Difference between the fires and Katrina

[eclectics]

The city (and they should have called the state for extra help if needed) knew where most of the people with no or little resources lived. They should have helped those people before it became life threatening.

The city was grossly inept and a couple of days is not long enough to coordinate and evacuate an entire city, especially when the majority of it's citizens are poor and a lot of them don't own vehicles. Can we finally let this horse die in peace?

 

[Hannathy]

The city was grossly inept and a couple of days is not long enough to coordinate and evacuate an entire city, especially when the majority of it's citizens are poor and a lot of them don't own vehicles. Can we finally let this horse die in peace?

Nope, sorry not as long as people blame the entire nightmare on Bush and make false statements, and refuse to put the blame on who it rests.

A city can be evacuated in days. My goodness think of the tens of thousands that got out of New York City in one afternoon. Of course that depends on people following orders and getting out and a city Government that acts like one and people working together.

 

[Chicago526]

Nope, sorry not as long as people blame the entire nightmare on Bush and make false statements, and refuse to put the blame on who it rests.

A city can be evacuated in days. My goodness think of the tens of thousands that got out of New York City in one afternoon. Of course that depends on people following orders and getting out and a city Government that acts like one and people working together.

Where did anyone blame 100% of Katrina on Bush? All the posts I've read give responsibility to state and local officials as well as Bush, and many posts gave blame to those able but not willing to evacuate. Katrina was a big enough mess that there is plenty of blame to go around.

 

[chyam]

I have not read this whole thread, computer issues, but I was thinking about this........Do I think that SoCal residents have been treated differently.....I don't feel that they have, I feel that the situation may have caused governments to handle things better since Katrina (may have learned better to handle these types of situations) but in reality, CA opened things up and were prepared on a lot less notice than Katrina. That hurricane was predicted to make landfall somewhere near NOLA about 4 days ahead of time, and therefore I feel that LA should have been preparing and moving their people. The fire victims had very little time to prepare to leave, most left in an orderly manner and did what they were told to do (MOST) I don't agree with them being wealthier, they too have lost everything and they did not have the time to prepare, they had to move and move fast that was not the case in LA. they took what they could and left, they have also acted in a respectable way. NOLA was a sad situation all the way around but it has always been my opinion that although the Fed. govenment did alot of things wrong, it started at the state level, when they refused to see the situation that it could become. I don't care if SoCal is wealthier, my heart goes out to those people, they have absolutely Lost everything, yes inurance will cover most of these things, so that is a major difference between them an NOLA but again they had very little time to grab anything. It also made a huge difference that the officials in CA allowed those people to take their animals with them.

 

[Tink&SquirtsMom]

Fires & Floods are two completely different things.

During Katrina, there was NO electricity, NO roads, No Hospitals, No Gasoline, No Supermarkets, No Restraunts, ...etc...for miles and miles and miles. Everything was under water. Dead bodies were flowing down the street.

With the fires, all these things are still available, spotty in cases but still available.

Amen. I can't understand why people don't get these are two different animals all together. I said it before and I will say it again: If what happened in Katrina had happened in CA, you wouldn't see what you are seeing now.

Wildfires, BTDT. This is routine and exactly as expected.

Katrina, it was every single worst case senario happening at once.

Should the people have been better prepared, absolutely. BUT many had ridden out hurricanes before. They thought they were dealing with a hurricane. Some of you posting are still acting like the problem was a hurricane. It wasn't. It was the worst possible case senario of what could result from a hurricane. In past hurricanes, emergency services were still able to reach people, roads passable, etc, etc. What happened in Katrina was NOT the hurricane it was the resulting flood and loss of every past method of getting help to people. Supplies are useless in a flood. You can't bring them with you. Its all you can do to stand in the rushing disgusting debris filled water... and they are supposed to carry supplies with them to help themselves? And if the people who didn't evacuate for the hurricane had known the city would be underwater, don't you think their choice would have been different?

Yes, the city, state and federal government were aware this could have happened. How aware do you think those people were? They thought they were dealing with a known monster, hurricanes they had dealt with before. They weren't. AFTER Katrina a lot of people in Sacramento found out that the same thing could happen here with just a small trigger (earthquake, etc). Guess what, many of them had prepared for earthquakes (stuff they knew), and had no idea about the worst case senarios that could result.

How prepared do you think SoCal would be if a good sized earthquake hit it today? With all the state resources utilized and exhausted, it wouldn't be pretty. That is closer to the Katrina senario though. You have the hurricane utilizing and exhausting resources, then suddenly the floods come.

 

[Hound 109]

Fires & Floods are two completely different things.

During Katrina, there was NO electricity, NO roads, No Hospitals, No Gasoline, No Supermarkets, No Restraunts, ...etc...for miles and miles and miles. Everything was under water. Dead bodies were flowing down the street.

