What N.O. public rebuilding funds should NOT be used for

  • News
  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,119
4
E. g. - gambling establishments, bars, brothels, property controlled by felons(?)...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Smurf
396
3
Loren Booda said:
property controlled by felons(?)...
Felons are citizens too.
 
  • #3
Townsend
221
0
Loren Booda said:
E. g. - gambling establishments, bars, brothels, property controlled by felons(?)...

What's left?

j/k...
 
  • #4
oldunion
182
0
some red cross funds from 9/11 were misappropriated for military usage.
 
  • #5
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Loren Booda said:
E. g. - gambling establishments, bars, brothels, property controlled by felons(?)...

Wouldn't insurance companies be footing the bill for establishments like those and other private property?
 
  • #6
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
oldunion said:
some red cross funds from 9/11 were misappropriated for military usage.

Are you sure? I thought those funds were used for some other red cross operations in another country...
 
  • #7
Loren Booda
3,119
4
Penguino,

There will be many disputes with those who suffer, say, wind damage vs flood damage. As for the uninsured?

Any property operated as a criminal enterprise should be ineligible for any public funds or insurance, a consequence of the RICO Act, etc.

Is the $200,000,000,000 contributed by the federal government to the city and environs only for public projects, not housing in general for instance?
 
  • #8
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
The disputes will probably be minimal since I'd suspect everyone with insurance has insurance for a hurricane. Wouldn't make sense to just get flood insurance in a hurricane prone area or just an insurance that covers wind damage when you live under sea level.

And yes, I should have added that I didn't mean the criminal places. Their criminals, no money to them.

As far as the public money... why should it go to housing? Insurance is suppose ot be the one paying out for that that... i mean that IS what people are paying for when they pay their policy... and for those who are uninsured... they should have a lower priority in the public funding because hey, you should have insurance, its available to you, its a risk you take for not having it. Also, I suspect public housing (where I wonder if they are even required to have insurance) would fall under public projects (ie. low income housing) so that's not a worry I hope.
 
  • #9
edward
119
166
Most Gulf coast residents had coverage for wind damage. Much of the damage resulted from the wind blown storm surge. The insurance comapanies are denying these claims.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood sued five insurance companies Thursday to force them to pay for storm-surge damage related to Hurricane Katrina.
The complaint, filed in Hinds County Chancery Court, claims that Allstate, State Farm, Nationwide, USAA and Mississippi Farm Bureau policies "attempt to exclude coverage for storm-surge damage" caused by the hurricane.

This is "an unfair or deceptive trade practice" under state law, Hood says. Hood also asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent insurers from paying policyholders to get them to sign waivers saying they have flood damage.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2005-09-15-katrina-insurance-lawsuit_x.htm
 
  • #10
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
And that's what lawsuits are for!
 
  • #11
edward
119
166
The $5 billion in 9/11 funds didn't exactly go where they were supposed to.

The government's $5 billion effort to help small businesses recover from the Sept. 11 attacks was so loosely managed that it gave low-interest loans to companies that didn't need terrorism relief -- or even know they were getting it, The Associated Press has found.

And while some at New York's Ground Zero couldn't get assistance they desperately sought, companies far removed from the devastation -- a South Dakota country radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops -- had no problem winning the government-guaranteed loans.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/09/11/business.20050911-sbt-MICH-B4-Firms_received_9_11.sto [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Oh, I thought we were talking about the red cross funds that people were complaining about. They wanted the money to go directly to 9/11 things and to the victims only. Was the US government giving money to the Red Cross in your case?
 
  • #13
Lessons in etiquette for Penqwino.

J/K :tongue: :biggrin:
 
  • #14
Echo 6 Sierra
25
2
I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that a whole-whole BUNCH of the people displaced by the flooding were renting the places they lived in. When the residences are repaired/rebuilt can we honestly say that the rent will be affordable? Doubtful. I'm going to call this one early and say that the majority of the funds are going to go to businesses that provided relief. Oh, and don't forget the Superdome repairs and repairs to remaining roadways, and claims against Government officials that won't come out of THEIR pocket.

