FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O.
and the surrounding area.

Travel Trailers, that are the kind that could be pulled by any
full-sized car. (Back when cars had frames. It wasn't necessary to
have an SUV or a truck frame to pull these little things with rounded
ends.

Bigger trailers, whose name I forget, that are meant to be hooked up
to one or more external services, like propane or something. The
pictures show that these are still pretty small.

There is a rule that the bigger trailers can not be located below the
flood plain. On one of the Sunday morning TV news shows, someone was
asked and said that was a FEMA rule. The interviewer asked if the
rule could be changed, but somehow the question was never answered.
What is the basis of the rule?

Now, some or most or almost all of these bigger trailers have been put
into storage, in Arkansas or somewhere, and according to other news
stories, they are already damaged and may not ever be able to be used.
According to one story, they were stored too close together, and are
now sinking into the ground (whenever it rains?).

There are iirc 30,000 larger trailers, worth more than 300 million
dollars.

My speculation. A) They can't be located on land below the flood
plain, because they can't be moved that quickly and will get ruined if
there is another flood. However they are gettin ruined anyhow.

B) They couldn't be located on higher land because of NIMBY, people
didn't want several of these things in the park across the street.

C) They could have been located in the driveway or yard of the person
who was homeless, so that he would be close to his property, and could
start rebuilding, or at least salvaging, cleaning, and/or
destruction.. But what property was most likely to have damaged by
the Katrina flooding? That which is below the flood plain, of course.

So either they ordered the wrong type of trailer. They should have
ordered more travel trailers.
OR
There were no more travel trailers to buy, but having ordered the
bigger trailers, they should have and should still allow them to be
used below the flood plain, since they're going to be worthless in a
couple years either way. and there might not be another flood in the
same place for years.

--end speculation--

If they had used plywood below the trailers when they stored them,
would that have kept them from sinking into the ground?


Please, I would be interested in answers to any of these questions or
comments on any part of this post.

Although this relates to the news, it is actually on topic, I think.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

Who care's about your opinion regarding FEMA's handling of trailers. You
probably should be some where like Alt.Rec.Vehicles, who cares!!!!

Tom


"mm" wrote in message
...
FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O.
and the surrounding area.

Travel Trailers, that are the kind that could be pulled by any
full-sized car. (Back when cars had frames. It wasn't necessary to
have an SUV or a truck frame to pull these little things with rounded
ends.

Bigger trailers, whose name I forget, that are meant to be hooked up
to one or more external services, like propane or something. The
pictures show that these are still pretty small.

There is a rule that the bigger trailers can not be located below the
flood plain. On one of the Sunday morning TV news shows, someone was
asked and said that was a FEMA rule. The interviewer asked if the
rule could be changed, but somehow the question was never answered.
What is the basis of the rule?

Now, some or most or almost all of these bigger trailers have been put
into storage, in Arkansas or somewhere, and according to other news
stories, they are already damaged and may not ever be able to be used.
According to one story, they were stored too close together, and are
now sinking into the ground (whenever it rains?).

There are iirc 30,000 larger trailers, worth more than 300 million
dollars.

My speculation. A) They can't be located on land below the flood
plain, because they can't be moved that quickly and will get ruined if
there is another flood. However they are gettin ruined anyhow.

B) They couldn't be located on higher land because of NIMBY, people
didn't want several of these things in the park across the street.

C) They could have been located in the driveway or yard of the person
who was homeless, so that he would be close to his property, and could
start rebuilding, or at least salvaging, cleaning, and/or
destruction.. But what property was most likely to have damaged by
the Katrina flooding? That which is below the flood plain, of course.

So either they ordered the wrong type of trailer. They should have
ordered more travel trailers.
OR
There were no more travel trailers to buy, but having ordered the
bigger trailers, they should have and should still allow them to be
used below the flood plain, since they're going to be worthless in a
couple years either way. and there might not be another flood in the
same place for years.

--end speculation--

If they had used plywood below the trailers when they stored them,
would that have kept them from sinking into the ground?


Please, I would be interested in answers to any of these questions or
comments on any part of this post.

Although this relates to the news, it is actually on topic, I think.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

I CARE! WHILE HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING THE BIG WHEELS DONT HELP!

I saw the sunday morning show, the idiot fema guy whjo was in charge
during katrina and should of been fired was smoke and mirrors the real
issues

in a big disaster, the fema trailers should go anywhere needed,
including the affected folks driveways.

new orleans is a great example of government stupidity. the leeves
should of been maintained better

writes:
Rebuild NOLA in a sustainable fashion or abandon it.

