Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Mardi GrasFollow

#1 Feb 26 2006 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good


So, I went to New Orleans on Thursday for Mardi Gras weekend. I just returned. I was insanely curious how the city -really- was, so I thought maybe others were too.

There are parts that look like nothing happened. We drove into town on I-10 and at one point made a wrong turn, ending up in mid-city. Suddenly, it went from normal to looking like a bomb had gone off. It was dusk and I could not see really well, but it was obvious that there were gutted houses and cars that had not been driven in a very long time. None of the street lights worked, so every major intersection was a 4-way stop.

We then hit the parades for the evening, just off Magazine street on Napoleon. From that area, it looked as if nothing had happened. The parades that night were really neat, and there was quite a crowd. I ended up at a private party for the Krewe of Muses who had P-Funk playing. Much fun.

The following day we drove into the 9th Ward, just because we had to have a look at it. It was the most horrid thing I think I have ever seen. There were houses in the middle of the street. There was no sign of life what so ever. Everything was covered in a thick layer of dust. Several houses had spray-painted "DO NOT BULLDOZE" on their ruined home, as if they were making a last ditch effort to not lose everything all together. This goes on for miles and miles, as far as you can see. My first reaction was that it looked like Falluja must, but then I decided it was worse - that it looked like nuclear warfare. Very, very depressing.

Once we hit the French Quarter later, all was normal again. Bourbon Street was crazy, and I saw many ******** There really was a good turnout. It was odd driving around, because you would hit areas where people were living, but there was an obvious water line on all of the houses. They all also had the spray-painted symbol that was painted during the searches.

Saturday we went to Lake Side, which I had heard was worse than the 9th Ward. It was bad - obviously no house could really be saved. It is an upper-middle class area, and it was obvious that work had been done. While horrible, it did not have nearly the same feeling that the 9th had.

I am not sure how to explain New Orleans as a whole. You can still go there and have a load of fun, which I did. Mardi Gras was awesome. You could take a trip there and never see hurricane damage. However, there are still large areas that need so much help. I am not sure how the media can say that everything is great so go visit, but at the same time get across that things are still really, really bad.

#2 Feb 26 2006 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
This is for you. I'm waiting for my Mardi Gras response. Smiley: sly
#3 Feb 26 2006 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
My dad is fixing up Lousiana, he's seen areas worse than what you have. Houses that are undamaged except for being a few hundred feet from where they belong, cars in places they shouldn't be able to get to... New Orleans is a horrid mess that will take a really, really long time to fix.

It's horrible how the insurance companies are refusing to pay because the houses suffered "flood damage" and not "wind damage" which they were covered for. Why is America such a greedy place?
#4 Feb 26 2006 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good


I am not sure how it could get much worse than the 9th ward, except I am sure it was worse before they cleared the streets to make them drivable. I can't imagine a place that is worse, seriously. Total devastation. I have a few pictures, but none on my pc yet, one of which is a house literally in the middle of the road. Its foundation was several hundred feet away.

I am not exactly sure why Lake View was not as horrid. Part of it, I think, is that they have electricity back for the most part and there are some people living there. Also, the houses are mostly brick as opposed to the 9th Ward's old wooden houses.

#5 Feb 26 2006 at 9:59 PM Rating: Default
Katarine wrote:
My first reaction was that it looked like Falluja must, but then I decided it was worse - that it looked like nuclear warfare. Very, very depressing.


The level of desolation and poverty that you would witness in Fallujah is probably ten times worse than the grim scenery caused by a natural disaster.

I'm sure you're also aware that the piles of rubbles that were once houses are probably habitated by people in Fallujah.

Iraq is a war zone while New Orleans isn't. I cannot even imagine the horrors that must happen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
#6 Feb 27 2006 at 12:09 AM Rating: Good


You are prolly right, but you should see these pics.

Also, I emailed them to my husband who has seen falluja and is currently in Afganastan, and he agrees with me.

