Posted on 01/26/2006 12:14:03 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
La. Leaders Dissatisfied With U.S. Grants
White House Grants to Rebuild Gulf Coast Fall Short, La. Officials Say
By LARA JAKES The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Multibillion-dollar grants the Bush administration distributed Wednesday to hurricane-ravaged states left Louisiana far short of the federal aid it wants and divided Gulf Coast lawmakers who have been working together to win more assistance.
The details of how the previously announced $11.5 billion would be distributed to five states followed word that the administration was rejecting a $30 billion redevelopment plan for Louisiana that state officials considered the cornerstone of their hopes for rebuilding.
"My dad used to tell me, 'Cheer up, things could be worse,'" said Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., the architect of the $30 billion plan to jump-start his state. "So I cheered up and things got worse."
By rejecting his plan, Baker said the White House "is basically saying to Louisiana, 'If you want to rebuild, you have to find resources of your own.'"
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said officials were told Baker's plan was "too expensive."
The White House rejection "demonstrates a continued lack of understanding for the magnitude of the devastation and the immense rebuilding task our state faces," Landrieu said.
Asked about Louisiana's concerns that the grants would not help tens of thousands of people mostly in low-income and working class neighborhoods around New Orleans federal Gulf Coast redevelopment officer Donald Powell said states can use the money to satisfy their most urgent hurricane relief priorities.
Once the grants are depleted, Powell said, "We are very open to going back and asking for more money."
The bulk of the $11.5 billion $6.2 billion would go to Louisiana. That falls short of what Louisiana officials said was necessary to help an estimated 200,000 homeowners return and rebuild their communities.
But Mississippi officials hailed the grants that would bring $5 billion to their state and help up to an estimated 50,000 households that were walloped by flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina.
"It's huge," said Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who has worked closely with Louisiana lawmakers over the last four months to ensure that Congress continues sending assistance to the region.
Under the grant program, Florida is eligible for $83 million, Alabama for $75 million and Texas for $74 million.
Gulf State officials have been grappling with sustaining White House and congressional interest in helping the devastated region at a time of huge federal deficits, costly wars abroad, and other federal expenses.
Congress has so far appropriated $67 billion to help the region get back on its feet. The White House has estimated the federal government has provided at least an additional $18 billion in flood insurance and other assistance.
Baker had proposed creating a federally supported Louisiana Recovery Corporation to buy large tracts of storm-damaged homes in Louisiana by borrowing up to $30 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds. The corporation would repair the homes and resell them either to developers or to the original homeowners.
But the White House said no to the program. Instead, the administration for now will focus on uninsured homeowners who lived outside designated flood plains, many of whom now face mortgage foreclosures that would almost certainly prevent them from rebuilding.
"This is an investment in long-term recovery and rebuilding lives," said Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson. "Working with these states and their citizens, it is our hope that the families who once had a home can return to their home."
Baker estimated the federal grants won't help 180,000 families 140,000 of which lived in flood plains but behind more than 200 miles of levees.
"They gave us a ladder to reach our housing needs, but the top rungs are missing," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said in Baton Rouge. "Louisiana's housing needs are not complete without Rep. Baker's bill."
Still, Louisiana redevelopment officials said they would consider creating the corporation on a state level, although they made clear that some sort of federal loan guarantee would likely be necessary.
The Gulf Coast was slammed by the triple-whammy of hurricanes that began with Katrina on Aug. 29, followed by Rita on Sept. 24 and Wilma on Oct. 24.
The grants were announced as officials agreed at a Senate hearing that the federal flood insurance program, currently broke because of Gulf Coast hurricane-related claims, must be restructured to make its rate structure more rational and trim unreasonable government subsidies for homeowners who rebuild in flood-prone areas.
The program "has only encouraged people to place themselves in harm's way and continue to build and rebuild in flood-prone areas," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Well what do you expect. All we have been hearing out of N.O. since day one is we are racist, bigots, cheap, blow up levies, blah blah blah, and as the big fat slob on TV in front of the stadium said "da haven't giv'n us nutin".
Keep attacking the people you are trying to take money from and we eventually will say "screw you".
Enough is enough. If you chose to live in a soup bowl don't come running to us when the bowl gets blown over.
Just add me to your list of excuses why you don't give a crap. Simple as that.
Listen to you.
I said I was willing to agree to using hundreds of billions of tax dollars to fix the problems NOLA and Louisiana faces, by doing it once. Any SERIOUS discussion about what to do with NOLA MUST factor in the likely possibility of the main channel of the Mississippi divering down the Atchafalaya.
And for that, you say I don't give a crap? DON'T GIVE A FRIGGIN' CRAP? I OFFERED SERIOUS POINTS OF DEBATE. AND ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS MISREPRESENT EVERY LAST POINT I HAVE OFFERED UP.
Well, you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy here. You came in here believing I don't give a crap about what happens to Louisiana, despite my answers to the contrary. So you succeeded in converting me to the don't give a crap about Louisiana camp with your blatant distortions of my positions. So from this point forward, if you are ANY indication of the mindset of the people of Lousisana, you can go pound sand.
Your "serious" debate starts with complaining about the 250 billion dollar request from our idiot politicians. Did we get this money somehow and we don't yet know about it? This request is dead and has been dead for a long time, almost right after it was made in fact. It ticked you off to the point where your anger has clouded your ability to reason.