There are plenty of architecture styles that are used world wide in
areas prone to floods. Stilts being one of them.

All new government funded construction should be done only to buildings in a
way that even if/when the levees fail again damage will be minimal.

Build *above* sea level and leave the lower area available for parking,
playground, etc.... the loss of a car/vehicle is a loss, but not as
life changing as the loss of an entire house.

What's happened there is horrible... If I'm paying taxes to help these
folks recover it needs to be done in a sustainable manner. But I object
to paying twice.

I say the same thing for florida... everyone should be building
concrete dome houses. If they did, insurance claims and rates should
decline.

--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:52:23 -0600, "twfsa" wrote:

Who care's about your opinion regarding FEMA's handling of trailers

What opinions did I give? I gave facts to the best that I know them,
I gave speculations, and I asked questions.

. You
probably should be some where like Alt.Rec.Vehicles, who cares!!!!

I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't want to read another group,
this is within the range of subjects discussed here, and the larger
trailers are not recreational vehicles.

I understand that you don't know enough to comment on the issues I
raised, After all, I don't think you've ever tried to answer anyone
else's questions either. But please don't give me a hard time.

Tom


"mm" wrote in message
.. .
FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O.
and the surrounding area.

Travel Trailers, that are the kind that could be pulled by any
full-sized car. (Back when cars had frames. It wasn't necessary to
have an SUV or a truck frame to pull these little things with rounded
ends.

Bigger trailers, whose name I forget, that are meant to be hooked up
to one or more external services, like propane or something. The
pictures show that these are still pretty small.

There is a rule that the bigger trailers can not be located below the
flood plain. On one of the Sunday morning TV news shows, someone was
asked and said that was a FEMA rule. The interviewer asked if the
rule could be changed, but somehow the question was never answered.
What is the basis of the rule?

Now, some or most or almost all of these bigger trailers have been put
into storage, in Arkansas or somewhere, and according to other news
stories, they are already damaged and may not ever be able to be used.
According to one story, they were stored too close together, and are
now sinking into the ground (whenever it rains?).

There are iirc 30,000 larger trailers, worth more than 300 million
dollars.

My speculation. A) They can't be located on land below the flood
plain, because they can't be moved that quickly and will get ruined if
there is another flood. However they are gettin ruined anyhow.

B) They couldn't be located on higher land because of NIMBY, people
didn't want several of these things in the park across the street.

C) They could have been located in the driveway or yard of the person
who was homeless, so that he would be close to his property, and could
start rebuilding, or at least salvaging, cleaning, and/or
destruction.. But what property was most likely to have damaged by
the Katrina flooding? That which is below the flood plain, of course.

So either they ordered the wrong type of trailer. They should have
ordered more travel trailers.
OR
There were no more travel trailers to buy, but having ordered the
bigger trailers, they should have and should still allow them to be
used below the flood plain, since they're going to be worthless in a
couple years either way. and there might not be another flood in the
same place for years.

--end speculation--

If they had used plywood below the trailers when they stored them,
would that have kept them from sinking into the ground?


Please, I would be interested in answers to any of these questions or
comments on any part of this post.

Although this relates to the news, it is actually on topic, I think.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

Alt.home.repair hummmmm so lets talk politics, Hey AL,Gore and John Kerry
lost the election, if you want to discuss your hot water heater or your
plugged up toilet that's great but forget politics. This is not the place to
discuss how the government is run! Or your views regarding politics.

Tom


"mm" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:52:23 -0600, "twfsa" wrote:

Who care's about your opinion regarding FEMA's handling of trailers

What opinions did I give? I gave facts to the best that I know them,
I gave speculations, and I asked questions.

. You
probably should be some where like Alt.Rec.Vehicles, who cares!!!!

I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't want to read another group,
this is within the range of subjects discussed here, and the larger
trailers are not recreational vehicles.

I understand that you don't know enough to comment on the issues I
raised, After all, I don't think you've ever tried to answer anyone
else's questions either. But please don't give me a hard time.

Tom


"mm" wrote in message
. ..
FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O.
and the surrounding area.

Travel Trailers, that are the kind that could be pulled by any
full-sized car. (Back when cars had frames. It wasn't necessary to
have an SUV or a truck frame to pull these little things with rounded
ends.

Bigger trailers, whose name I forget, that are meant to be hooked up
to one or more external services, like propane or something. The
pictures show that these are still pretty small.

