No doubt there is extensive flooding and damage along the Southwest Louisiana and extreme East Texas coasts. No doubt there is wind damage (some of it extensive) up to 75 miles inland from the coast.
But there's also no doubt in my mind that Rita was far less destructive than Katrina. Not many people live within a few miles of the coastline there. It might not be good news for them - but the economic damage and human toll from Rita will not even be 1/5th of Katrina's. Those are the facts.
Here are some other facts: -Cameron Parish isn't as impoverished as some posters indicated. According to the
census bureau, the parish's poverty rate is about the same as the U.S. rate. Per capita and median incomes may be lower than the national average, but the cost of living down there is probably much lower than in the big cities. And almost
25% of the homes in Cameron Parish are vacation homes.
But there's also no doubt in my mind that Rita was far less destructive than Katrina. I don't see how you can correlate the fact that there was less for Katrina to destroy in the areas she hit with her having been less destructive. To claim she was far less destructive implies she was far less powerful. It's a measurement of her ability to destroy, not the amount of life and property available for her to destroy. Had Rita made landfall south of Houston/Galveston, at the same intensity she did in Louisiana, she would have caused far more destruction.
People are hearing phrases like "far less destructive", and the impression they get is that Rita wasn't very powerful. Nothing could be further from the truth.