Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How well could the fed and state govts handle a Cat 3 hitting between D.C. and New York?
Great. Its an important area and the response would be fast and effective. 3 11.54%
Mediocre. Regardless of the area, it is the government we are talking about. 7 26.92%
Bad. It would be at least as bad as the handling of Floyd in 1999. 6 23.08%
Terrible: As bad as Katrina or worse because millions would be affected due to population density. 10 38.46%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-21-2007, 11:32 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,593,299 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Lets be real for a second. A major hurricane has not struck the New England area in decades now. The population growth and coastal structures including housing since the last major storm made landfall there (1954, Hurricane Carol, Category 3) has been tremendous. Its only a matter of time before a Cat 3 or 4 hits.

If a truly powerful storm such as the 1938 NE Hurricane were to hit in 2007, do you think that the government is prepared to handle it? Do you think it would be a much better response than to Hurricane Katrina if the devastation was just as widespread and catastrophic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2007, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Tolland County- Northeastern CT
4,462 posts, read 7,966,761 times
Reputation: 1237
People have developed land all along the New England coast-like elsewhere, but perhaps not with some of the risk and stupidity even more vulnerable areas further south.

In any case the population has grown since the Great New England Hurricane of 1938- with more people enjoying being close to the water; more homes, condo's and other development has occurred.

Not only has the danger increased of catastrophic damage from a deadly storm like 1938, but with global warming; sea rise will cause a plethora of other problems in coastal regions. Coastal development in the future will increasingly be vulnerable to hurricanes, storms and flooding.

The state governments here should do a better job then the federal government who will have their heads up their A**.

Last edited by skytrekker; 08-21-2007 at 08:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2007, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,484,365 times
Reputation: 1721
Default the no name storm

I was there in my seaside town for the no name storm in 1991. (think it was 91). Let me tell ya. it was a mess. Cars in the ocean, the one mobile home place (seasonal) was completely trash, saw a couple of houses that looked like what were moved off there foundation and put in the middle of the street. In fact one home did fall into the sea. Also wide spead flooding that took a week to recede. It took a month just to straiten things out. And the sad part is nobody learned. There are houses still in the areas that were wreck. In fact there all new builds with really nice porches,and decks, etc. Don't get me wrong I love the Ocean with all my heart and want to be near it. But I understand that when the sea get angry it has no mercy. As for the state handling it. I really don't know. We actually have not had a hurricane for sometime. The storm we were in was actually was more like a very strong Nor'easter. If we get hit with a cat 4 or 5 sometime. I'm not sure what we could do. I guess we'll do what we New Englanders always do. Let the storm pass, build anew, and go on with our lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2007, 08:10 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,593,299 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrekker View Post

The state governments here should do a better job then the federal government who will have their heads up their A**.
My opinion is that state governments should be in charge of all funds for preparation and execution of emergency plans. While I realize that many state governments are corrupt, adding the corrupt sticky fingers of D.C. to the mix only makes it worse.

I grew up in south MS and most of my family still lives there, and the response after Katrina was terrible and taught a valuable lesson that the federal government is not capable of responding to a huge disaster properly and that the infrastructure of a state should be centered around maintaining its function, including when massive disasters take place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2007, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,484,365 times
Reputation: 1721
Default can't save the stupid

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Lets be real for a second. A major hurricane has not struck the New England area in decades now. The population growth and coastal structures including housing since the last major storm made landfall there (1954, Hurricane Carol, Category 3) has been tremendous. Its only a matter of time before a Cat 3 or 4 hits.

If a truly powerful storm such as the 1938 NE Hurricane were to hit in 2007, do you think that the government is prepared to handle it? Do you think it would be a much better response than to Hurricane Katrina if the devastation was just as widespread and catastrophic?
How can the government at any level save us if we decide to be stupid and build in places that are obviously dangerous to do so. New Orleans was shaped like a bowl with levees to protect it. And I don't care if someone says that they could have supposedly built levees strong enough to keep the city safe. I was just a bad concept from the start. As with the north east we currently have the same bad concept on building in areas that we should not. But we do it anyways because we want our ocean view. Look I grew up in a floodplain for close to 20 years. My parents and I knew the risk involved and if something happened it was our fault. That why we had insurance. Granted I have heard the guys down in LA.and MS. are having a lot of problems getting money out of their insurance company. To be honest I'm not sure how to feel because I do believe you need to read all your contracts carefully. But somehow I feel that the insurance companies are stonewalling those people. Maybe that where the FED government can help. They can help make sure the people down there get their money that they deserve. Actually at the state level the government should refuse to allow all new construction in areas that are prone to get hit hard by a serious natural disaster.
Back to 91 for a second. If I had to rate the response of the MA. government for their response 1 - 10. I give them a 7 or 8. But again that's not a Katrina.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2007, 11:05 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,593,299 times
Reputation: 3028
Well I definitely think ocean front residential development should have its own set of risk that the federal and state governments should limit aid in case of disasters. If you build a 3 million dollar vacation house on the coast, that shouldn't become a taxpayer problem to fix it quickly when it is destroyed.