There is a rule that the bigger trailers can not be located below the
flood plain. On one of the Sunday morning TV news shows, someone was
asked and said that was a FEMA rule. The interviewer asked if the
rule could be changed, but somehow the question was never answered.
What is the basis of the rule?

Now, some or most or almost all of these bigger trailers have been put
into storage, in Arkansas or somewhere, and according to other news
stories, they are already damaged and may not ever be able to be used.
According to one story, they were stored too close together, and are
now sinking into the ground (whenever it rains?).

There are iirc 30,000 larger trailers, worth more than 300 million
dollars.

My speculation. A) They can't be located on land below the flood
plain, because they can't be moved that quickly and will get ruined if
there is another flood. However they are gettin ruined anyhow.

B) They couldn't be located on higher land because of NIMBY, people
didn't want several of these things in the park across the street.

C) They could have been located in the driveway or yard of the person
who was homeless, so that he would be close to his property, and could
start rebuilding, or at least salvaging, cleaning, and/or
destruction.. But what property was most likely to have damaged by
the Katrina flooding? That which is below the flood plain, of course.

So either they ordered the wrong type of trailer. They should have
ordered more travel trailers.
OR
There were no more travel trailers to buy, but having ordered the
bigger trailers, they should have and should still allow them to be
used below the flood plain, since they're going to be worthless in a
couple years either way. and there might not be another flood in the
same place for years.

--end speculation--

If they had used plywood below the trailers when they stored them,
would that have kept them from sinking into the ground?


Please, I would be interested in answers to any of these questions or
comments on any part of this post.

Although this relates to the news, it is actually on topic, I think.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

2 things to consider.

See this rather ooor disaster response?

ONE DAY IT MIGHT BE YOU WHO NEEDS HELP!

Wether from natural or man made disaster... terrorism...

The other issue is sea level is rising, the ice caps are melting fast,
and can raise sea level several feet in the near future. The feds had
already predicted new orleans will be a island surrounded by levees in
100 years. it might be better to move the entire city to higher ground
or as another person posted bring in dirt by rail and raise the entire
place.

long term people shouldnt be allowed to rebuild in flood plains, short
term during a disaster fema trailers should go wherever needed.

In any case we all KNOW government really doesnt care

2 things to consider.

See this rather ooor disaster response?

ONE DAY IT MIGHT BE YOU WHO NEEDS HELP!

Wether from natural or man made disaster... terrorism...

The other issue is sea level is rising, the ice caps are melting fast,
and can raise sea level several feet in the near future. The feds had
already predicted new orleans will be a island surrounded by levees in
100 years. it might be better to move the entire city to higher ground
or as another person posted bring in dirt by rail and raise the entire
place.

long term people shouldnt be allowed to rebuild in flood plains, short
term during a disaster fema trailers should go wherever needed.

In any case we all KNOW government really doesnt care

writes:
New construction here fares very well in storms. Even the new mobile
homes do fairly well. When you see wiped out houses they are either
old or they didn't get built to code.

yeah, but concrete domed houses are neat...

--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")

On 24 Feb 2006 10:42:27 -0500, Philip Lewis
wrote:

writes:
New construction here fares very well in storms. Even the new mobile
homes do fairly well. When you see wiped out houses they are either
old or they didn't get built to code.

yeah, but concrete domed houses are neat...


Barrel Vaults are easier to build, easier to use,
nearly as sturdy, and amenable to variations on
the theme.

ONE dome is interesting. Because it's different.
A bunch of them would just be ugly.

The problem with this thinking is you will make the next disaster
worse if you have a significant number of people still living in the
flood plain.
Flooding is not just a summer thing.

If YOUR home were destroyed what would YOU prefer?

A trailer on site of old home?

B Homeless?

Trailer werent designed for permancy, and its up to everyone
government, insurance companies and individuals to see rebuilding
actually occurs!

Many were poor foilks who now have NOTHING because oif governmment
incompetence! Caused by ignoring the levees!

I think the feds should pay for rebuilding for the poor without
insurance

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:26 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:55:05 GMT, "Tom"
wrote:

but I suspect the real fear is that if those
trailers get into LA, the people living in them will never move back or up
into a real house. Most of the trailers probably would offer better living
conditions than some of the original housing. LA would become the biggest
trailer park in the country...plus most municipalities realize little or no

We have that problem here in Punta Gorda. Folks have been living in
FEMA village since Charlie, coming up on 2 years ago.

You say villlage. That means, I think, a bunch of them together.
Would it, do you think, be less of a problem if they were each in
different places, like in the front yard of wherever the people using
them lived?


Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The problem with this thinking is you will make the next disaster
worse if you have a significant number of people still living in the
flood plain.
Flooding is not just a summer thing.

If YOUR home were destroyed what would YOU prefer?

A trailer on site of old home?

B Homeless?

Trailer werent designed for permancy, and its up to everyone
government, insurance companies and individuals to see rebuilding
actually occurs!

Many were poor foilks who now have NOTHING because oif governmment
incompetence! Caused by ignoring the levees!

I think the feds should pay for rebuilding for the poor without
insurance

I bet you do.Well some of us don't want money stolen from our familys to pay
to rebuild a house for somebody in a flood plain.Especially when the house
was probably paid for the first time with government checks...Money that was
taken from hard working people who are striving to stand on their own 2 feet
without a government handout.
And don't start in about it being poor folk.I grew up in a poor
agricultural area.I have harvested tobacco all day in 100 degree plus
tempratures for $1.25 an hour.and peanuts..and hay.I am talking about real
work that most of those "poor folk" would not even think of doing.
Now I earn a decent living because I Learned skills and I still work harder
than the average person.So don't start talkin about stealin my hard earned
money and giving it to people who are not willing to work ..who are not even
willing to move.

wrote:
nevertheless consider the following, the earths climate is changing.

what if your home were destroyed next, would you go away quietely? BIG
storm rips across the US, it could easiy occur...

do we have a resonsiblity to the have little or have nots?

in the case of new orleans clearly the army corps of engineers didnt
maintain the levees properly if anything like this happened because
of private industry, they would be paying for the clean up and rebuild.

THE CLUE PHONE IS RINGING AND IT'S FOR YOU. It is not now and it never
was the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the
levees that hold the water out of New Orleans. That responsibility lies
with local flood control or levee boards. Those insular special purpose
boards are notoriously corrupt and often serve as an employer of last
resort for the ne'er do well relatives of LOCAL POLITICIANS. It was the
local levee authority of New Orleans that refused the construction of
flood gates for the cities canals because they did not want to bare the
cost of maintaining them. All of the levee failures occurred on those
same canals. Had the flood gates been installed as the corps had
originally planned the flooding of the city would not have occurred.
The Corps is supervising the reconstruction of the levees because the
levee boards do not have the project management capabilities and they
would divert far too much of the construction funds to other uses.

Tom Horne wrote:

wrote:
nevertheless consider the following, the earths climate is changing.

what if your home were destroyed next, would you go away quietely? BIG
storm rips across the US, it could easiy occur...

do we have a resonsiblity to the have little or have nots?

in the case of new orleans clearly the army corps of engineers didnt
maintain the levees properly if anything like this happened because
of private industry, they would be paying for the clean up and rebuild.

THE CLUE PHONE IS RINGING AND IT'S FOR YOU. It is not now and it never
was the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the
levees that hold the water out of New Orleans. That responsibility lies
with local flood control or levee boards. Those insular special purpose
boards are notoriously corrupt and often serve as an employer of last
resort for the ne'er do well relatives of LOCAL POLITICIANS. It was the
local levee authority of New Orleans that refused the construction of
flood gates for the cities canals because they did not want to bare the
cost of maintaining them. All of the levee failures occurred on those
same canals. Had the flood gates been installed as the corps had
originally planned the flooding of the city would not have occurred.
The Corps is supervising the reconstruction of the levees because the
levee boards do not have the project management capabilities and they
would divert far too much of the construction funds to other uses.

Levee repairs and improvements in New Orleans and nearby have been stalled
for years, mainly due to local interests using the courts to prevent the Army
Corps of Engineers from doing anything.

wrote in message
oups.com...
nevertheless consider the following, the earths climate is changing.

what if your home were destroyed next, would you go away quietely? BIG
storm rips across the US, it could easiy occur...

do we have a resonsiblity to the have little or have nots?

in the case of new orleans clearly the army corps of engineers didnt
maintain the levees properly if anything like this happened because
of private industry, they would be paying for the clean up and rebuild.

We have no obligation to the have little or have nots...We do have a
responsibility to those who cannot.
I work with a man who had polio as a child.One leg is pactically useless and
is in a brace...yet he climbs down in ditches to weld pipe..and climbs
ladders..and crawls around in tunnels...and on high steel structures to do
his job.It is hard physical and mental work.
While some of the "have nots" wont even mop floors, not because they
can't...but because they think it is beneath them.I do not owe them
ANYTHING.

