|
|
| Author |
Message |
principessa
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3149
|
 Posted: 01/06/06 - 11:47 Post subject: New Orleans
|
|
|
I was listening to NPR this morning, omw to WM, and they were talking about how the people in NO do not want the government to clean up their destroyed homes.
There is a stop-work order currently preventing the removal of houses that have been leveled or are otherwise uninhabitable, mostly houses in the Ninth Ward. Some attorney, Ishmael Mohammed, is saying they are not going to let the workers remove even a board that may belong to someone's home /boggle.
The government people (I forget which agency) are saying, um, if we don't take away all this crap, how are you going to rebuild your home? The people are saying that some of them are not ready to return back to NO yet to see their homes.
It's been four months...time to move on, eh?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Ishmobbin
( . )( . )'s Are Fun!
Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 1264
Location: Texas
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 12:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
we should just trade them a pontiac for their land and make it a HUGE prison, so next time it floods we just let the inmates DIE.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 12:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I had the impression it was more along the lines that they're afraid the government is going to just bulldoze everything, then condemn the whole area and refuse to allow them to rebuild. So they're basically saying "nothing happens till we get some insight into the process and a voice in the decision making".
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
principessa
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3149
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 12:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
Sin,
from what I heard this morning, none of that was mentioned in any way as being the justification for the injunction. Of course, that IS only one report, and I haven't looked to see what any other news outlet is saying.
The focus of the NPR report seemed to be that people don't want their property touched--even if it is already deccimated--until they are good and ready to go look at it and/or go through it to make sure there isn't anything they'd want to keep or to just have closure because they haven't even seen their property since the damage.
(Ok, that was a horrid run-on sentence, but you get my drift :p)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Zab
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 1222
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 13:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
It is a public hazard. Those who dont want their shit touched should be held responsible for anything that may happen on their property. ( i.e. kids being hurt or other such issues ).
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 13:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
You're right - I think the private property angle is the one they're actually playing in court. But the underlying motive is to get a voice in the decision making. At least that's my interpretation.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
principessa
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3149
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 13:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
Sounds about right.
I'm waiting for them to play the race card next....
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tura
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 4865
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 18:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
The only good thing to ever come out of that pisshole was Jake Delholme and Looterguy.
0 sympathy for most of those idiots.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 19:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
They had a court order preventing any bulldozing until a court could hear the case. Yesterday bulldozers appeared despite that order and protesters stopped them from doing anything. You'd think there was some urgent need to tear them down this instance, but there's not. The workers ended up being escortet away by federal agents.
Look at it from the perspective of the residents - there may indeed be some things you'd still want from your house. There is no immediate need to bulldoze everything, so why not wait until the owner of the property had time to look at it and consent to the removal?
There's also the question of how damaged a house has to be before it gets bulldozed, and who gets to make that decission. Not all houses are a pile of rubble and even though officials say they will only tear down houses that are beyond repair, that hardly justifies letting them make the decission on their own. Everyone should have the right to at least challenge the faith of their house in court.
Some of the residents also believe the city wants to remove the houses asap in order to prevent the people from returning. Paranoia? Maybe, but it'd certainly be a "good" option from the city's point of view. What better way to get rid of people than to remove everything that keeps them there?
| Quote: | Sounds about right.
I'm waiting for them to play the race card next.... |
It's not so much about race as it is about poverty. We don't have to argue about what would happen if houses in Beverly Hills were damaged. You definaltly wouldn't have the government tearing down a single one without informing the owner and/or giving them a chance to remove valuable and sentimental items before the place is torn down. Essentially this is about extending the same rights to those living in poverty.
How would you like returning to your home just to find out it was torn down days ago, without anyone informing you? And you can't say "well, any house under $100,000 shouldn't be protected by the same rights as more expensive ones" - because for once any such value is highly arbitrary and largely dependant on the location.
The right to own property is one of the most important rights in a capitalist society - any property, not just that above a certain value.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kenbin
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 15 Nov 2002
Posts: 1884
Location: New York City
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 19:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
n*****s.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
FockTop
Sir Postalot
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 19:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
Im all up to let these people the time to check their home and get all they can but many people will take a decade to do so and many still wont want their home bulldozed even if its a pure ruin, many will after claim that their home still had lots of good stuff and sue the gouvernment and call for racial bs etc...
Thenagain when its YOUR house there with everything you had im not sure that anyone her eon RP would let it go easily too. Besides I dont think these people will get enough money back to cover 100% of all what they lost...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 19:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Soriak wrote: | They had a court order preventing any bulldozing until a court could hear the case. Yesterday bulldozers appeared despite that order and protesters stopped them from doing anything. You'd think there was some urgent need to tear them down this instance, but there's not. The workers ended up being escortet away by federal agents.
Look at it from the perspective of the residents - there may indeed be some things you'd still want from your house. There is no immediate need to bulldoze everything, so why not wait until the owner of the property had time to look at it and consent to the removal?