As for cities being built in bad areas, yes New Orleans is in a horrible area for a big city. The levee system is a complete joke and if Katrina would have actually hit New Orleans instead of the sideswipe that happened, the carnage would have DWARFED the images of people on their rooftops. 17ft below sea level, +27foot storm surge (highwater mark in Bay St. Louis) equals a town 44 ft below water. Everyone on their roof would have drowned..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2007, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
1,235 posts, read 3,758,806 times
Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Well I definitely think ocean front residential development should have its own set of risk that the federal and state governments should limit aid in case of disasters. If you build a 3 million dollar vacation house on the coast, that shouldn't become a taxpayer problem to fix it quickly when it is destroyed.

As for cities being built in bad areas, yes New Orleans is in a horrible area for a big city.
Thank you.

I totally agree with every word of this.

Like Carlos Mencia said shortly after Katrina, "WHY ARE WE REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS???"

But as to your poll question, it's a good one. We might not live to see the day when a Cat 3 (or worse) hurricane hits a major NE metro area, but it's as inevitable as a 9.0 earthquake in the Seattle region. Stuff happens. We've learned a lot as a species and we have a lot of information about risk now. And we're still building cities at (or below) sea level in hurricane-prone regions, homes on unstable hillsides in the west, cabins deep in fire-prone forests, and trailer parks in the middle of Kansas. We are not smart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2007, 05:34 PM
 
Location: Texas
320 posts, read 294,951 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day View Post
Well I definitely think ocean front residential development should have its own set of risk that the federal and state governments should limit aid in case of disasters. If you build a 3 million dollar vacation house on the coast, that shouldn't become a taxpayer problem to fix it quickly when it is destroyed.

As for cities being built in bad areas, yes New Orleans is in a horrible area for a big city. The levee system is a complete joke and if Katrina would have actually hit New Orleans instead of the sideswipe that happened, the carnage would have DWARFED the images of people on their rooftops. 17ft below sea level, +27foot storm surge (highwater mark in Bay St. Louis) equals a town 44 ft below water. Everyone on their roof would have drowned..
Sort of off-topic ...

The funny thing about NoLa is the original settlers who built the French Quarter and Garden District did so in a way that even if there were major floods, those areas would not flood to a great extent. In fact, where my aunt lives (off of Louisiana Ave. in the Garden Dist., three blocks north of Magazine St.), the flooding barely met the top of the stoop of her home. Meanwhile, the areas that were flooded are the areas developed by people with the "bright idea" to make the city grow. Why are we obsessed with mega-cities in the USA?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2007, 05:51 PM
 
Location: South East UK
659 posts, read 1,371,442 times
Reputation: 138
You might like to know that it's not just in the US that fools control the building/planning world.
Our new and illustrious prime minister has stated that we will be building 3 million new homes over here by 2020.
Most will be in the south east of UK, it is admited that one third will be built on flood plains. When asked why are they still planning to build on flood plains (we have recently had severe flooding up and doown the country, loss of life and 150 thousand made homeless) The minister said "we will not stop this type of construction because about a third of all homes are presently on flood plains"

With sea level rises and warmer seas it is not a question 'if' but 'when' will disaster strike. This is an official view.

After the recent floods officials said "we have learn't from this disaster".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2007, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
1,235 posts, read 3,758,806 times
Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by famenity View Post
The minister said "we will not stop this type of construction because about a third of all homes are presently on flood plains"
That makes complete sense to me. As another example, suppose that half the homes in a mountainous community are on unstable soil and will eventually fall. The obvious plan for future construction would be to build half of all future homes on equally unstable hillsides.

Bureaucrats are smart and we should never question their reasoning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top