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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriate use of public rebuilding funds in New Orleans, particularly in the aftermath of disasters. Participants explore various types of establishments and properties that should or should not receive funding, including those controlled by felons, gambling establishments, and businesses affected by insurance disputes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that public funds should not be used for gambling establishments, bars, brothels, or properties controlled by felons.
  • Others argue that felons are citizens and should not be excluded from receiving support.
  • Concerns are raised about the misappropriation of funds in past disasters, such as the Red Cross funds from 9/11, with some questioning the management of those funds.
  • There is a discussion about the role of insurance companies in covering damages, with some participants asserting that insurance should be responsible for payouts rather than public funds.
  • Some participants express skepticism about whether public funds should be allocated to housing, especially for those who are uninsured, suggesting that insurance is a personal responsibility.
  • Disputes regarding the classification of damage (wind vs. flood) and the adequacy of insurance coverage are highlighted, with references to legal actions taken against insurance companies for denying claims.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for public funds to be diverted to businesses that may not be directly impacted by disasters, as seen in past funding mismanagement.
  • Participants speculate about the future allocation of funds, including potential investments in infrastructure like the Port of New Orleans.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the use of public funds, particularly concerning which types of properties and businesses should be eligible for support. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the appropriate criteria for funding allocation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of insurance coverage and the varying responsibilities of individuals versus public funds in disaster recovery. There are unresolved questions about the definitions of eligible properties and the implications of past funding mismanagement.

  • #31
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. there's 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 :-p

I was under the impression that California law required every homeowner to purchase earthquake insurance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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
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
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 129 ·
5
Replies
129
Views
17K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
82
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K