that they should the leave the people staying in the dry areas alone if that is what they want. As for the flooded areas, I would say judge on a case by case basis. I don't like the idea of forcing adults to do anything unless it's absolutely necessary.

Agreed! My friends dad is in his house with about six months of provisions, a generator, camp stove, and loaded shot gun.

His area had NO flooding, he can get in his car and drive out using a back way anytime he chooses.

He's able to "flush" with water that he drew into the bathtubs in the house.

There is simply no reason for him to leave.

The animal rescue groups are being allowed in to most areas now, parts of NOLA are still a problem due to ongoing violence in the areas.

Anne

[JimMIA]

I definitely think that they should the leave the people staying in the dry areas alone if that is what they want. As for the flooded areas, I would say judge on a case by case basis. I don't like the idea of forcing adults to do anything unless it's absolutely necessary.
I agree that I don't like forcing adults to do things they don't want -- especially people who have been through what these folks have been through.

However, at some point, a lot of those folks are going to have to face reality. There are going to be vast areas of New Orleans, especially the areas which were heavily flooded, which simply must be evacuated. At some point, it is no longer a matter of personal choice, due to the public health dangers and the risk to recovery teams. It's not just a matter of the stay-behind's life and health.

I know currently they are trying to persuade the people to leave, but there will be a time when they go get them. I'm sure that as soon as they get the water down in some of those areas, they'll do detailed damage and public health assessments and then you'll see police officers going in and removing people.

[BuckNaked]

I think that forcing them to leave should be the very last resort.

The animal rescue groups haven't been allowed in many areas just yet. Which is silly IMO.

I don't know the logistics or which area, but it isn't silly if allowing them in would interfere with saving people. The animal rescue groups should be permitted into any area where they can operate without hampering human rescue missions.

[ducklite]

I think that forcing them to leave should be the very last resort.



I don't know the logistics or which area, but it isn't silly if allowing them in would interfere with saving people. The animal rescue groups should be permitted into any area where they can operate without hampering human rescue missions.

Very simply put, animal rescue people have NEVER in ANY CATASTRTOPHE EVER hampered the rescue of humans. They usually follow after human rescue people with their door to doors. In some cases, the ANIMAL people ARE ASKED to go in first to deal with strays and loose animals who could pose a risk to other disaster relief workers.

Anne

[WebmasterAlex]

I think the approach they are taking now makes some sense. They are trying to encourage people to leave and telling them that they will not support them, in other words deliver food and water, if they stay

[lyeag]

People who are refusing to leave are just endagering their lives and their health. There is no running water, no electricity and no way to drain out the water faster at the moment. And the water is breeding bugs and bacteria. Imagine, there is no place to get rid of waste. It's in the water they are in.

It's unsanitary and unhealthy. They need to leave or they will have even worse problems. And they do need to arrange for these people to take their animals with them if possible.


Don't forget they are also endangering the lives of the people who have to keep going back in there to give them food and water and to see if they have changed their minds. They are causing others to keep going back into that mess exposing them to to toxins more than necessary.

[golfgal]

The only one's I have seen refusing to leave is because they will not leave their pets. For gods sake why can't they take these people and make arraignments for them AND their pets. I would not leave either. My pets are my kids. Period!!!!!! That is such horror!!!!! I cannot believe they are not offering to help these people. This is the one thing that has angered me so much in this whole horrible ordeal. Pets are family too, sometimes the only family you have.


So, rescuing your dog should take precedence over rescuing someone's child. Sorry, but that is just not right. If people are offered assistance and refuse, then they should be left to fend for themselves, no matter what the reason. They are endangering the lives of other people trying to rescue them and if they don't want that, fine, but don't cry for help later.

As for letting animal rescue people in, NO is GONE, there is nothing left according to news reports, no water, no electricity, no food, nothing. Now they are saying that around 10,000 people have died so add cholera and other waterborne diseases that will crop up shortly on top of dead bodies floating around and you want to send in MORE people to the area, NOPE. I understand that many people think of pets as members of their families, but they are not worth risking someone else's life to save your cat or dog. Perhaps is these people with pets made prior arrangements for their pets, there wouldn't be such a problem.

