Aftermath of Hurricane relief Housing and job problems

[404 Not Found]

With the job/unemployment rate as it is here in the States and the housing available throughout the nation, why is it that so many people keep moving about and relocating without finding new permanent housing or settling back in the NOLA, MS & AL areas destroyed by hurricane Katrina?

Not that I have an answer to this dilema, yet I can honestly say that the housing across the nation as well as jobs offered to many of the now homeless, have been turned down by these unfortunate families and individuals.

The Red Cross and FEMA debit cards that had been issued, have been used for things such as Topless Bars, Breast Implants as well as other plastic/cosmetic surgeries, Liquor Stores to legal gambling at horse and dog race tracks.

When so many will cry foul at the government for putting a stop to the financial assistance for these peoples, it is ashame that so many could ruin the attempt in helping them get on their feet for such selfish spoils as noted.

I agree with the US Government on this issue and unfortunately it seems like the monetary relief has become a welfare support program for those that feel they deserve not to work and should have a free ride.

This is not to say that this how all of the displaced residents of the hurricane have developed since the storm, but a generalization due to the misuse and lack of motivation by the few bad examples that now paint the poster child of hurricane Katrina as a low life welfare recipient that would rather get a free ride than try and help themselves. What will be next with this...will the race card be thrown into the mix? Not like it has not been already!

[qan]

Down at the FEMA community relations deployment center here in Atlanta, we're getting ready to potentially put up these folks essentially as homeless refugees starting December 1, no longer living in hotels but now living en masse sleeping on cots. They'll either be indoors smashed together, or, from the looks of the fencing being put up in the parking lot, in tents (even though it's been getting down below freezing at night). Reports we've received are similar to yours -- they are taking the free hotels, but not interested in jobs. I think that may start to change when the quality of life is reduced drastically.

A lot of the people who fell victim to the hurricane weren't so well off to begin with, and now to be living out of a hotel and to have relief money to spend, they're probably feeling pretty decent. The idea might be: well, the government didn't do much to save my house before the storm, so I'm going to take what I can now. After some of what they've gone through I can't blame them entirely. That said, they're going to need to figure out what to do and quickly, or a lot of them are going to turn more permanently to the halfway solution of being homeless, living with but also needing very little.

As long as a free hotel is there (or any form of social welfare), and its availability is not restricted by the condition of seeking employment, a weak person may decide to take it and call it good enough, with the idea that they'll be provided for so long as they display their weakness. Perhaps a way to prevent it from being a way to earn money while doing nothing would be to require a minimum 25 hour a week (or so) committment to either finding work (documented) or spent learning applicable job skills. I'm sure it's been tried with standard welfare, but in a specific instance such as disaster refugees it might be more effective, giving life some kind of purpose and structure, or at the very least a shortsighted goal that might keep them out of tittie bars.

[404 Not Found]

Interesting to hear how they intend to house/tent the homeless. I agree that many of these folks had been w/o jobs or homes prior to the hurricane.

The worst part is, I hear from the media, as well as my father-in-law who drives for FEMA, that many of these displaced peoples complain about what's not being done for them as a whole and that the towns/cities they had lived in are still a disaster zone.

Perhaps if these people would stay & help in rebuilding the towns/cities as a contribution to what they say is so important to them, NOLA and Biloxi as well as everywhere else hit by Katrina would be on a faster route of recovery being rebuilt.

I can only imagine the contracting firms that will come out on top after this rebuild.

[Ephemeral]

We have bad storms in other parts of the country, we had a microburst thunderstorm this summer and it dropped a tree through the roof of a friend. His homeowners insurance busted his chops over it and he ended up losing big $$$ on the deal. Should he not get federal relief too? No one paid for him to live in any motel. Why would there be federal help for big storms and not for little storms? My fear is that this is a political thing, federal dollars to be thrown at something if it is big enough to make the news.

Right now, less than 50% of the people living in the Californian high risk earthquakes areas have earthquake insurance. So if a big one quake hits, are we going to pay for these people too? Why are we willing to pay for people to live in high risk areas of the country? If people chose to live in these areas, isn't it at their own risk?

[Theif of Time]

I'd guess that they're not actually informed that they live in high risk areas.
So, like many things, you can put stupidity down to ignorance.

[Liquid Blue]

We have bad storms in other parts of the country, we had a microburst thunderstorm this summer and it dropped a tree through the roof of a friend. His homeowners insurance busted his chops over it and he ended up losing big $$$ on the deal.

You see the problem with this is, or I should say the problem with New Orleans, was that the government took the money that was going to be used to reinforce the levees, and used it toward the war effort. There wouldn't have been as much destruction (some yes, but not as much) if the levees had been reinforced. The only way you could apply your neighbors situation to the one in NO, would be if the government was supposed to take care of that tree for him, or put some money into reinforcing his roof, just in case that tree fell. What was the reason that the homeowner's insurance busted his chops? Did they warn him or tell him to chop it down?

My fear is that this is a political thing, federal dollars to be thrown at something if it is big enough to make the news.

I agree with you, I think that there is a political factor in how much aid was given, but like I said above, the storm and the effects it caused that you used as an example, are different from the situation of NO.

Right now, less than 50% of the people living in the Californian high risk earthquakes areas have earthquake insurance. So if a big one quake hits, are we going to pay for these people too? Why are we willing to pay for people to live in high risk areas of the country? If people chose to live in these areas, isn't it at their own risk?

Well in order to asnwer your fist question, it would help to know if:

- The people living in those high-risk areas are aware that they are high-risk areas

-Their income /financial situation would allow them to move somewhere else if they wanted to after finding out that they lived in high-risk areas

-There is any sound way we could reinforce the areas to reduce earthquake damage

Simply trying to asnwer that question on the first sentence alone will lead to some biased and uninformed answers. As to your second question, I think it depends on the degrees of risk for each area- it's a case by case call. Although our country is huge, the population is steadily growing, and there is constant expansions of subdivisions and strip malls all over.

Let's say there was a certain part of california, where wildfires popped up out of the blue, and often. Say there was a 75% chance of your house or something on your property catching on fire every month. A family knows this, decides against insurance, house burns down. Do I think they deserve a new house? Sure, but not with the government's money. I wouldn't have a problem with setting them in a hotel until they can get in another house, but I don't believe the government should pay for a new house, when they knew what danger their house was in and chose against insurance anyway.