With the fires, all these things are still available, spotty in cases but still available.

Correct.

Comparing the two disasters....

or Comparing the response to the two disasters....

or Comparing the self reliance of the citizenry of the two metro areas during the disasters...


....makes no sense.

 

[Mr Man]

Amen. I can't understand why people don't get these are two different animals all together. I said it before and I will say it again: If what happened in Katrina had happened in CA, you wouldn't see what you are seeing now.

Wildfires, BTDT. This is routine and exactly as expected.

Katrina, it was every single worst case senario happening at once.

Should the people have been better prepared, absolutely. BUT many had ridden out hurricanes before. They thought they were dealing with a hurricane. Some of you posting are still acting like the problem was a hurricane. It wasn't. It was the worst possible case senario of what could result from a hurricane. In past hurricanes, emergency services were still able to reach people, roads passable, etc, etc. What happened in Katrina was NOT the hurricane it was the resulting flood and loss of every past method of getting help to people. Supplies are useless in a flood. You can't bring them with you. Its all you can do to stand in the rushing disgusting debris filled water... and they are supposed to carry supplies with them to help themselves? And if the people who didn't evacuate for the hurricane had known the city would be underwater, don't you think their choice would have been different?

Yes, the city, state and federal government were aware this could have happened. How aware do you think those people were? They thought they were dealing with a known monster, hurricanes they had dealt with before. They weren't. AFTER Katrina a lot of people in Sacramento found out that the same thing could happen here with just a small trigger (earthquake, etc). Guess what, many of them had prepared for earthquakes (stuff they knew), and had no idea about the worst case senarios that could result.

How prepared do you think SoCal would be if a good sized earthquake hit it today? With all the state resources utilized and exhausted, it wouldn't be pretty. That is closer to the Katrina senario though. You have the hurricane utilizing and exhausting resources, then suddenly the floods come.

This is an excellent post. Very good points. I totally agree that a catastrophic earthquake in CA could be very similar to a devastating hurricane w/similar disruptions in services of all kinds. Scary stuff.

For my money, I will deal with Hurricanes any day as opposed to having the earth rise up and swallow me whole. I can run from a hurricane after all. JMO.

Kudos

 

[Charade]

The city was grossly inept and a couple of days is not long enough to coordinate and evacuate an entire city, especially when the majority of it's citizens are poor and a lot of them don't own vehicles. Can we finally let this horse die in peace?

If the city was grossly inept then the lion's share of the blame goes to them. The state needed to step in sooner as did the Feds. But once the machine got rolling (with the right people in charge on the ground), it went pretty well.

However, I still maintain that in times of emergencies those that are able bodied and have the means to evacuate and choose not to do so are entirely to blame for whatever happens to them. That said I want them to be rescued as soon as they can without regard to their own choices, circumstances beyond their control or just plain stupidity. I do not wish harm to anyone regardless of their actions or inactions. However, I will not fall prey to people like LakeAriel who continue to play the "guilt trip" game and make gross mischaracterizations about other's level of compassion.

You stated this earlier:

I'm just saying that's a moot point, after the fact. They were where they were.... by whatever reason. If someone needs rescuing, you rescue them. You don't wag a finger and say "You should have been more prepared" (this comment not directed at you, btw). They didn't deserve what they got, which was little or nothing in some cases.

If we're all supposed to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and take care of ourselves (again, not directed at you), then for heavens sake disband FEMA altogether, along with all the state and local assistance orgs. Rely totally on yourself and private charity. Heck, it would save a lot of tax dollars, won't it.

I agree that it's a moot point. After the fact. But is it unreasonable to expect people to be prepared the next time? And what if they aren't? When is enough enough? I'm not saying to ever stop rescuing them but how many times do we allow people to make the same mistakes over and over again without "waving the finger" at them?

We can't disband FEMA because they have the resources to do things we can't. We can't build a temporary bridge. Not everyone has a bulldozer in their garage. And so on...

 

[DVC Sadie]

Fires & Floods are two completely different things.

During Katrina, there was NO electricity, NO roads, No Hospitals, No Gasoline, No Supermarkets, No Restraunts, ...etc...for miles and miles and miles. Everything was under water. Dead bodies were flowing down the street.

With the fires, all these things are still available, spotty in cases but still available.

ITA!

Plus we are dealing with two different types of socio-economic entities.

Most of the people who decided to stay behind lived in the projects or the lower 9th ward, where most are welfare recipients and expect the state or federal government to take care of them not only daily but during a disaster.

Most of the people in the Superdome or on the I-10 did not even have enough food or water to sustain themselves for 1 day let alone 3 to 5 days.

What makes me the angriest is watching babies die because the parent/parents did not have enough sense to stock up enough formula or water to sustain a baby for three days.