[ducklite]

As for letting animal rescue people in, NO is GONE, there is nothing left according to news reports, no water, no electricity, no food, nothing. Now they are saying that around 10,000 people have died so add cholera and other waterborne diseases that will crop up shortly on top of dead bodies floating around and you want to send in MORE people to the area, NOPE. I understand that many people think of pets as members of their families, but they are not worth risking someone else's life to save your cat or dog. Perhaps is these people with pets made prior arrangements for their pets, there wouldn't be such a problem.

Get your facts straight. NOLA is not "GONE". In fact the reports of the city being 80% under water are a bit exagerated. While about 50% was thoroughly "under water", andther 20-30% had flooded streets but intact homes, and another 20-30% HAD NO FLOODING and MINIMAL storm damage. I'm getting FIRST HAND REPORTS from rescuers in the area, not the blabbermouth idiot on the news trying to sensationalize things.

In the areas which didn't flood, there is no risk of disease. These people for the most part can drive out any time they would like. Most have ample supplies of food and water. There is no reason for them to leave their homes, they do not need assistance. The water is receding quickly in the areas where only streets flooded but left structures intact and unflooded, and again, no reason for thsoe folks to leave.

There are now plenty of shelters open for pets, in some cases the owners can stay with teh animal, in others the owner will be in a "people" shelter a short walk from teh "animal" shelter and can visit as often as they would like. The people rescuers are aware of this, and are taking pets out with evacuees.

Poeple like you need to just turn off the TV and go on with your lives, because you aren't seeing the whole picture and are in turn spreading untrue rumours. Thank you.

Anne

[golfgal]

Get your facts straight. NOLA is not "GONE". In fact the reports of the city being 80% under water are a bit exagerated. While about 50% was thoroughly "under water", andther 20-30% had flooded streets but intact homes, and another 20-30% HAD NO FLOODING and MINIMAL storm damage. I'm getting FIRST HAND REPORTS from rescuers in the area, not the blabbermouth idiot on the news trying to sensationalize things.

In the areas which didn't flood, there is no risk of disease. These people for the most part can drive out any time they would like. Most have ample supplies of food and water. There is no reason for them to leave their homes, they do not need assistance. The water is receding quickly in the areas where only streets flooded but left structures intact and unflooded, and again, no reason for thsoe folks to leave.

There are now plenty of shelters open for pets, in some cases the owners can stay with teh animal, in others the owner will be in a "people" shelter a short walk from teh "animal" shelter and can visit as often as they would like. The people rescuers are aware of this, and are taking pets out with evacuees.

Poeple like you need to just turn off the TV and go on with your lives, because you aren't seeing the whole picture and are in turn spreading untrue rumours. Thank you.

Anne


And what makes your "first hand reporter" right? As far as NO being gone, for all practical purposes it is gone. There is no electricity, no running water, no jobs for people and it is going to be that way for a LONG, LONG time. Heck, there are still areas of Florida that are recovering from last years hurricanes and they weren't nearly as devastating.

[ducklite]

And what makes your "first hand reporter" right? As far as NO being gone, for all practical purposes it is gone. There is no electricity, no running water, no jobs for people and it is going to be that way for a LONG, LONG time. Heck, there are still areas of Florida that are recovering from last years hurricanes and they weren't nearly as devastating.

I'll believe the first hand reports of those living in the area and thsoe there to rescue who have no reason to sensationalize over those looking for rating$.

Not everyone works in the "traditional way" and for those people, the job issue isn't one. Some are retired. Others are simply independently wealthy. Many of those who are choosing to stay have generators, and the ability to bring in food and water as needed because they are not in flooded areas.

Anne

[Planogirl]

I'm also reading blogs and the like from people who are actually there and they're even posting pictures. NOLA isn't anywhere close to being "gone", as a matter of fact power has been restored to portions of the CBD and the French Quarter is cleaning itself up.

There are animal rescue groups anxious to get into even the badly flooded areas. Since these people are adults, I think it's up to them to go or not go.

[peachgirl]

As for letting animal rescue people in, NO is GONE, there is nothing left according to news reports, no water, no electricity, no food, nothing.

That's a huge overstatement. If you had anyone who lived in or near the area, you'd know that there are a great many areas that are liveable.

There were even bars open in the FQ last night and there are areas where electricity has been restored. New Orleans may be devastated, but it isn't gone by any stretch of the imagination.

