"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
I'm absolutely floored that none of the cellular service providers has
thought to set up temporary "towers" for emergency communications.

--

I've been watching an antenna being put up. It is not all that fast and
simple and you need power to do it. AND, it must be connected to land lines
at some point.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
Immaterial. Trying to manage a disaster response from a thousand miles
away
isn't going to work anyway. What counts is whether the local officials on
the
scene know what they're up to.


This is a big part of the problem. The local scene is so destroyed for so
far that a lot of things put in place would be unusable. and unreachable.

In article , Ba r r y
wrote:

1.) Shear magnitude. It's not just New Orleans that's in trouble.

Bull. This was predicted YEARS ago.

It's not like we're talking about a comet striking the gulf. We're
talking about a cat 4 hurricane.

You can't keep a straight face and tell me this is a surprise.

Can you?

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Edwin Pawlowski (in )
said:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
|| I'm absolutely floored that none of the cellular service providers
|| has thought to set up temporary "towers" for emergency
|| communications.
|
| I've been watching an antenna being put up. It is not all that fast
| and simple and you need power to do it. AND, it must be connected
| to land lines at some point.

Glad to hear that they're working on it.

I've only installed VHF repeaters; but the installation should go
rapidly (the only power we needed during installation was for
fine-tuning the duplexers). Land line connection could be remoted
using a (direct) microwave or (indirect) satellite link to the
connection point. Site it on the tallest stable building and get it on
the air with a pair of portable generators.

Or is it only this quick and easy for amateurs?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Swingman (in ) said:

| I am beginning to suspect that we could do worse than making a
| calculated effort to replace the current crop of "emergency
| management" _leadership_, at the national and regional levels, with
| a core of seasoned, ex military combat leaders. I doubt there is
| anyone in this country, as a group, who is better trained and more
| qualified to think, plan and react as you point out ** above.
|
| Just imagine how effective FEMA could be with a Schwarzkopf in
| charge instead of a politically favored lawyer.
|
| With all the damn wars we've involved ourselves in, just in my
| lifetime, there should be a few of them around.

Sadly, it's not just FEMA (who, as far as I can tell, are simply
incapable of serving in any kind of "first responder" role) but the
same pattern of behavior that the administration displayed in the
tsunami disaster.

That pattern looks a lot like: 'Lets wait a week or three and see how
many are left before we do anything - it'll be cheaper if we just let
the weak ones die where they are.'

On the news last evening I heard black leaders opining that help had
not been forthcoming because so many of the victims were black. I
don't believe that's the case - and that the results would have been
exactly the same for /any/ racial mix. Either way, it's not America at
its best.

Cheaper indeed.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Morris Dovey wrote:
On the news last evening I heard black leaders opining that help had
not been forthcoming because so many of the victims were black. I
don't believe that's the case - and that the results would have been
exactly the same for /any/ racial mix. Either way, it's not America at
its best.

Cheaper indeed.


Yes, well, it's not blackness that's the problem, or so I think. It's
money. If you got money, you got help. If you don't got money, you
don't got help. Period. Now, this tends to apply more to blacks in some
areas (especially the deep south) than it does to whites, but IMO,
George Bush cannot even SEE people who are not neat, clean, well
dressed and making at least a quarter mil a year. Didja check out his
hugs going to the people when he was in New Orleans? For a place with
no water and no clean clothing, those were amazingly polished up
huggees. His "people" probably want to make sure the King George is not
offended by body odor.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message

I'm absolutely floored that none of the cellular service providers has
thought to set up temporary "towers" for emergency communications.

--


I've been watching an antenna being put up. It is not all that fast and
simple and you need power to do it. AND, it must be connected to land lines
at some point.

I know Cellular One / Cingular used to be able to move "mobile cell"
trailers in for disasters, etc. Power would be self-contained
generators of land lines. Your point about the land line connection is
valid though I wonder if they've worked out some sort of wireless relay
or satellite feed by now.

Used to be - with the older cellular infrastructure systems - they could
assign priority codes to LE cells to cause the system to drop
"non-essential" communications in deference to calls initiated by
LE/FD/Rescue. IT was explained to me that this came about, at least in
part, due to the media showing up on scene, dialing up their newsrooms
and then just keeping the line open for the duration (lest they get
"scooped"). Remember way back then they didn't have digital and, while
I forget the number of frequencies available in any given cell, it was
certainly less than 45 or so.

Ba r r y (in ) said:

| On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 00:58:49 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Or is it only this quick and easy for amateurs?
|
| Cell sites aren't repeaters. Repeaters are simple.
|
| As you know, repeaters take a signal in, and retransmit it. Cell
| sites connect cellular phones via radio to the rest of the world.
|
| Cell sites are connected back to a switch, usually via a T1, DS3, or
| some sort of optical link. The site needs to be built in the switch
| database, and the switch needs to know about the adjacent cells.
| The site also needs quite a bit more commercial power than a ham
| repeater.
|
| The difficult part is providing enough bandwidth back to the switch,
| and the fact that all of the central offices, possibly including the
| cellular switch in the area, are down, and all the cables are
| submerged.
|
| Non-telco cell companies depend on the local telco to get site
| signals back to the public telephone network. Also, most towers
| are now collocated. Lose a tower, lose all of the brands on it in
| that area.

Yuppers - I understand the difference in circuit complexities.