OH! I KNOW! Rebuild the Port OF N.O. and SUPER-SIZE it because that is where all the oil from Iraq will enter the US from. We can call it New Oileans! We will justify it by saying that it will bring a job or two and provide a tax thingy for the city.

...now...how to pay for the rebuilding of New Oileans AND fund a needless war without raising taxes...hmmm(taps toe)...hmmm(still tapping)...I remember someone saying "no new taxes" once and then changing their mind in JUST this situation and it worked. (ring-ring)Hello Dad? Yes George? Who was it that said...?

Sweet-n-sour!
:yuck: :tongue2:
. :rofl:
 
  • #15
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Wow that was rather pathetic.
 
  • #16
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
330
85
Pengwuino said:
The disputes will probably be minimal since I'd suspect everyone with insurance has insurance for a hurricane. Wouldn't make sense to just get flood insurance in a hurricane prone area or just an insurance that covers wind damage when you live under sea level.

And yes, I should have added that I didn't mean the criminal places. Their criminals, no money to them.

As far as the public money... why should it go to housing? Insurance is suppose ot be the one paying out for that that... i mean that IS what people are paying for when they pay their policy... and for those who are uninsured... they should have a lower priority in the public funding because hey, you should have insurance, its available to you, its a risk you take for not having it. Also, I suspect public housing (where I wonder if they are even required to have insurance) would fall under public projects (ie. low income housing) so that's not a worry I hope.
Insurance companies exist to make money. Overall, the insurance premiums collected has to exceed what they're paying out. The idea is that anyone who has a reasonable chance of their house burning down will buy fire insurance since they can't afford to replace a house on their own. Very few houses burn down, so the insurance is affordable and the insurance company makes a profit.

People who live on high ground in a dry climate aren't going to buy flood insurance just to lower the cost for folks who live in a flood plain. That means the insurance rates charged for people who are at risk for flooding are so high that no one could afford insurance - if insurance companies even sold flood insurance.

The federal government sells flood insurance, at a loss (in other words, taxpayers in desert high country are still paying for flood insurance), but caps the amount of money a person can collect. The cap would cover smaller, cheaper homes, but fall short of the replacement cost for your middle class homes. For most businesses that have flood insurance, the cap is far below what they lost.
 
  • #17
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
Loren Booda said:
Penguino,

There will be many disputes with those who suffer, say, wind damage vs flood damage. As for the uninsured?

Any property operated as a criminal enterprise should be ineligible for any public funds or insurance, a consequence of the RICO Act, etc.

Is the $200,000,000,000 contributed by the federal government to the city and environs only for public projects, not housing in general for instance?
Federal funds should be used to help the homeless and jobless until they can find new housing and jobs (in a reasonable time and amount), to help cities with infrastructure, or loans to business (obviously not for criminal enterprise)--loans that are to be repaid as would any venture capital. We will collectively pay higher insurance premiums to cover the insurance claims.

As for the uninsured, here is a question... If Americans can know that the government will bail them out when they don't have insurance, what is the incentive to have insurance, and how is this fair to those who were insured and probably paid premiums for year? Is this government responsibility toward citizens? I don't feel it is.
 
  • #18
Townsend
221
0
SOS2008 said:
As for the uninsured, here is a question... If Americans can know that the government will bail them out when they don't have insurance, what is the incentive to have insurance, and how is this fair to those who were insured and probably paid premiums for year? Is this government responsibility toward citizens? I don't feel it is.

Totally agree with you...
 
  • #19
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Yah that does make sense. Started to think about it and was wondering exactly where an insurance company could make money on flood insurance. Theres very little "maybe" with floods. Either there's no chance in hell you could have a flood... or its almost guaranteed. The middle ground is where insurance companies make money. Here in CA is probably a great place ot sell insurance from earthquakes. People probably think its a decent enough danger to get it but it doesn't happen enough to make many payouts necessary.