[LoraJ]

And what makes your "first hand reporter" right? As far as NO being gone, for all practical purposes it is gone. There is no electricity, no running water, no jobs for people and it is going to be that way for a LONG, LONG time. Heck, there are still areas of Florida that are recovering from last years hurricanes and they weren't nearly as devastating.

You should go to NOLA.com and read the reports yourself. What you are seeing on the news is the east side, Much of the west side had minimal to no water damage. While many residents over there had water in there homes for a day or so, I don't think it was enough damage to destroy the foundations.

My boyfriend's parents are returning to their Jefferson Parish home today to assess the damage and take possesions until they are allowed to return again. Fingers crossed that damage was minimal. They're trying not to get their hopes too high though.

[dadtoagirl]

The only one's I have seen refusing to leave is because they will not leave their pets. For gods sake why can't they take these people and make arraignments for them AND their pets. I would not leave either. My pets are my kids. Period!!!!!! That is such horror!!!!! I cannot believe they are not offering to help these people. This is the one thing that has angered me so much in this whole horrible ordeal. Pets are family too, sometimes the only family you have.


Your joking right, it took 5 days to get water to some people in the city. Dealing with animals in a shelter along side the thousands of homeless people is like adding fuel to the fire. Anyone willing to take their own lives in their hands over an animal. Leave em.

[ducklite]

Your joking right, it took 5 days to get water to some people in the city. Dealing with animals in a shelter along side the thousands of homeless people is like adding fuel to the fire. Anyone willing to take their own lives in their hands over an animal. Leave em.

Please get your facts straight.

THERE ARE NOW SEVERAL SHELTERS OPEN TAKING PEOPLE AND THEIR COMPANION ANIMALS! There are also many shelters open within a short distance to people shelters where pets can stay and be visited regularly by their humans.

Get a grip, if you don't like animals, that's your perogative, no one really cares, but stop trash talking when you have no idea what you're talking about. Sheesh!

Anne

[va32h]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of any gov't entity being allowed to forcibly remove someone from their home, even if it is "for their own good".

But I can't help but wonder if some of these people just don't understand the seriousness of the problem. One man I saw on the news refused to leave his porch, and yelled for the rescuers to "tell them to turn the pumps on". That guy obviously doesn't know what's going on. Harry Connick Jr. has been personally checking homes and evacuating people - he encountered a family that was headed for the convention center, of all places. The whole crisis there and mass evacuation effort was completely unknown to this family. Harry had quite a time convincing them to get in his car and go to the NBC media compound. Eventually, he had his camera man drive them to a relative in Baton Rouge.

As for the pets - there are lots of pet shelters set up - I just saw a report on that on MSNBC. So I'm not clear as to why the rescuers aren't at least offering to take the animals to one of those shelters, if the pet cannot be with his owner.

Perhaps if people insist on staying in their homes, they should be required to sign a waiver, declaring the gov't not responsible for whatever happens to them. Media had to do that when they stayed in the city to report on the storm itself. That might make a few of them think twice about staying.

[goin2disneyagain]

So, rescuing your dog should take precedence over rescuing someone's child. Sorry, but that is just not right. If people are offered assistance and refuse, then they should be left to fend for themselves, no matter what the reason. They are endangering the lives of other people trying to rescue them and if they don't want that, fine, but don't cry for help later.

As for letting animal rescue people in, NO is GONE, there is nothing left according to news reports, no water, no electricity, no food, nothing. Now they are saying that around 10,000 people have died so add cholera and other waterborne diseases that will crop up shortly on top of dead bodies floating around and you want to send in MORE people to the area, NOPE. I understand that many people think of pets as members of their families, but they are not worth risking someone else's life to save your cat or dog. Perhaps is these people with pets made prior arrangements for their pets, there wouldn't be such a problem.
No one suggested pets should be saved OVER people. BOTH can be saved. Let me ask you something though, rescuers are about to get in there now, as others have advised you, people are able to get in. Do you think these animals should just starve to death when they could be saved?? How cruel is that??!! :rolleyes:

[JimMIA]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of any gov't entity being allowed to forcibly remove someone from their home, even if it is "for their own good".Everybody involved is uncomfortable with it, but it will become necessary.

