Tuesday, September 13, 2005
New Orleans vs. New York
If I were to ask you, "Which city will respond better to a catastrophic disaster, New York or New Orleans?"
Before you answer I have a couple more questions to ask you:
Which city would better handle a snow storm, Buffalo or El Paso?
Obviously it would be Buffalo, they have the infrastructure for massive snow removal.
Which city would better handle a massive earthquake, Los Angeles or Charlotte?
Again, the obvious answer is Los Angeles because they have experience with earthquakes.
So, back to the first question, I feel the obvious answer is New York. Not because New York has better city planning for such events, which it does; not because New York has more experience with catastrophies recently, which it does too. New York will respond better and rebuild faster because New York has more money.
New Orleans was a city in financial ruins. It had a decreasing population. A significant number of their educated youth left for better jobs. New Orleans' biggest tourist attractions all revolved around the "authentic look" of New Orleans drinking areas. By authentic they meant to say old and dilapidated. Now, don't get me wrong, New Orleans was a great city with an amazing history. I've been there and love visiting. But thats the key, I loved to visit but didn't want to live there. Plus, not one person can argue that New Orleans was not filled with poverty and social-service-style programing.
So, given these facts, how can anyone be surprised at what happened.
Sure, it can be said that the federal government reacted too slowly. Yet, more importantly, the state and local government failed to be pro-active enough. Before the last hurricane hit Florida, Governor Bush arranged to have emergency relief in trucks waiting to go, and when they were not needed they were disbanded. Where was that this type of proacive behavior in Louisianna?
Now I do not want to get off track and start passing the blame. I'm sure everyone could have done better. The simple answer is that there was not enough money to get things done. There is not enough money in the city's funds (read: lack of financial planning); there was not enough money in the state's funds (read: lack of financial planning); there was not enough city planning to prepare for such an event (read: lack of far-sighted political planning) and there was not enough money in the hands of the average citizen of New Orleans (read: too much reliance on social programs).
The problem with the politicians and the media right now is that they are trying to blame everyone else. Newsweek and the USAToday both had polls which said that New Orleans was ignored becaue it was too poor, or too black or too southern. The simple truth is that there are not enough local citizens with enough money invested in the city to get anything better. When you have insufficient numbers of "prominent" citizens, you will get insufficient results. Now, going back to New York - New York has many, many "prominent" citizens who will make sure that things are done properly.
So, after all this blathering, there are a few facts people must understand:
1. Broke is broke, regardless of skin color. Do you think that predominantly-white and poverty stricken parts of West Virginia would have responded better? How about poor and hispanic parts of Phoenix?
2. Fixing state problems are primarily the state's responsibility. We should take this as a warning to strengthen out own states and not wait for the federal government to act; the feds are already too big, too strong and too slow. The federal government should be there to supplement and aid program, not to provide it.
3. Before New Orleans complains any more about the lack of attention and aid they are getting, they should ask themselves, "Why has New Orleans dominated the news while local areas and Mississippi have been back-burner topics, even though the other destruction has been just as horrible - just on a smaller scale?"
I'll tell you why, its because large-scale destruction sells papers (more profit) and fills news broadcasts (more advertising money). Yet, I don't hear anyone from New Orleans refusing the aid because Mississippi, which is blacker and poorer, isn't getting their fair share of attention.
And one last thing, before you read those polls in the papers and magazines, how many of those southern-urbanites voted for Kerry? Its a good thing to know before you read about them blaming Bush.
Before you answer I have a couple more questions to ask you:
Which city would better handle a snow storm, Buffalo or El Paso?
Obviously it would be Buffalo, they have the infrastructure for massive snow removal.
Which city would better handle a massive earthquake, Los Angeles or Charlotte?
Again, the obvious answer is Los Angeles because they have experience with earthquakes.
So, back to the first question, I feel the obvious answer is New York. Not because New York has better city planning for such events, which it does; not because New York has more experience with catastrophies recently, which it does too. New York will respond better and rebuild faster because New York has more money.
New Orleans was a city in financial ruins. It had a decreasing population. A significant number of their educated youth left for better jobs. New Orleans' biggest tourist attractions all revolved around the "authentic look" of New Orleans drinking areas. By authentic they meant to say old and dilapidated. Now, don't get me wrong, New Orleans was a great city with an amazing history. I've been there and love visiting. But thats the key, I loved to visit but didn't want to live there. Plus, not one person can argue that New Orleans was not filled with poverty and social-service-style programing.
So, given these facts, how can anyone be surprised at what happened.
Sure, it can be said that the federal government reacted too slowly. Yet, more importantly, the state and local government failed to be pro-active enough. Before the last hurricane hit Florida, Governor Bush arranged to have emergency relief in trucks waiting to go, and when they were not needed they were disbanded. Where was that this type of proacive behavior in Louisianna?
Now I do not want to get off track and start passing the blame. I'm sure everyone could have done better. The simple answer is that there was not enough money to get things done. There is not enough money in the city's funds (read: lack of financial planning); there was not enough money in the state's funds (read: lack of financial planning); there was not enough city planning to prepare for such an event (read: lack of far-sighted political planning) and there was not enough money in the hands of the average citizen of New Orleans (read: too much reliance on social programs).
The problem with the politicians and the media right now is that they are trying to blame everyone else. Newsweek and the USAToday both had polls which said that New Orleans was ignored becaue it was too poor, or too black or too southern. The simple truth is that there are not enough local citizens with enough money invested in the city to get anything better. When you have insufficient numbers of "prominent" citizens, you will get insufficient results. Now, going back to New York - New York has many, many "prominent" citizens who will make sure that things are done properly.
So, after all this blathering, there are a few facts people must understand:
1. Broke is broke, regardless of skin color. Do you think that predominantly-white and poverty stricken parts of West Virginia would have responded better? How about poor and hispanic parts of Phoenix?
2. Fixing state problems are primarily the state's responsibility. We should take this as a warning to strengthen out own states and not wait for the federal government to act; the feds are already too big, too strong and too slow. The federal government should be there to supplement and aid program, not to provide it.
3. Before New Orleans complains any more about the lack of attention and aid they are getting, they should ask themselves, "Why has New Orleans dominated the news while local areas and Mississippi have been back-burner topics, even though the other destruction has been just as horrible - just on a smaller scale?"
I'll tell you why, its because large-scale destruction sells papers (more profit) and fills news broadcasts (more advertising money). Yet, I don't hear anyone from New Orleans refusing the aid because Mississippi, which is blacker and poorer, isn't getting their fair share of attention.
And one last thing, before you read those polls in the papers and magazines, how many of those southern-urbanites voted for Kerry? Its a good thing to know before you read about them blaming Bush.