There's also the question of how damaged a house has to be before it gets bulldozed, and who gets to make that decission. Not all houses are a pile of rubble and even though officials say they will only tear down houses that are beyond repair, that hardly justifies letting them make the decission on their own. Everyone should have the right to at least challenge the faith of their house in court.
Some of the residents also believe the city wants to remove the houses asap in order to prevent the people from returning. Paranoia? Maybe, but it'd certainly be a "good" option from the city's point of view. What better way to get rid of people than to remove everything that keeps them there?
| Quote: | Sounds about right.
I'm waiting for them to play the race card next.... |
It's not so much about race as it is about poverty. We don't have to argue about what would happen if houses in Beverly Hills were damaged. You definaltly wouldn't have the government tearing down a single one without informing the owner and/or giving them a chance to remove valuable and sentimental items before the place is torn down. Essentially this is about extending the same rights to those living in poverty.
How would you like returning to your home just to find out it was torn down days ago, without anyone informing you? And you can't say "well, any house under $100,000 shouldn't be protected by the same rights as more expensive ones" - because for once any such value is highly arbitrary and largely dependant on the location.
The right to own property is one of the most important rights in a capitalist society - any property, not just that above a certain value. |
I agree.
I agree.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tura wrote: | The only good thing to ever come out of that pisshole was Jake Delholme and Looterguy.
0 sympathy for most of those idiots. |
But let's be honest - NO was the only place in the south worth visiting.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Tura wrote: | The only good thing to ever come out of that pisshole was Jake Delholme and Looterguy.
0 sympathy for most of those idiots. |
But let's be honest - NO was the only place in the south worth visiting. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
FockTop
Sir Postalot
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Soriak wrote: | They had a court order preventing any bulldozing until a court could hear the case. Yesterday bulldozers appeared despite that order and protesters stopped them from doing anything. You'd think there was some urgent need to tear them down this instance, but there's not. The workers ended up being escortet away by federal agents.
Look at it from the perspective of the residents - there may indeed be some things you'd still want from your house. There is no immediate need to bulldoze everything, so why not wait until the owner of the property had time to look at it and consent to the removal?
There's also the question of how damaged a house has to be before it gets bulldozed, and who gets to make that decission. Not all houses are a pile of rubble and even though officials say they will only tear down houses that are beyond repair, that hardly justifies letting them make the decission on their own. Everyone should have the right to at least challenge the faith of their house in court.
Some of the residents also believe the city wants to remove the houses asap in order to prevent the people from returning. Paranoia? Maybe, but it'd certainly be a "good" option from the city's point of view. What better way to get rid of people than to remove everything that keeps them there?
| Quote: | Sounds about right.
I'm waiting for them to play the race card next.... |
It's not so much about race as it is about poverty. We don't have to argue about what would happen if houses in Beverly Hills were damaged. You definaltly wouldn't have the government tearing down a single one without informing the owner and/or giving them a chance to remove valuable and sentimental items before the place is torn down. Essentially this is about extending the same rights to those living in poverty.
How would you like returning to your home just to find out it was torn down days ago, without anyone informing you? And you can't say "well, any house under $100,000 shouldn't be protected by the same rights as more expensive ones" - because for once any such value is highly arbitrary and largely dependant on the location.
The right to own property is one of the most important rights in a capitalist society - any property, not just that above a certain value. |
these people will already get shafted anyway for stuff they had in their house...and thats a huge lost. Gouvernment's help can help a family get a new home YES, but what about all their house fournitures etc...? some families always have more then others and since no one had the time to take pictures etc...how the f**k can insurances pay?
Do you really think that the gouvernment will go house by house checking and making a check blindly ?
Okay its not the gouvernment's fault what happened there and it would be damn expensive to pay everything back for everyone and its imposible to do so...
this story is far from being over and no matter what the gouvernment wont look good.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Hey, I'm just commenting on the fact that you could skip from Pennsylvania to Florida and not miss a damn thing.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Hey, I'm just commenting on the fact that you could skip from Pennsylvania to Florida and not miss a damn thing. |
If a "damn thing" is bars and parades of drunken idiots, then I guess thats a matter of opinion. I have been to plenty of cities up and down the coast and some were very nice, move into nice.
If you are talking about seeing the world, as in being out in nature, the south is my destination of choice. I like places that have large reptilian predators running all over.
The south is a great place to visit.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Venkmen
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2260
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
Hey Kbarr. You sure do got a pretty mouth!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| FockTop wrote: | | Soriak wrote: | They had a court order preventing any bulldozing until a court could hear the case. Yesterday bulldozers appeared despite that order and protesters stopped them from doing anything. You'd think there was some urgent need to tear them down this instance, but there's not. The workers ended up being escortet away by federal agents.
Look at it from the perspective of the residents - there may indeed be some things you'd still want from your house. There is no immediate need to bulldoze everything, so why not wait until the owner of the property had time to look at it and consent to the removal?
There's also the question of how damaged a house has to be before it gets bulldozed, and who gets to make that decission. Not all houses are a pile of rubble and even though officials say they will only tear down houses that are beyond repair, that hardly justifies letting them make the decission on their own. Everyone should have the right to at least challenge the faith of their house in court.
