Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2006, at 11:33:59
And in your communications to your Congressional members.
The Bush administration seems to have drawn a line in the sand, and that line could prove to be fatal or at least crippling to this city.
I am as responsible and as insistent that others be as well as anyone, but the idea that the only homeowners who should be helped if they didn't have flood insurance are those who lived outside the flood plain will have lasting consequences to the city at large. Yes, I hate seeing federal dollars go to those who should have bought flood insurance but didn't, but if you look at the consequences that only bailing out the 20,000 homes that lived outside the flood plain and leaving the estimated 200,000 or more homes that were inside the flood plain and uninsured will have on the city as a whole, perhaps it could be seen as bailing out the city and the people who did buy flood insurance as well. As it stands now, people who wish to stay will likely have to build in the midst of wide areas of blighted housing. The Baker bill was our way of allowing people to rebuild in areas where there will be sufficient population to provide city services from an already poor and now impoverished city, and to avoid the jack-o-lantern affect of a few rebuilt houses in the midst of blight.
There could be provisions added to the Baker bill such that anyone in the City of New Orleans would have to provide proof of flood insurance when paying their tax bills, similar to proof of auto insurance requirements, so that in the future people will be forced to acquire flood insurance. Baker is more than willing to make whatever concessions the administration and the legislative bodies think are necessary.
With the other major necessity still outstanding being better levee protection and coastal preservation (much cheaper than having this happen again, I assure you).
poster:Dinah
thread:606549
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/606549.html