"Philip Lewis" wrote in message
...
writes:
Rebuild NOLA in a sustainable fashion or abandon it.

I tend to agree- give humane levels of aid, conditional on moving above sea
level. The N.O. disaster was no suprise- see this spookily accurate 'what
if' article from July 05:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...neworleans.htm

Keep the port in operation, because there is nothing to replace it. The
non-flooded areas can make it as a historical tourist destination. The
non-historical low-lying areas- if someone has the money to rebuild on land
they own- fine, let them, but with a signed 'at your own risk' waiver, and
no flood insurance or federally guaranteed loans. For the others- offer an
above-CURRENT- market-value buyout, to move elsewhere, above sea level.
Another city, maybe 'New' New Orleans, on the north side of the big bridge.
Sometimes life sucks, and the government should make sure nobody starves.
But there is no obligation to restore the status quo ante. My family lost
everything in WWII, and started over on this side of the pond. I own a house
in Lake Charles, on the other end of the state, which also got nailed,
thankfully not as bad. But it is above seal level, at least a little, and
only had minor damage. If it had gotten destroyed, I wouldn't expect the
taxpayers to replace it- that is why I have insurance.

aem sends...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:31:19 -0500, wrote:

I appreciate that your addressing my post, and in the process showing
twfsa that there are construction issues here.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:18:40 -0500, mm
wrote:

Would it, do you think, be less of a problem if they were each in
different places, like in the front yard of wherever the people using
them lived?

That makes it a lot harder to get them hooked up. The utilities were
trashed too.

Well if they are going to rebuild that block, they'll have to replace
the utilities anyhow.

Trailers also require tie downs and such

Tie downs? Such? I don't remember seeing tie downs when I've seen
such things. But if they have to be tied down, why not in front of
the ruins of their old home.

If you have another storm, the same people who couldn't evacuate,
still couldn't evacuate.

Again, the trailers won't help them evacuate, but that is not the
purpose of trailers. It's to give them some place to live. For
people who are going to rebuild, it's to give them someplace to live
while they rebuild or at least clean up and do what they can, and keep
away looters.

If another storm will ruin the trailers, aiui the trailers are getting
ruined in storage. They could have been living in them all this
time, and there hasn't been another storm.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

Philip Lewis wrote:
writes:

Rebuild NOLA in a sustainable fashion or abandon it.


There are plenty of architecture styles that are used world wide in
areas prone to floods. Stilts being one of them.

All new government funded construction should be done only to buildings in a
way that even if/when the levees fail again damage will be minimal.

Build *above* sea level and leave the lower area available for parking,
playground, etc.... the loss of a car/vehicle is a loss, but not as
life changing as the loss of an entire house.

What's happened there is horrible... If I'm paying taxes to help these
folks recover it needs to be done in a sustainable manner. But I object
to paying twice.

I say the same thing for florida... everyone should be building
concrete dome houses. If they did, insurance claims and rates should
decline.


I would think they would require restrictions for rebuilding there, some
kind of buy out and then not let residential buildings go up in the
flood plain areas, only commercial building, parking, etc that can be
built to withstand flooding and or levels raised above the flood levels.

Tom Horne wrote:
wrote:
nevertheless consider the following, the earths climate is changing.

what if your home were destroyed next, would you go away quietely? BIG
storm rips across the US, it could easiy occur...

do we have a resonsiblity to the have little or have nots?

in the case of new orleans clearly the army corps of engineers didnt
maintain the levees properly if anything like this happened because
of private industry, they would be paying for the clean up and rebuild.

THE CLUE PHONE IS RINGING AND IT'S FOR YOU. It is not now and it never
was the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the
levees that hold the water out of New Orleans. That responsibility lies
with local flood control or levee boards. Those insular special purpose
boards are notoriously corrupt and often serve as an employer of last
resort for the ne'er do well relatives of LOCAL POLITICIANS. It was the
local levee authority of New Orleans that refused the construction of
flood gates for the cities canals because they did not want to bare the
cost of maintaining them. All of the levee failures occurred on those
same canals. Had the flood gates been installed as the corps had
originally planned the flooding of the city would not have occurred.
The Corps is supervising the reconstruction of the levees because the
levee boards do not have the project management capabilities and they
would divert far too much of the construction funds to other uses.

this is Turtle.

The New Orleans Levee board deverted $2.5 Mil. from the levee funds to
build a Mardi Gras Fountain in Jackson Square. they must think putting
a fountain in the center of town will hold back the water from the
hurrican.