Some of the residents also believe the city wants to remove the houses asap in order to prevent the people from returning. Paranoia? Maybe, but it'd certainly be a "good" option from the city's point of view. What better way to get rid of people than to remove everything that keeps them there?
| Quote: | Sounds about right.
I'm waiting for them to play the race card next.... |
It's not so much about race as it is about poverty. We don't have to argue about what would happen if houses in Beverly Hills were damaged. You definaltly wouldn't have the government tearing down a single one without informing the owner and/or giving them a chance to remove valuable and sentimental items before the place is torn down. Essentially this is about extending the same rights to those living in poverty.
How would you like returning to your home just to find out it was torn down days ago, without anyone informing you? And you can't say "well, any house under $100,000 shouldn't be protected by the same rights as more expensive ones" - because for once any such value is highly arbitrary and largely dependant on the location.
The right to own property is one of the most important rights in a capitalist society - any property, not just that above a certain value. |
these people will already get shafted anyway for stuff they had in their house...and thats a huge lost. Gouvernment's help can help a family get a new home YES, but what about all their house fournitures etc...? some families always have more then others and since no one had the time to take pictures etc...how the f**k can insurances pay?
Do you really think that the gouvernment will go house by house checking and making a check blindly ?
Okay its not the gouvernment's fault what happened there and it would be damn expensive to pay everything back for everyone and its imposible to do so...
this story is far from being over and no matter what the gouvernment wont look good. |
Not sure what exactly you're saying, but this isn't about insurance.
For once I don't even think a court has ruled whether or not the damage caused in the 9th ward was "an act of god" or human error in the maintenance of the levees. If it ends up as an act of god, insurance won't pay anything anyway. Though I haven't followed it much and it's possible it might have been decided by now.
Essentially the city says they just want to help get things back to normal and will only tear down houses that can't be repaired. They want to do so now without delays.
The residents want that the owner of a house gets informed before the house is being torn down and gets the chance to remove some of his property if he wishes. The notice would also give him time to challenge it in court, if he thinks his house can be repaired instead.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Venkmen
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2260
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 20:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
ROFL
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
principessa
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3149
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 21:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Soriak wrote: | They had a court order preventing any bulldozing until a court could hear the case. Yesterday bulldozers appeared despite that order and protesters stopped them from doing anything. You'd think there was some urgent need to tear them down this instance, but there's not. The workers ended up being escortet away by federal agents.
Look at it from the perspective of the residents - there may indeed be some things you'd still want from your house. There is no immediate need to bulldoze everything, so why not wait until the owner of the property had time to look at it and consent to the removal?
There's also the question of how damaged a house has to be before it gets bulldozed, and who gets to make that decission. Not all houses are a pile of rubble and even though officials say they will only tear down houses that are beyond repair, that hardly justifies letting them make the decission on their own. Everyone should have the right to at least challenge the faith of their house in court.
Some of the residents also believe the city wants to remove the houses asap in order to prevent the people from returning. Paranoia? Maybe, but it'd certainly be a "good" option from the city's point of view. What better way to get rid of people than to remove everything that keeps them there?
| Quote: | Sounds about right.
I'm waiting for them to play the race card next.... |
It's not so much about race as it is about poverty. We don't have to argue about what would happen if houses in Beverly Hills were damaged. You definaltly wouldn't have the government tearing down a single one without informing the owner and/or giving them a chance to remove valuable and sentimental items before the place is torn down. Essentially this is about extending the same rights to those living in poverty.
How would you like returning to your home just to find out it was torn down days ago, without anyone informing you? And you can't say "well, any house under $100,000 shouldn't be protected by the same rights as more expensive ones" - because for once any such value is highly arbitrary and largely dependant on the location.
The right to own property is one of the most important rights in a capitalist society - any property, not just that above a certain value. |
Again, I was only going by what I heard ...they want to clean up 120 houses. According to the report, these houses were all in the Ninth Ward and they were all already leveled or had "moved" across roads.
I spoke of race because Ninth Ward is predominately black and, right now, it appears that is the targeted area for this first "clean up." While we are aware that race is likely not a factor in this case, it just so happens that the area targeted IS just about all black. Someone will likely make an issue of it--I'm not.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Reebo
Sir Postalot
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1260
Location: Downtown Miami
|
|
Posted: 01/06/06 - 23:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Kbarr's pic looks like a good place to dump a dead body.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 01/07/06 - 01:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Reebo wrote: | | Kbarr's pic looks like a good place to dump a dead body. |
Parts of you would no doubt stick out above the surface.
Like an iceberg.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tura
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 4865
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Posted: 01/07/06 - 02:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Tura wrote: | The only good thing to ever come out of that pisshole was Jake Delholme and Looterguy.
0 sympathy for most of those idiots. |
But let's be honest - NO was the only place in the south worth visiting. |
Yeah, if you want to party with the largest gathering of scumbags in the country and catch an STD on your way out.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Venkmen
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2260
|
|
Posted: 01/07/06 - 02:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
I have partied there quite a few times and never got an STD.
YOU LIE!!!!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