 

[eclectics]

Nope, sorry not as long as people blame the entire nightmare on Bush and make false statements, and refuse to put the blame on who it rests.

A city can be evacuated in days. My goodness think of the tens of thousands that got out of New York City in one afternoon. Of course that depends on people following orders and getting out and a city Government that acts like one and people working together.

The people who left Manhattan on 9/11 were the commuters who had homes to go to. There was no mass evacuation of New York City. I don't know where you got that from. The folks from the affected downtown area walked uptown or across the bridge to Brooklyn until the subways started to run again and Giuliani opened up the bridges and tunnels to car traffic.

 

[punkin]

The people who left Manhattan on 9/11 were the commuters who had homes to go to. There was no mass evacuation of New York City. I don't know where you got that from. The folks from the affected downtown area walked uptown or across the bridge to Brooklyn until the subways started to run again and Giuliani opened up the bridges and tunnels to car traffic.

Exactly. Manhattan was closed until late afternoon (IIRC) and then only certain subway lines were even running. There was no disruption of anything other than train service and some phone service. Cannot compare that to Katrina (or even to the fires). Commuter trying to get home to their safe, secure houses and people dealing with the total destruction of their homes is not the same thing. Now psycologically there is some similarity for the people involved (another thread) but as far as logistics...???

 

[Mr Man]

The people who left Manhattan on 9/11 were the commuters who had homes to go to. There was no mass evacuation of New York City. I don't know where you got that from. The folks from the affected downtown area walked uptown or across the bridge to Brooklyn until the subways started to run again and Giuliani opened up the bridges and tunnels to car traffic.

Picking a nit here but I submit there was a mass evacuation from Manhattan on 9/11/01.

Conservative (there's that word again LOL) estimates suggest that commuters swell the population of Manhattan by over 80% during the work-week.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/21/real_estate/buying_selling/daytime_population_cities/

Over 300,000 people were evacuated from Manhattan on 9/11/01 by boats alone. This does not include those who walked/drove out over the numerous bridges.

http://www.seafarers.org/HeardAtHQ/2006/Q3/aab.xml

Given Manhattan's resident population of around 1.5million (and Census info on commuters in Manhattan from above link), I think it is reasonable to assume that at least 1 million people were evacuated from Manhattan on 9/11/01. That's a pretty big number IMO.

http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=57

None of it was planned either. It happened on the fly. I remember seeing the pictures of Manhattant residents standing near the bridges and tunnels holding up cell-phones so people who didn't have one could call family and let them know they are ok (still get chills from it actually).

But, to come back to your point. Yes, you are correct, we are talking commuters mainly (a gob load of them).

Regards,

 

[GRUMPY PIRATE]

Maybe a shift toward the topic. I would like to point out the biggest difference is that WE got the Termina...... er Governator. He seems to work 24/7 and is helping the local city/county governments with resourses!

(you also notice that he never seem to be eating or drinking... )
(Hmmmm )

 

[eclectics]

Picking a nit here but I submit there was a mass evacuation from Manhattan on 9/11/01.

Conservative (there's that word again LOL) estimates suggest that commuters swell the population of Manhattan by over 80% during the work-week.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/21/real_estate/buying_selling/daytime_population_cities/

Over 300,000 people were evacuated from Manhattan on 9/11/01 by boats alone. This does not include those who walked/drove out over the numerous bridges.

http://www.seafarers.org/HeardAtHQ/2006/Q3/aab.xml

Given Manhattan's resident population of around 1.5million (and Census info on commuters in Manhattan from above link), I think it is reasonable to assume that at least 1 million people were evacuated from Manhattan on 9/11/01. That's a pretty big number IMO.

http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=57

None of it was planned either. It happened on the fly. I remember seeing the pictures of Manhattant residents standing near the bridges and tunnels holding up cell-phones so people who didn't have one could call family and let them know they are ok (still get chills from it actually).

But, to come back to your point. Yes, you are correct, we are talking commuters mainly (a gob load of them).

Regards,

Picking another nit, an "evacuation" to me means every man, woman and child, able and bedridden.
Stranded commuters (the number of which that has to be moved in and out of the city is the same everyday, crisis or no crisis) and some scared (and very rightly so) residents taking the ferries and some offered private watercraft and walking across a bridge, or walking up to Penn and Grand Central to wait, does not equate (at least not to me) an evacuation. And as some have pointed out, you can't really compare NO and Southern CA, you CERTAINLY can't compare NO and Manhattan on 9/11.

 

[Mr Man]

Maby a shift toward the topic. I would like to point out the biggest difference is tht WE got the Termina...... er Governator. he seems to work 24/7 and is helping the local city/county governments with resourses!

(you also notice tha he never seem to be eating or drinking... )
(Hmmmm )

True that. He is doing a heck of a job. Effective, timely support from the State Govt. is a big difference but not the biggest IMO.