But I can't help but wonder if some of these people just don't understand the seriousness of the problem. One man I saw on the news refused to leave his porch, and yelled for the rescuers to "tell them to turn the pumps on". That guy obviously doesn't know what's going on. Harry Connick Jr. has been personally checking homes and evacuating people - he encountered a family that was headed for the convention center, of all places. The whole crisis there and mass evacuation effort was completely unknown to this family. Harry had quite a time convincing them to get in his car and go to the NBC media compound. Eventually, he had his camera man drive them to a relative in Baton Rouge.That's actually quite common in hurricanes.

When Katrina paid us a visit, she came ashore about 7 PM. Our power went out almost immediately. About 2 AM, the winds woke me up, so I went to a window to look. "Can't be right, I said. "Winds should be coming from the east, but they're coming from the south. That's not possible."

Then, it dawned on me. Katrina had turned south. Instead of going across the Florida peninsular, she had made a left turn and come right over our house. Of course we had shutters up, and she was just a very weak Cat 1 storm then, so we were fine. But we were clueless.

In Hurricane Andrew, a lot of our officers carried chainsaws in their cars. TEN DAYS after the storm, they cut an old man out of his home down in Goulds. He'd been without food or water for ten days. He just said he knew the PO-lice would come for him! When they took him outside, he looked around and said, "Oh my...what happened?"

[golfgal]

No one suggested pets should be saved OVER people. BOTH can be saved. Let me ask you something though, rescuers are about to get in there now, as others have advised you, people are able to get in. Do you think these animals should just starve to death when they could be saved?? How cruel is that??!! :rolleyes:


No, I don't think that valuable rescue resources should be wasted on saving dogs and cats, cruel or not, it is just silly to spend time worrying about dogs and cats when people are still sitting on rooftops refusing to go because of dogs and cats. Get the people out and start working on cleaning up the city so people can move back ASAP.

[ducklite]

No, I don't think that valuable rescue resources should be wasted on saving dogs and cats, cruel or not, it is just silly to spend time worrying about dogs and cats when people are still sitting on rooftops refusing to go because of dogs and cats. Get the people out and start working on cleaning up the city so people can move back ASAP.

You don't seem to understand that it two totally different groups with different equipment dealing with the animals. How on earth are they taking resources from other disaster response people? And the ASPCA vets are in there vaccinating and medically clearing animals, and euthanizing as medically needed. Or would you rather that there be a zoonotic epidemic which could jump species to humans, and kill 'em all?

Anne

[JimMIA]

I can tell you the answer to your mini-debate, as one who has been involved in the human part of recovery and also in overall disaster management. The crews of volunteers who rescue animals (and many of them are NOT pets!) do an invaluable service to the recovery effort. Not only are they not in the way, they make the human rescuers jobs much safer.

And as mentioned, the two efforts are parallel efforts by two distinct groups, neither of whom have the requisite skills to do what the other group is doing anyway.

It's not about a bunch of puppy-lovers being kind to animals, although I'm sure there's not one of them who doesn't love animals. It's about public health, both for the rescuers and for the people who have stayed behind. I can paint you a graphic picture of what happens to animals that are not rescued -- and the consequences to humans -- if you want, but I don't think that should be necessary.

[ducklite]

Thank you JimMIA.

And please don't paint that picture. I know what it is, and prefer to concentrate on the flip side. To not do so is simply too overwhelming at this point.

Anne

[blowinbubbles]

I'll believe the first hand reports of those living in the area and thsoe there to rescue who have no reason to sensationalize over those looking for rating$.

Not everyone works in the "traditional way" and for those people, the job issue isn't one. Some are retired. Others are simply independently wealthy. Many of those who are choosing to stay have generators, and the ability to bring in food and water as needed because they are not in flooded areas.

Anne


I have to agree about believing first hand reports. . . I'd much rather scan the internet and read independent blogs and news reports, then form my own opinion of what is going on. Just my personal opinion, but I don't believe half of what I see in the mainstream media, or at least their "spin" on things.

In my opinion, those who wish to stay and have means of supporting themselves should be allowed to stay. Personally, I believe in being prepared and would be extremely distressed if I were forced to leave my home when I had everything I needed. Totally unconstitutional, IMO.