The New Orleans Levee Board received $60 Mil. in the last 5 years to
improve the levee. They can't find $30 Mil. of it and the Federal
Government is asking for it back. The other $30 mil. went to advisers
and fake company that are not in business any more.

There has been no improvements of the levee in the last 5 years and was
been given $60 Mil. to do so. Not a penny went to improvement of the
levee.

Do a Favor for the Mayor and you get a site on the New Orleans Levee
Board at a Salary of $90K a year.

TURTLE

wrote:
2 things to consider.

See this rather ooor disaster response?

ONE DAY IT MIGHT BE YOU WHO NEEDS HELP!

Wether from natural or man made disaster... terrorism...

The other issue is sea level is rising, the ice caps are melting fast,
and can raise sea level several feet in the near future.

Uh, no. If all the ice in the Arctic Ocean melted, the sea level would rise
exactly 0.00 feet. Some ice is melting. Glaciers, however, in some parts of
the world are growing. It's called climate.

The feds had
already predicted new orleans will be a island surrounded by levees in
100 years. it might be better to move the entire city to higher ground
or as another person posted bring in dirt by rail and raise the entire
place.

New Orleans is the third largest port (tonnage) in the nation. Virtually all
of the midwest grain harvest moves through the port. New Orleans cannot be
moved. As for "raising" the city by rail-car loads of dirt, a quick
back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that all the coal ever moved from
Montanta - by rail, for fifty years - wouldn't even come close.

I'd go back to the designs from the '50s for underwater cities. It'd be
cheaper.

In article .com,
" wrote:

The problem with this thinking is you will make the next disaster
worse if you have a significant number of people still living in the
flood plain.
Flooding is not just a summer thing.

If YOUR home were destroyed what would YOU prefer?

A trailer on site of old home?

B Homeless?

C Tent. Makes a fine temporary home, much cheaper than a trailer.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

The New Orleans Levee board deverted $2.5 Mil. from the levee funds to
build a Mardi Gras Fountain in Jackson Square. they must think putting
a fountain in the center of town will hold back the water from the
hurrican.


The New Orleans Levee Board received $60 Mil. in the last 5 years to
improve the levee. They can't find $30 Mil. of it and the Federal
Government is asking for it back. The other $30 mil. went to advisers
and fake company that are not in business any more.


There has been no improvements of the levee in the last 5 years and was

been given $60 Mil. to do so. Not a penny went to improvement of the
levee.


Do a Favor for the Mayor and you get a site on the New Orleans Levee
Board at a Salary of $90K a year.


TURTLE

Yeah STUPID WASTE is here too, in pittsburgh they want to build a light
rail line under the river, a pure waste of money and completely
unneeded.

money should go directly to corpos of engineers, not to build a
fountain or other wastes

FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O.
and the surrounding area.

snip

Are the units on towable trailors? Can I back my truck up to one, hook it up
and tow one out of there? If so, when's the auction? I'll take two please.

dirt farmer wrote:

FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O.
and the surrounding area.


snip

Are the units on towable trailors? Can I back my truck up to one, hook it up
and tow one out of there? If so, when's the auction? I'll take two please.

According to the national news reports, FEMA will pay to
have them cut up and removed. They are mired in mud and the
frames are bent beyond repair.

Folks, pay attention! We as a country are going to be in
bad shape if we succeed in moving all emergency services
to/under government control. I served as a volunteer
fireman in my younger years and I'm appalled to see what now
passes as firefighting. In the past year I have seen minor
house fires that became total loses while the paperwork and
protocol was completed before the first hose was pulled off
the truck. $3000 for a residential fire suppression
sprinkler system is a damn good investment around here.

-larry / dallas

These are only the levees and flooding issues I I know about. I'm
sure there are many many more. No one stops people from living in
these places that will flood if the levees break.


It's not that people live below sea-level that ****es me off.
It's that I'm expected to pay for it.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:47:07 -0800, dirt farmer
wrote:

FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O.
and the surrounding area.

snip

Are the units on towable trailors? Can I back my truck up to one, hook it up
and tow one out of there? If so, when's the auction? I'll take two please.


The trailers that were initially supplied by FEMA were actual travel
trailers that they bought from dealers and are meant to be towed as a
way of life.

The second wave of trailers are trailers that were made to FEMA's
specifications. They are not nearly as well made and I think will
fall apart if they are moved very far. They were meant to be put in
place and provide a home in that one spot until no longer needed.
They don't have waste holding tanks and are only meant to be hooked up
to city sewage lines or a homeowners septic system.

FEMA has made some changes!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45595