The biggest difference to me is no catastrophic loss of life to this point in CA. I am hearing death toll is at around 5. Every death is regrettable of course, but Katrina was far worse in this most vital statistic. JMO.

 

[NotUrsula]

You can call Manhattan an evacuation if you like, in the same way that office building is said to be evacuated when there is a gas leak. But a true emergency evacuation involves trying to EMPTY a place, and no one emptied Manhattan on 9/11. People who lived in the borough went home; no one told them to pack up their children and Grandma's china and walk to New Jersey. To me the presence of children and the infirm makes all the difference; they have to be carried out by someone. Also, being evacuated generally means NOT knowing exactly where you are going when you leave, which makes a huge difference, too.

New Orleans WAS evacuated before Katrina, with absolutely remarkable efficiency, too. The official evacuation started on Saturday at 8 am, and in the 36 hours of contraflow traffic management, 1 million people left the city, even though the Corps of Engineers had predicted that would take nearly 72 hours. That's really an impressive figure, because if you've ever driven in NOLA, you know that there are only a couple of ways in or out, and I-10 tends to have some really notorious bottlenecks on the west side of town.

Add to that the numbers of people who left at other times, and those who "vertically evacuated" to high-rise hotels, and there really were comparatively few people left directly in the path of the flood, thank God.

Also, there were a lot of holdouts who initially managed OK in the flood, getting up to the second floor of their homes with enough food and water to last awhile. However, with no way to contact the outside world and afraid for their lives to try to go out because of what they were hearing on their radios, many of them eventually succumbed to dehydration or the heat. A LOT of the troopers who went in and found people dead in their homes found evidence that they had been alive after the flood. Most of the rest got out eventually via rescue. The breach in the 17th St. Canal wasn't sealed until September 10th, 12 days after the hurricane hit.

 

[LuvDuke]

If the city was grossly inept then the lion's share of the blame goes to them. The state needed to step in sooner as did the Feds. But once the machine got rolling (with the right people in charge on the ground), it went pretty well.

However, I still maintain that in times of emergencies those that are able bodied and have the means to evacuate and choose not to do so are entirely to blame for whatever happens to them. That said I want them to be rescued as soon as they can without regard to their own choices, circumstances beyond their control or just plain stupidity. I do not wish harm to anyone regardless of their actions or inactions. However, I will not fall prey to people like LakeAriel who continue to play the "guilt trip" game and make gross mischaracterizations about other's level of compassion.

You stated this earlier:



I agree that it's a moot point. After the fact. But is it unreasonable to expect people to be prepared the next time? And what if they aren't? When is enough enough? I'm not saying to ever stop rescuing them but how many times do we allow people to make the same mistakes over and over again without "waving the finger" at them?

We can't disband FEMA because they have the resources to do things we can't. We can't build a temporary bridge. Not everyone has a bulldozer in their garage. And so on...

For the love of all that's holy, give it up. You're only preaching to the choir who don't even want it known they are the "24%" who live on Planet Bush.

We all saw what happened. It was live on our tv's. You can rewrite it however you want, but the fact is Bush had been told the levees had been topped on Monday morning. He then went to John McCain's birthday party.

On Tuesday, when NO was filling up like a soup bowl, Bush played air guitar at a photo op.

On Wednesday, when the disaster was getting worse by the minute, Bush did a fly-over.

On Thursday, when people were dying in the streets of NO, Bush told FEMA head Michael Brown "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie".

Did you see something else live on your tv? Were you watching Fox News?

Btw, over 80% of the people in NO did evacuate. What was left were the old, the sick, the young, and those who had not have transportation.

On 2nd thought, continue with the Planet Bush drumbeat.

 

[LakeAriel]

For the love of all that's holy, give it up. You're only preaching to the choir who don't even want it known they are the "24%" who live on Planet Bush.

We all saw what happened. It was live on our tv's. You can rewrite it however you want, but the fact is Bush had been told the levees had been topped on Monday morning. He then went to John McCain's birthday party.

On Tuesday, when NO was filling up like a soup bowl, Bush played air guitar at a photo op.

On Wednesday, when the disaster was getting worse by the minute, Bush did a fly-over.

On Thursday, when people were dying in the streets of NO, Bush told FEMA head Michael Brown "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie".

Did you see something else live on your tv? Were you watching Fox News?

Btw, over 80% of the people in NO did evacuate. What was left were the old, the sick, the young, and those who had not have transportation.

On 2nd thought, continue with the Planet Bush drumbeat.

 

[eclectics]

And don't forget Condi's life or death quest for a new pair of 5th Ave. shoes.

 

[Hannathy]

I seem to remember hearing that the Governor of Louisiana was having her hair done as people in No were drowning if you want to play that game....