But then again if its such a guarantee that there is going to be a flood at some point, what the hell are you doing living there :tongue2:
 
  • #20
Echo 6 Sierra said:
I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that a whole-whole BUNCH of the people displaced by the flooding were renting the places they lived in. When the residences are repaired/rebuilt can we honestly say that the rent will be affordable? Doubtful. I'm going to call this one early and say that the majority of the funds are going to go to businesses that provided relief. Oh, and don't forget the Superdome repairs and repairs to remaining roadways, and claims against Government officials that won't come out of THEIR pocket.

OH! I KNOW! Rebuild the Port OF N.O. and SUPER-SIZE it because that is where all the oil from Iraq will enter the US from. We can call it New Oileans! We will justify it by saying that it will bring a job or two and provide a tax thingy for the city.

...now...how to pay for the rebuilding of New Oileans AND fund a needless war without raising taxes...hmmm(taps toe)...hmmm(still tapping)...I remember someone saying "no new taxes" once and then changing their mind in JUST this situation and it worked. (ring-ring)Hello Dad? Yes George? Who was it that said...?

Sweet-n-sour!
:yuck: :tongue2:
. :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: Send to the Daily Show.
 
  • #21
Pengwuino said:
But then again if its such a guarantee that there is going to be a flood at some point, what the hell are you doing living there :tongue2:
Darwin award?

Just a theory.
 
  • #22
Townsend
221
0
Skyhunter said:
Darwin award?

Just a theory.


:rofl:
 
  • #23
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Skyhunter said:
Darwin award?

Just a theory.

Thats the ONE good thing about where i live. Aside from god's rather on mankind, no chance of a flood. Theres also never been an earthquake that actually caused any damage in my city... no real stormy weather... no tornados.. we rule :D
 
  • #24
Townsend
221
0
Pengwuino said:
Thats the ONE good thing about where i live. Aside from god's rather on mankind, no chance of a flood. Theres also never been an earthquake that actually caused any damage in my city... no real stormy weather... no tornados.. we rule :D

Oh...you mean aside from the five tornados that came down in November of 1996...I was nearly killed!

Oh...and guess where the worlds largest car pile up ever happened? Right at the intersection from 198 and the 5...

And naturally the air quality in Frenso is not an issue...or the fog they get every winter...

Fresno California...a true paradise...
 
  • #25
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Five tornados? Are you on drugs?

198 and I5 is like 40 miles from here too.

And yah... air quality is a ***** but if you can't handle a lil fog, you shouldn't be driving (which would mean 95% of the people on the road in this city unfortunately).

You're crazy :D

Its not a paradise but its only problem is air... pff
 
  • #26
Townsend
221
0
Pengwuino said:
Five tornados? Are you on drugs?

No...http://newweb.wrh.noaa.gov/wrh/98TAs/9807/index.html [Broken] I was nearly killed!

198 and I5 is like 40 miles from here too.
Yeah...you live 40 miles from the worst pile up anywhere ever!

And yah... air quality is a *****

It close to the worst in the nation...

but if you can't handle a lil fog, you shouldn't be driving (which would mean 95% of the people on the road in this city unfortunately).
When you have to be to work at 8 AM and you cannot see the hand 4 inches in front of your face...it's a problem!

You're crazy :D

Getting the hell away from Fresno was one of the best moments in my life!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Pff, LNAS? Thats like a billion miles away. The moons closer, get outa my house. My house that's in a city that doesn't get any crappy weather. yah yah!

Ha, 3rd in teh nation :D right behind Houston and LA

And we only get a FEW days of fog where you can't see enough to drive, pansies :P

Now shut up and bow down to our weather!

And shut up, you live in san diego, that's not a fair comparison.
 
  • #28
Townsend
221
0
Pengwuino said:
And shut up, you live in san diego, that's not a fair comparison.

I don't live in San Diego... I live in Brookings, South Dakota...

It ironic too because my school is SDSU, which is also San Diego State University...if you google SDSU my school is the second hit...
 
  • #29
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Oops, wrong SD then :P All i saw was SD.
 
