I don't know the lay of the land in enough detail - and if Gretna is a dead end as you say, then of course it makes sense to close the road.
And I agree with the notion of denying access to people who aim to enter for sightseeing or worse purposes. But ehre we are talking about letting people OUT, not letting them in. One-way traffic was the goal, yes? Get 'em all OUT!
My first impression, FWIW, was fully in support of the Gretna sheriff. And the more I read, the stronger my support.
OTOH, I picture myself in NOLA, and able to travel out, and Gretna not being a dead end, and I would not expect that -EXIT- to be closed.
I understand and feel for the plight of the people stuck in New Orleans, particularly the tourists that had their flights scrubbed and had no way out. But you still have to seal the town or the people of Gretna will not leave the next time.
Property owners know that the police can not protect all property when a town is empty. If they can not rely on the police to keep everyone out, they will not go. I bet New Orleans has even more trouble evacuating people then next time they have a manditory evacuation. Property owners will not want to leave since the police let them down this time.
"And I agree with the notion of denying access to people who aim to enter for sightseeing or worse purposes. But ehre we are talking about letting people OUT, not letting them in. One-way traffic was the goal, yes? Get 'em all OUT!"
The people in question were on foot, on high ground and not in any danger. There was no reason to let them into Gretna
Gretna isn't a dead end -- it's one of the only ways out of New Orleans that wasn't blocked.
And they were blocking state highways.
I don't have a problem with them setting up a cordon to keep the people moving through Gretna, but forcing them to stay in flooded New Orleans was inhuman.