Moving the port of New Orleans isn't going to happen no matter how "serious" you think that "moving" solution of yours is. If you thought about it, you'd know it will never happen. What is left behind, then are real problems to deal with involving real people, lots of real people, including innocent children. They need help, not pontification from on high about who they should elect, or where they should live, or about how much smarter you are than all of them put togrether. They need help. Real-world help, not this dream never-never land of 250 billion dollars and moved ports.
You say you want to help, Yet somehow, little old Uncle Sham is in the way, so screw those folks. I don't want help from you Dirtboy, they do. Blame me all you want and go out and piss my name in the snow. But help them.
You're full of it. Like I said, you created a self-fulfilling prophecy - but it's all my fault.
Go suck eggs. And keep up the good work alienating fellow taxpayers that you are asking to give money to your state. It's a real winning strategy.
Moving the port of New Orleans isn't going to happen
Yeah, right. Nature will have the last word on that when the Atchafalaya takes over the entire flow of the Mississippi, just as Nature revealed the problems with building a city below sea level in hurricane alley.
Read my posting history on FR. I have been willing to do what it takes to address the natural hazards NOLA currently faces.
I don't want help from you Dirtboy, they do. Blame me all you want and go out and piss my name in the snow. But help them.
The only one pissing here is you - on the goodwill of others. YOU continually misrepresented my positions. YOU twisted my words. If you are ANY representation of the attitudes of the people of New Orleans, then you changed my mind about using hundreds of billions of tax dollars to rectify this problem - because you and your representatives are completely unwilling to address the reality of nature. So it would just be pissing money away.
Why don't you list the reason why the taxpayers of this country should rebuild New Orleans where it is?
I've proven the point that you are looking for any excuse you can find not to help.
I have promoted a viewpoint that it would be better for the American people to pay more in the short run to address ALL the problems that the state faces from nature.
But because I think it is insane to try and rebuild the parts of NOLA that are below sea level, I apparently am looking for any excuse not to help.
This nonsense reminds me of dealing with children. If you tell people like Uncle Sham that it doesn't make sense to rebuild an area below sea level that will continue to sink further below sea level, you just don't care.
Well, I read that; I just considered it just as silly as the "well, what about your state's corruption" replies to everybody else.
Anybody who has been on this forum since the days BEFORE this hurricane hit knows you've been fair and have attempted to get the facts out.
And I'm saying this as somebody who got into a heated debate with you on those threads -- right now I can't remeber WHY, but I know we did......LOL)
We've had so many heated debates that I have a hard time keeping them straight, but I also don't carry grudges for more than a few days, so I don't recall most of them.
I've googled "New Orleans levy fund diverted to other projects" and various other stuff and can't find the information that levy funds were diverted.
But I know that funds were diverted. If you google the words now you just see that funds were diverted to fund the Iraq war.
If anyone has that file(s), please ping me. Thanks.
1. First off, it is not going to be moved. Let's face facts here. The cost of "moving" would far exceed the cost of protecting what is currently there. It would far, far exceed to the point of being nonfeasable or acceptable to the American taxpayer.
2. If it isn't really going to be "moved", then we as a nation need to consider the consequences of not fixing it versus fixing it. This nation needs a port at or near the mouth of the Mississippi River for it's own economic self-interest and well being. As the worlds fourth largest port, New Orleans has served this nation's need in that capacity for over two hundred years. Shipping and delivery dynamics have been in place revolving around the current location of the changeover of goods and are not that easily replaced by other methods or locations. Changing any of these dynamics is costly to the American citizen. Once again the cost could very well exceed the cost of fixing the current location. In short, we can't get around the fact that New Orleans is not a luxury item, but a necessity.
3. If New Orleans is a necessity, then it must be protected. This is more in the nation's interest than as a favor to anyone in Louisiana. The problems facing New Orleans have been a long time in arriving. Too little respect has been paid to the damages caused by offshore drilling and the pipeline channels that have eroded marshlands that once served to protect the city. It will take a long term commitment to solve these problems. It's going to take a much better effort from our local officials but also help from the feds for financing. We have a national problem here that too many think is within the ability of Louisiana to fix by itself. It's worth doing, as there are no reasonable alternatives to abandoning New Orleans.
4. From a historical point of view, there is no other city like New Orleans, either in America, or the world. This is something we should want to hold on to and not let rot away. Once it's gone, it's gone. Surely, here in America, we have the ability and technological know-how to save this city for future Americans.
Headline should read-
US TAXPAYERS DISTRUST LA. LEADERS
You have steadfastly avoided the subject of the Atchafalaya. Which means you are not serious in this debate.
The cost of rebuilding NOLA once in place, and then rebuilding it a second time when the Mississippi shifts down the Atchafalaya is much cheaper that doing it right once. And that does not even factor in the problems with NOLA being below sea level, prone to re-flooding again in the near term.
I was willing to pay more to do it right the first time. You are so blinded to the desire to perpetuate the current geographical problems with NOLA that you won't even address the big picture.
The 3 words you bolded were spelled backwards.
Should be MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than doing it right once.
Thanks for that link; I'll scroll through it for other links to send to a neighbor who used to live in NO. When we told her at dinner the other night that funds were diverted, she disputed that.
Oh, please; every city in the world says that.
As to the other points you've made, I'm not for rebuidling it under sea level.
Period.
And if you do, every single one of you that move back there should sign a waiver saying that if you get hit again, you won't ask for federal money again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.