#7 Feb 27 2006 at 12:10 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Meeko wrote:
I'm sure you're also aware that the piles of rubbles that were once houses are probably habitated by people in Fallujah.


....While New Orleans was virgin swamp, uninhabited by man?


Dolt.






Rubbles? Like Barney, Betty and Bam-Bam?
#9 Feb 27 2006 at 12:23 AM Rating: Good
#10 Feb 27 2006 at 12:33 AM Rating: Default
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
....While New Orleans was virgin swamp, uninhabited by man?


Dolt.


Comparing the misery of people who've lost their homes caused by a natural disaster to the misery of those who have lived their whole lives under an atmosphere fueled by violence and unstability is moot.

Fool.
#11 Feb 27 2006 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Meeko wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
....While New Orleans was virgin swamp, uninhabited by man?


Dolt.


Comparing the misery of people who've lost their homes caused by a natural disaster to the misery of those who have lived their whole lives under an atmosphere fueled by violence and unstability is moot.

Fool.

I agree that it's moot, because both are tragic. One is not 'more tragic' than the other, as you so doltishly intimated.

You realize you're proving my point, right? Keep going. I love hearing how right I am.
#12 Feb 27 2006 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I'll say one thing: I'd sooner drive through the Ninth Ward as it is now, than I would drive through it as it was last July.

The place was a hell hole, and you'd seriously be taking your life in your hands - probably, in fact, no less than Fallujah these days. Think "Fort Apache: The Bronx" with 98% humidity.

New Orleans has a chance to do things better in the rebuild. I'm curious to see if they take advantage of it.

What would you do, given the chance to redeem a blighted neighborhood?

I'd be tempted to restore a big chunk of wetlands. Plant some sawgrass and some mandrakes and let it be the floodbreak for the rest of the city.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Feb 27 2006 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
Aye; given the history of the 9th ward, there is no compelling justification to rebuild it just as it was. As with any disaster of size, the town now has a chance to thoroughly plan the growth and development of their community, something not always possible when a city already exists.

They will rebuild, and it will be better than before.

Edited, Mon Feb 27 12:01:44 2006 by Wingchild
#14 Feb 27 2006 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
Wingchild wrote:
Aye; given the history of the 9th ward, there is no compelling justification to rebuild it just as it was. As with any disaster of size, the town now has a chance to thoroughly plan the growth and development of their community, something not always possible when a city already exists.

They will rebuild, and it will be better than before.


And that's what got so many civil liberties groups up in arms. They're arguing that New Orleans is going to be built for the rich and the displaced poor people are not going to be able to come back to the city because they won't be able to afford it anymore. But I'd like to know what the statistics are of people (based on their income) that want to return to New Orleans and rebuild their lives.
#15 Feb 27 2006 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
Given that many of the poor were living in sub-standard housing, in a crime-ridden area, in the middle of a flood-plain, I'd say they couldn't afford to be there as it was.
#16 Feb 27 2006 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Wingchild wrote:
Given that many of the poor were living in sub-standard housing, in a crime-ridden area, in the middle of a flood-plain, I'd say they couldn't afford to be there as it was.

And, that, ladies and gents, is rhetoric.
#17 Feb 27 2006 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It's an interesting point, though. We build "affordable" housing, primarily subsidized rental housing that turns into slums, because there are people around who can't afford to buy. That's been a fairly recent development (so to speak) - certainly only since the 50s in the United States have cities, states, and the Federal government subsidized new housing intended for poor residents.

I can't say it's been an unqualified success. Maybe it's time to change the message.

Edited: because comma placement changes the meaning!

Edited, Mon Feb 27 14:11:01 2006 by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#18 Feb 27 2006 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Samira wrote:
I can't say it's been an unqualified success. Maybe it's time to change the message.

