Would it be different if it was Texas?

[Mister Incredible]

Just curious if the response and relief would be different if the storm hit Texas?

 

[AuntieM03]

I think every circumstance would be different. You can't really know what would happen in Texas or anywhere else. The situations would be different. Other states are not below sea level so there might not be the flooding hampering the rescue efforts. There might not be the same lawless situation. The local/state government might be better equipped to handle the situation. You just can't compare what might happen.

I think it is sad that anyone would think that because Bush is not from NO or because there are more democrats than republicans that they are not getting the help they need. I am not speaking specifically to you.

 

[missypie]

I would like to THINK that the mayor of Dallas and the state govenment would do a better job, but who knows? The city and state government of New York really rose to the occasion after 9/11. The city and state goverment of Louisiana have not.

Ever since studying the life of Abraham Lincoln, I have been fascinated with the reactions of people under extreme adversity. Lincoln's entire presidency was taken up with the civil war...he was pretty much a self-educated guy with no military or diplomatic experience...and he TOTALLY rose to the occasion.

Mayor Gulianni was not a particularly well-liked mayor, but he TOTALLY rose to the occasion after 9/11. The Mayor of NO and the Governor of LA will NOT be remembered in the same way.

 

[Papa Deuce]

Just curious if the response and relief would be different if the storm hit Texas?

Why go here?

 

[WDWHound]

Its hard to say. I don't think the Federal effort would be greater, but Texas has a lot more resources than most states that could be brought to bear, which would proably go a long way to making things better.

In the end, every disaterter like this is different. There are so many unknowns, so many surprises. I think there is no way to really know how well your emergency systems will function until they are put to the test.

 

[ChristmasElf]

This is like comparing apples to oranges. The demographics of these two states are ENTIRELY different. New Orleans was below sea level where Texas is not.
The highway systems are different. The area to escape in Texas is more open where Louisianna is not.
More people in Texas own cars (or pick up trucks! ) and would have been more mobile. I had heard on CNN this morning that a huge percentage of people that lived in New Orleans did not own a car.
The average income in NO is 17K the average income in Texas is 54K -Not saying that money has much to do with it. But chances are if you have a higher income, you most likely own a car.

 

[Southern4sure]

Why go here?

To keep the pot stirred?......

 

[dadtoagirl]

To keep the pot stirred?......

Bingo, winner!!

 

[Southern4sure]

Bingo, winner!!

What did I win?

 

[bicker]

Keep in mind that very few Texans live below sea level, so a hurricane-driven disaster of this magnitude is simply not as readily possible in Texas.

 

[Kermit]

I think the OP was suggesting that Bush would be more loyal to Texas, which is an outrageous claim. The reason it's taking a while is because the federal government is slow. If Texas had the same topography and a similar disaster were possible, the results would have been about the same. Bush is an American, after all, and the last time I checked, the Louisiana Purchase did make New Orleans a part of the US.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't think so--just that it would have been "easier".

This situation was catastrophic in nature--which provided for a logistical nightmare. That nightmare--caused the efforts to get sloppy quickly instead of organized and working well.

I do not for one minute think it was the intent--and the last 24 hours have been terrible. I am glad that the President himself is sick of it--and when he finally said so--voila---the cavalry has arrived and we will not seen anymore 24 hour gaps where it looks like nothing is being done.


The disaster plan was untested for a disaster of this magnitude. Preparing for what you knew would come--but what was unknown in terms of experience. It is a unique situation--and about as worst case scenario as we can get for this country in terms of natural disaster---it will provide a model for what was wrong and what was right and what we can do better the next time.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Just curious if the response and relief would be different if the storm hit Texas?

Yes I think it would have been different. More ways to evacuate, the water would receed back into the ocean and not be trapped in the "bowl", easier to bus people out etc. The actual storm would have been as bad.

 

[pmcpmc]

A Real Crisis

 

[phamton]

This is like comparing apples to oranges. The demographics of these two states are ENTIRELY different. New Orleans was below sea level where Texas is not.
The area to escape in Texas is more open where Louisianna is not.

Well the 1900 Galveston hurricane was pretty comparible. The highest elevation on the whole island was only 8 feet above sea level and there was no real way to escape. Over 6,000 people were killed. Looking at the devastation in NO looks an awful lot like Galveston did in the pictures I have seen. Of course all of this was before FEMA. And Galveston only had a population of around 35,000.

 

[DawnCt1]

Just curious if the response and relief would be different if the storm hit Texas?

Are you asking if the State and Local government in Texas would have been better prepared and handled the disaster differently? I am not sure of what your asking.

 

[bicker]

And Galveston is still above sea level -- that's kind-of a black-and-white thing, eh?

 

[phamton]

Not exactly black and white. Galveston was at sea level with the highest elevation at 8 feet above sea level. After the hurricane, they built the island up somewhat and added the seawall. 6,000 people dead or missing was quite tragic for a town of 35,000.

 

[bicker]

True, but in those days, with the technology, medical and otherwise, available then, that mortality rate is to be expected. Still "at sea level" (i.e., the water comes, and then goes) versus "below sea level" (i.e., the water comes, and stays) seems pretty black-and-white to me.

 

[phamton]

I understand what you are saying about the differences but most of the deaths at Galveston was when people were swept out to sea or drowned, not from disease. The waves covered the entire island and washed people out to sea. Yes, New Orleans is in worse shape but looking at the pictures from the Galveston hurricane and the pictures coming out of N.O. they look remarkably similar.

I noticed that Discover Channel had scheduled "Issac's Storm" about the Galveston hurricane but chose to postpone it. It is an excellent documentary but last night probably wasn't the best time to be showing it.

Indianola, TX was hit by two hurricanes in the late 1800's and chose not to rebuild. Galveston did rebuild but with major changes.

Edited to add: The deaths for the Galveston hurricane which was a category 4 was between 6,000 and 8,000 and CNN called it the "deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history." http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/galveston/

http://www.noaa.gov/galveston1900/