My favorite Christmas presents
Ok... I know this post is overdue, but I still wanted to give a nod to my two favorite Christmas presents:
1) An expensive t-shirt... well... the t-shirt's not too expensive, but the donation to Make it right NO, LA or "Make it right 9" was a few bucks. Thanks to DM for supporting their mission:
In December 2006, Brad Pitt convened a group of experts in New Orleans to brainstorm about building green affordable housing on a large scale to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. Having spent time with community leaders and displaced residents determined to return home, Pitt realized that an opportunity existed to build houses that were not only stronger and healthier, but that had less impact on the environment.
If you're a regular visitor, I'm sure you know this is right up my alley.
2) A Christmas card from Oxfam. My brother donated to Oxfam on my behalf and they planted 100 trees in my name. Again...perfect for me. Oxfam's mission begins:
Oxfam International is a confederation of 13 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice. With many of the causes of poverty global in nature, the 13 affiliate members of Oxfam International believe they can achieve greater impact through their collective efforts.
And for the heck of it... one more shameless plug for another great idea... if you're still short on gift ideas for friends and family, check out Kiva. It's an internet "microloan startup." Due to the "internet" nature of it, it's not perfect. But I have heard that, in general, the microloans are being received by the intended recipients and the donors are being repaid. And while you could donate in someone's name and they could get the money when repaid... they can also reinvest it in another microloan.
I love the internet.
Tim White
12 comments:
Tim , does subsidizing poor people to live below sea level seem like a real good idea to you?
I understand Brad Pitt thinking this way, but he isn;t a Ron Paul supporter
True... hadn't thought about that. Actually I wished that the fed gov't joined with the state and local govt's and said no rebuilding housing below sea level allowed.
I'd be ok with putting the businesses there (rebuild Bourbon Street, for example). But for all the billions that are getting spent, I'd think they could've moved people to somewhere nearby that was above sea level.
Anyway, this wasn't gov't money.
With the terrible tornado's the other night FEMA can move all of the unused trailers from New Orleans to Nashville, maybe those people could use them.
The folks that say we shouldn't rebuild New Orleans ought to consider this: What if a disaster of those proportions happened where you lived?
I don't think the federal government should be in the business of telling people where they can and can't live (outside of the normal zoning regulations) because inevitably the decision is dictated by the amount of money a person makes. Hurricanes come through Florida every year, but nobody tells rich folks like Donald Trump they shouldn't build mansions there. But with less wealthy people, it's a different story.
Live along the Ten Mile River or the Quinnipiac and experience flooding of your basement every so often? Maybe the government shouldn't help you either. I'm not actually advocating that, but it's something that the blowhards that don't want New Orleans to be rebuilt should think about long and hard.
(outside of the normal zoning regulations)...
Maybe the government shouldn't help you either
I don't see this as a class issue. I just don't think it makes sense to live in certain places.
For instance, I recall the TV images of mansions on the cliffs in CA being swept into the ocean with mudslides.
The owners of those houses were certainly not poor by most standards. Yet the govt subsidized them.
IMO, the gov't (federal) shouldn't subsidize or the gov't (local) should rezone and prohibit residential in places where there's a fairly high likelihood of a disaster.
I don't think the federal government should be in the business of telling people where they can and can't live (outside of the normal zoning regulations)
- if thats the case then don't cry to the govt when your house gets washed away
floods above sea level recede. As we saw in 2005, floods below sea level don;t unless after a few weeks you pump all the water out
Tim:
I agree that there are certain places where people shouldn't build homes. The trouble is that the government -local, state and federal - is less inclined to take that stance with folks who have money. Look at all the people in Connecticut who have ocean front property and yet when an insurance company wants to drop their coverage because of the increased risks of their living conditions, people get righteously indignant.
And it's not just a class issue; the fact that a lot of the people in New Orleans are not only poor, but are black as well, is a factor in all of this. You tell thousands of middle class white folks in Connecticut that they have to move from areas where there families have lived for generation and you'll have a court battle on your hands that will last for years.
To some extent, your rezoning arguement has elements of what most people find distateful about eminent domain: big government inserting itself in a most basic human issue, the attachment we all have to our homes.
Until you eliminate the inequities of how the issues you are talking about are addressed - that the Tim Whites and Elizabeth Estys of the world (and I'm not saying that either of you are wealthy, but you both do qualify as comfortable and white) will be more likely to be able to live where they want, no matter how unwise or risky the location may be - then comments like. "if thats the case, then don't cry to the govt when your house gets washed away," sound like so much empty, shallow bluster.
Let people live and build whereever they want, but don't spend a penny of taxpayer money to help them rebuild their property when it is damage or gets wiped out.
They should buy insurance and if they can't find anyone to sell it to them, then they have to really think about whether they should rebuild.
I'm tired of seeing FEMA bail out ocean front property owners. Fema bails them out and they still maintain their PRIVATE KEEP OUT, NO PARKING, attitude.
I'm not saying the government should not help them with temporary shelter, food and medicine, but if they have sufficient financial resources then the length of any assistance should be limited.
the attachment we all have to our homes.
That's important... and you can't rewrite history, but it would've been nice to write the zoning laws correctly the first time... I wonder if Cheshire is about to get a bunch of residential inside the flood plain?
Anyway...
Going forward though, this discussion demonstrates why I support Ron Paul... I'm not a libertarian. But generally, I think states/counties/municipalities are better equipped to address problems.
For instance, (while I'm no expert on this) I'm guessing that Louisiana has a hotel tax. If so, they have a strong interest in the quick rebuilding of NO. However, from what I've seen/read (here and there), the rebuilding is slow/corrupt/screwed up at the federal level. So I'm guessing that rebuilding NO would be better off, if done at the state/local level... though LA does have something of a reputation similar to CT... plenty of corruption... so that may make my goal unachievable in the short run.
As for the mansions in CA... I really was disgusted when I saw Clinton (I think) step in. To me that epitomized the elimination of personal responsibility. I mean, why didn't they buy "mudslide insurance?" Clearly these people had money and were likely well-educated. Yet no insurance? I assume that was because no insurer would sell it at any price.
Anyway, I think both of those issues are best addressed at the state level... although I certainly think that in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, the federal government should've played a role with evacuation equipment, etc.
As for the issue of coastal houses in CT, I have some idea of the issue... but not much. If you post some links, I'll try to read up on it a bit and give an opinion. But I'm really ignorant to the issue right now.
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
what is acary is Katrina was not the worst possible storm NOLA could face.
Katrina was a Cat 5 at its eye, which landed in Mississippi about 40miles east (oceanfront Biloxi was wiped off the map). In NOLA it was a Cat 3.
The levees were supposed to handle a Cat 3 but were breached at various points. A Cat 5 would have had storn surge from Lake Ponchatrain which would have overtopped the levees, flooding the city much , much faster.
The staff of the weather channel are not cowards, but they set up on the north shore of Lake Pontchatrain for that very reason during Katrina
Post a Comment