N.O. - Removing people from their homes at gunpoint

Ok, ok, maybe it's not my business, but what the hell is going on here ?
Removing people from their own intact property at gunpoint ?
Even when there is no floodwater even in the yard ? Maybe even hasn't been?

What the heck has happened to freedom and civil rights ?

And the stated authority is not even a federal ruling, but is repeatedly stated, at least in the media, as "by order of the mayor". The mayor ??

What is wrong with letting these people remain, to protect their properties and keep their city just marginally alive. What on earth is being planned ? Bulldoze the lot, along with everyones belongings ? Or is it just more hysterical, ill-thought-out incompetence ?

"Don't worry, we'll keep your belongings safe".... Have you seen the repeated eye-witness reports of looting by police ?

Letting them stay would have cost implications, of course.

No fresh water. No electricity. No sewage removal. Difficult transport to get supplies and get to work (if it still exists). Health hazard from nearby contamination.

Solving these would surely not be that expensve, and the support would not be forever, as each phase of recovery was reached, one aspect could diminish.

Lack of water - daily water delivery.
Lack of sewage - supply chemical toilets and empty monthly.
Lack of electricity - camping gas and supplies for cooking and lighting - tv you do without.
Health hazard - innoculation, as is being done for the workers being drafted in.
Food and other supplies, initially delivery to the door, until transport improves sufficiently for self collection.

What is the problem here ?

Is it that if they let the affluent remain, then they must give everybody (they read "criminal elements" the same option, and they fear rampant quiet neighbour-looting when their backs are turned ? That no-one will trust enough to stay away unless everyone does?

What gives with free people being dragged off their own undamaged property on the say-so of a mayor ?

My opinion and a dollar will get you, um, about a quarter of a gallon of gas. But here it is:

Downtown New Orleans is a thoroughly septic environment.

The horrific toxins floating around right now are only the short-term problem. Every member of the diseased ecosystem spawning out of the cracks over the next few months is going to be a little walking/flying/creeping epidemic-on-the-move.

These people have to go. I wish it could've happened under an administration with less open contempt for individual rights, and every decisive action the Feds take will likely be a precedent-setting claim to ground that the ordinary citizen may never recover without a Second American Revolution. But bottom line is, New Orleans has only just begun brewing environmental and logistical nightmares, and these people have to go.

-- jj

[Edit]
PS Sorry, Ellie, I should've read your post more carefully...yeah, the Mayor doing it; there may be a due-process issue of some concern there. But I'm really rusty on local-level civics, so I don't know if he was acting within the portfolio of powers granted his office for such emergencies or not.

But whether or not the higher authorities ought to have initiated this effort, they probably ought to stand behind it.
[/Edit]

The recovery effort should not be sidetracked in order to provide support to people who are too stubborn to know when to leave. People who willingly choose to stay should NOT receive water, chemical toilets, gas, or any other supplies. That's the point of evacuating. The traditional infrastructure which provided these things has been destroyed. By shifting them to cities where that infrastructure still exists, the recovery can be hastened by allowing administrators to focus on restoring that infrastructure. Those who choose to remain behind should do so knowing full and well that they will not continue to receive supplies, and that they will not later be "rescued" should they decide that staying was foolish.

Remaining is asinine. It's a major distraction to efforts to make the city livable for everyone. The greater good should not be subverted by a couple of self-centered people who think defending their curio is more important than restoring water to the city.

Hmmm... Are you sure this isn't the hygeine equivalent of scaring people into submission with fantasy stories of terrorist bogeys and wmd's everywhere ?
I hope we get to hear some calm independent assessments of the genuine level of risk to properly innoculated individuals.

How come its safe to let thousands of low paid Halliburton employees into the area? I do not believe for a second they will all work in biological protection suits, or be highly trained in special hygeinic protection methods, or be totally sterilised every time they leave the zone.

Why aren't the police and soldiers dropping like flies?

And above all, how many houses and yards across the nation are daily flooded with raw sewage, which may have been backing up and festering underground for days or weeks?

Are all these properties health hazards in their every crevice for long periods? Are they evacuated and sealed off ? Off course not.

I may be wrong, but if I were in danger of being dragged from my home, I'd need, and have the right to, a hell of a lot of convincing that the health hazard is not a scare tactic. Convincing by sound independent testimony. Is there such a debate prominently visible in the media?

Hardly be surprising if some people suspect a scare tactic, in view of its recent high utilisation and success.

Ok, good. This is the point of discussing things. We have so far three candidates for the major factor in the forcible nature of the evacuation.

1. I suggested it might be fear of criminal elements being allowed to remain if law-abiding citizens were allowed to resist
2. Judah suggested it might genuinely be the reason publicly stated - ie extreme health hazard.
3. Ardith suggests it is to prevent distraction/disruption of the rebuilding effort. Doesn't mention cost.

Any more ? We could collect them, then look and see how likely each is.