  • #30
Townsend
221
0
Pengwuino said:
Oops, wrong SD then :P All i saw was SD.

Understandable...don't worry about it...
 
  • #31
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
Pengwuino said:
Yah that does make sense. Started to think about it and was wondering exactly where an insurance company could make money on flood insurance. Theres very little "maybe" with floods. Either there's no chance in hell you could have a flood... or its almost guaranteed. The middle ground is where insurance companies make money. Here in CA is probably a great place ot sell insurance from earthquakes. People probably think its a decent enough danger to get it but it doesn't happen enough to make many payouts necessary.

But then again if its such a guarantee that there is going to be a flood at some point, what the hell are you doing living there :tongue2:

I was under the impression that California law required every homeowner to purchase earthquake insurance.
 
  • #32
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
loseyourname said:
I was under the impression that California law required every homeowner to purchase earthquake insurance.

That'd be news to me... ill ask my parents about their insurance...
 
  • #33
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
330
85
SOS2008 said:
Federal funds should be used to help the homeless and jobless until they can find new housing and jobs (in a reasonable time and amount), to help cities with infrastructure, or loans to business (obviously not for criminal enterprise)--loans that are to be repaid as would any venture capital. We will collectively pay higher insurance premiums to cover the insurance claims.

As for the uninsured, here is a question... If Americans can know that the government will bail them out when they don't have insurance, what is the incentive to have insurance, and how is this fair to those who were insured and probably paid premiums for year? Is this government responsibility toward citizens? I don't feel it is.
If they don't have insurance, there's no guarantees. In general, I don't feel there's any obligation to bail them out.

Sometimes, though, it's economically beneficial to make sure a town's not wiped out and New Orleans is one of those cases, only because it's such an important port - for just about everything the Midwest buys or produces, not just oil.

New Orleans was a case where money spent on the levees wasn't just local pork. St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, and just about every other river town benefited a lot and everyone in the Midwest benefited at least some. Maintaining the levees was rightly a federal responsibility and we didn't quite put enough money into it to preserve it. We don't really have much choice but to pour money into it now to rebuild it.
 
  • #34
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
BobG said:
If they don't have insurance, there's no guarantees. In general, I don't feel there's any obligation to bail them out.

Sometimes, though, it's economically beneficial to make sure a town's not wiped out and New Orleans is one of those cases, only because it's such an important port - for just about everything the Midwest buys or produces, not just oil.

New Orleans was a case where money spent on the levees wasn't just local pork. St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, and just about every other river town benefited a lot and everyone in the Midwest benefited at least some. Maintaining the levees was rightly a federal responsibility and we didn't quite put enough money into it to preserve it. We don't really have much choice but to pour money into it now to rebuild it.
That's what the highway bill is largely about--infrastructure. As someone mentioned, wouldn't it be great if the highway bill was reopened and funds directed to address these very issues? Because as you say this affects many areas, not just NO, and a tremendous amount of commerce in our country.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
SOS2008 said:
That's what the highway bill is largely about--infrastructure. As someone mentioned, wouldn't it be great if the highway bill was reopened and funds directed to address these very issues? Because as you say this affects many areas, not just NO, and a tremendous amount of commerce in our country.
Bingo.

The problem is federal tax money is allocated by political clout not need. That is why the levees that protect a city of 500,000 gets it's funding cut while Alaska gets a Bridge to Nowhere.

The proposed $2 billion Knik Arm Bridge - one of several projects that could make Alaska the biggest winner in this year's transportation-bill sweepstakes - has stirred outrage from critics who see it as pork-barrel spending that will send federal deficits spiraling up. Some call it "the Big Dig of the Far North," a reference to Boston's overbudget tunnel project.
 

Suggested for: What N.O. public rebuilding funds should NOT be used for

Replies
3
Views
324
Replies
10
Views
860
Replies
7
Views
439
Replies
13
Views
481
Replies
17
Views
825
Replies
25
Views
688
Replies
19
Views
746
Replies
26
Views
632
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
806
Top