If the purpose is to keep people from living in a box, I'd say it's pretty successful.
#19 Feb 27 2006 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
If the purpose is to keep people from living in a box, I'd say it's pretty successful.

Well that is the myopic view of it. But I think the point is that maybe the long-term effects of such an arrangement could be as bad or worse than "living in a box."
#20 Feb 27 2006 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good


There is a high, if not the highest in the nation (I can't remember the exact figures), percentage of minority home ownership in the 9th ward. It is also not all poor; for example, Fats Domino was thought to have been killed there before they finally heard from him. While mostly very poor, the 9th ward wasn't exactly slums either. That is evident moreso in the Treme district. Treme was hit as well, but not nearly with the intensity of the 9th. There is something odd going on with the projects in Treme - they have electricity back, but the windows and doors are all barred shut so no one can get in. A bit strange if you ask me.

So, taking into account the very high minority home ownership, can a government official really say they aren't going to rebuild the 9th, while it it is okay to rebuild in Lake View which is upper middle class and primarily white? They are rebuilding in Lake View, but most of what I saw seemed to be people taking it upon themselves to rebuild with their own savings. The government is helping in some ways though; for instance, they have electricity and the 9th doesn't.

I think if you are going to say "turn it back into swampland," you have to say that about Lake View as well. As far as the levees are concerned, they are no better off. Personally, I don't like the idea of bulldozing either. I feel we need to just invest in a better levee system. They should not have allowed people to move in there with the old levee system in the first place if this was going to become an issue.



#21 Feb 27 2006 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
People who own property are already taking steps to recover and rebuild it. Obviously fighting with insurance companies for the money to do so adds some time to that.

I'm talking about whether or not to rebuild the government owned and subsidized housing. Many of the tenements were notorious - BWCooper, St Bernard, St Thomas, others.

Residents are demanding that they be restored. Should they be?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#22 Feb 27 2006 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,755 posts
A whole freakin Mardi Gras thread and you posted pics of da poor peoplez houses.

You suck.
#23 Feb 27 2006 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Jawbox the Furtive wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
If the purpose is to keep people from living in a box, I'd say it's pretty successful.

Well that is the myopic view of it. But I think the point is that maybe the long-term effects of such an arrangement could be as bad or worse than "living in a box."

Interesting. You see it as an either/or type-scenario, and I feel that it takes both. Take either out and you aren't addressing the whole of the problem. If a man gets hit by a car, you don't wait until his primary care physician has an appointment next month and let him bleed in the meantime. You let him go to triage in the emergency room, deal with the most pressing issues first, and address the others later as time and resources allow. If you neglect the emergency care, he may die shortly after his injuries. If you neglect the long-term care, a blood clot may travel to his brain and do him in later.
#24 Feb 27 2006 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Samira wrote:
People who own property are already taking steps to recover and rebuild it. Obviously fighting with insurance companies for the money to do so adds some time to that.

I'm talking about whether or not to rebuild the government owned and subsidized housing. Many of the tenements were notorious - BWCooper, St Bernard, St Thomas, others.

Residents are demanding that they be restored. Should they be?

New Orleans has several social issues that seem to feed off each other. First of all, their police force is notoriously corrupt, their elected officials are close on their heels, and a disproportionate amount are living just over the poverty line. They gotta live somewhere.
#25 Feb 27 2006 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
A whole freakin Mardi Gras thread and you posted pics of da poor peoplez houses.

You suck.


I was thinking the same thing. What happened to the pictures of flashing bewbs for the beads??? I know you'd have to have taken some of those pics.
#26 Feb 27 2006 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good


Nope, no pics of ******** sorry. I only actually saw one pair to be honest, and that was on the balcony above the Hustler Club on Burbon. I didn't spend any time on Burbon, only did a walk-through to see just how crazy it was. My instincts to not spend any time there were correct, heh.

I watched the parades uptown instead of near the quarter, so there were more families and locals around than drunk co-eds.



« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 127 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (127)