My personal feelings so far:
One thing in favor of (1) is that, this way, anything moving and not in a correct uniform can be shot on sight. Which does simplify property protection and public order problems.
(2) I need convincing about.
(3) I'd need some description of what form the distraction might take. I can see they would get in the way of bulldozers, but surely those aren't in the frame, where the properties are intact ?

You raise some interesting points in your reply to me, Ellie. Bearing in mind that I really don't know what the Heck I'm talking about any more than any other armchair amateur pundit, I need to think about them (and get some RL stuff done) before I decide what to say, if anything, about most of them.

But your comments on opportunistic scare tactics bother me the most, because I can't easily dismiss them, in light of this administration's history.

Oh..as to the short-term health issues faced by the uniforms...my brother did two tours in Mogadishu and Kismayu before he left the Army, including one emergency activation which had him from New York to Somalia in about 36 hours.

You cannot believe the stuff they were pumping into the soldiers headed over there. Anti-every-15th-century-scourge-you-can-think-of pills. Lines of soldiers with boths sleeves rolled up, literally quick-stepping between two medics, one on each side, to receive multiple-barrel shots to each arm simultaneously. Dunno about the police, but my guess is, the national troops are packing some major kung fu against virulent diseases.

-- jj

Let's treat this from a pseudo-mathematical perspective. The resources (manpower, money, machinery) available to rebuild New Orleans are finite. No matter how much money is thrown at the problem, there will always be an upper limit to the resources available. This is axiomatic. Providing logistical support to non-evacuees would require resources. Since the total number of available resources is finite, it must then follow that the resources necessary for logistical support must be deducted from the effort to rebuild the city. Resources committed to this cause could otherwise be used to rebuild the whole city, but are instead being spent to ensure that the stubborn few aren't without necessary supplies. It's inavoidable.

The question, ultimately, is whether the cost (in manpower, money, and machinery) provides a significant enough benefit to the obstinate minority who remained behind to justify the subsequent detriment to the remainder of the people of New Orleans. I cannot conceive of any possible situation in which allowing residents to remain behind solely for the purpose of defending their possessions provides a net benefit to the city of New Orleans. If these non-evacuees are involved with the rebuilding of the city or provide a crucial resource to the city (such as police, fire, communications, construction, etc) then the benefit to the city might exceed the cost. However, your initial post specifically mentions people remaining behind to guard their loot.

Yes there is definitely a cost in supporting them, I agree. The cost argument is a new one, but a good one. Though I don't think its as clearcut as you say, Ardith, for two reasons.

The alternative is evacuation. That has a cost too, which you fail to include in your calculation. Its not clear to me in which of the two locations the survivor would cost the system more. Being provided with supplies, electricity, food etc will happen in both places. It will cost a lot more in the city, but one even bigger cost will be saved. The cost of housing, and providing a roof. It's not clear to me which option would turn out more expensive on balance.

In addition, this analysis relates to a survivor with few financial resources.

There is another class of survivor, who might have significant savings, and be willing, indeed desperately eager, to meet the entire cost of his support in either location. Such a person need cost nobody anything if allowed to stay home. Indeed, he may need some help if forced out, so making that the more costly option.

So I agree cost could be significant in the decision, but I dont regard it as proven which option would be more expensive.

Let me ask you. Many Americans have strong feeligs about the sanctity of the home. If concerned organisations carried out significant fund raising, and obtained enough pledges to meet the full costs of supporting the evacuation refusers at home, would you allow them to stay? If not, which other issue would be responsible for your decision to remove them ?

My question may seem silly, but I am trying to see if cost really is the issue here.

I believe I answered that in my first response. I don't believe people should be forced out of their homes at gunpoint. If they wish to stay, let them. But their ultimate fate is then their responsibility. Just like with medical treatment. If someone refuses to consent to medical treatment that is necessary for their survival, then they are released AMA after having signed documents releasing the doctor from responsibility. The stubborn few who remain behind should similarily be required to sign such a document.

Here's my original response to the then-unasked question:

I'm guilty. I didn't read carefully enough Ardith, I'm sorry. So long as they aren't obstructed from getting supplies themselves, then, it would be an individual choice. Sad that not all could afford the cost of staying in those circumstances, but I see the rationality of your view..

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) laws are made all the time to protect people from themselves. Seatbelts for example, it has now, in many states, become law that a person can be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt where it used to only be ticketable if the person was pulled over for something else. Why the govt. feels the need to protect people from themselves I don't understand. Create the law for passengers, but I think the driver should have the option/right to not wear a seatbelt if they want to. Besides most cars have air bags now anyway which are more effective than seatbelts anyway. Don't get me wrong, I wear a seatbelt all the time.

This just another example. Because of the dead bodies around and the flooded sewers disease is going to be rampant in that area...underwater or not. Chances are if someone decides to stay and gets diseased they will not be able to recieve medical treatment and very well could end up quarantined in the area. However, that should be a choice they should be able to make. Have there been any cases of people being shot for refusing to leave??

I saw a tv reporter interview a lawyer, armed to the teeth, protecting his apparently intact affluent home, and standing on his own dry yard. He said if they came for him, he'd start shooting, and looked like he meant it. Don't know what happened, mR.