As a first response measure, an isolated (independent) cell that
connects all calls to an EOC "help desk" would be a major improvement
over no communications at all in the initial period following a
disaster. Full-feature operation for health and welfare traffic can
wait a bit longer than a family trapped in their attic by rising
floodwater.

FEMA maintains multi-mode/multi-channel communications centers in at
least state capitols (I was the volunteer operator for the one in Des
Moines during our '93 flood) that are capable of providing the initial
essential disaster communications with the outside world. These, too,
are more complex than most ham stations but were pre-packaged in a
single rack unit that could be relocated by truck or helicopter - and
even operated by people without equipment-specific training.

A ham repeater doesn't require (isn't allowed) much power and most
that I've seen used 12V auto/truck batteries for immediate backup -
does a cell site require more than the 2-5kW available from a small
portable generator?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Ba r r y
wrote:


1.) Shear magnitude. It's not just New Orleans that's in trouble.


Bull. This was predicted YEARS ago.

It's not like we're talking about a comet striking the gulf. We're
talking about a cat 4 hurricane.

You can't keep a straight face and tell me this is a surprise.

Can you?

Predicting that a catastrophe will hit doesn't change the difficulty of
getting into the region to pluck people off of rooftops or reduce the
danger posed by snipers.

Dave

David (in ) said:

| Dave Balderstone wrote:
|
|| In article , Ba r r y
|| wrote:
||
||
||| 1.) Shear magnitude. It's not just New Orleans that's in trouble.
||
||
|| Bull. This was predicted YEARS ago.
||
|| It's not like we're talking about a comet striking the gulf. We're
|| talking about a cat 4 hurricane.
||
|| You can't keep a straight face and tell me this is a surprise.
||
|| Can you?
||
| Predicting that a catastrophe will hit doesn't change the
| difficulty of getting into the region to pluck people off of
| rooftops or reduce the danger posed by snipers.

So?

Difficulty simply means that more effort, persistance, and
determination are required to get the job done.

Danger simply means that more courage is needed to do the job.

If you don't think those people are worth the effort, I disagree. If
you think the danger is too great, then make it possible for /me/ to
go help get the job done - not that I wouldn't be scared spitless; but
because I'd rather accept the danger than have those people die.

FWIW, being shot *at* doesn't mean becoming a casualty.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:55:53 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Ba r r y
wrote:

1.) Shear magnitude. It's not just New Orleans that's in trouble.

Bull. This was predicted YEARS ago.

It's not like we're talking about a comet striking the gulf. We're
talking about a cat 4 hurricane.

You can't keep a straight face and tell me this is a surprise.

Can you?

Predicting that a disaster *will* hit does not help in identifying *when*
it will hit. Yes, Katrina was a large storm that gave some warning (days),
but as far as the infrastructure changes to the levees, the fact that a cat
4 hurricane would hit the last week of August, 2005 was neither known nor
knowable.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article , David
wrote:

Predicting that a catastrophe will hit doesn't change the difficulty of
getting into the region to pluck people off of rooftops or reduce the
danger posed by snipers.

You're right. It doesn't.

So what?

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Morris Dovey wrote:
....
Danger simply means that more courage is needed to do the job.

Well, it also means it takes resources away from those who need it and
are appreciative of the efforts--raw "courage" is hardly a replacement
for common sense. It won't help a thing for a rescuer to be lost just
to show he has "courage".

If you don't think those people are worth the effort, I disagree.

Don't believe there's more than the proverbial 1 in a million who
actually think that. There are some who (like I) think that those who
make providing help a risk to the helper aren't worth nearly the effort
that those who don't are...

you think the danger is too great, then make it possible for /me/ to
go help get the job done - not that I wouldn't be scared spitless; but
because I'd rather accept the danger than have those people die.

Well, get on your horse and get down there then...I'm sure there are
plenty of local churches, etc., in the locality that have many demands
that volunteers could help.

FWIW, being shot *at* doesn't mean becoming a casualty.

Not necessarily, but is it really worth the risk when there are a lot of
others who aren't shooting to help? I frankly don't think so.

In article , Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Predicting that a disaster *will* hit does not help in identifying *when*
it will hit. Yes, Katrina was a large storm that gave some warning (days),
but as far as the infrastructure changes to the levees, the fact that a cat
4 hurricane would hit the last week of August, 2005 was neither known nor
knowable.

But having an effective disaster plan doesn't depend on knowing *when*
the disaster will occur.

Even acknowledging that every plan will be flawed and will have to be
adjusted on-the-fly, it still seems to me that somebody, somewhere,
should have said "What happens if a big mofo storm hits, the levies
rupture and the pumps fail?" and had some sort of action plan in place.

What I'm seeing and hearing strongly suggests that was NOT the case.

For instance, why are these buses sitting in water when the mayor of
NOLA called for an evacuation of the city before Katrina hit?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

Why aren't they in Texas after transporting people out of harm's way?

djb (definitely playing armchair quarterback)

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Dave Balderstone wrote:
....
Even acknowledging that every plan will be flawed and will have to be
adjusted on-the-fly, it still seems to me that somebody, somewhere,
should have said "What happens if a big mofo storm hits, the levies
rupture and the pumps fail?" and had some sort of action plan in place.

What I'm seeing and hearing strongly suggests that was NOT the case.
....

There's no question the readiness and followup hasn't been up to
standard. I think, unfortunately, it is indicative of the state of the
area in question in general--LA has been notorious for years for
ineffective local and state government. It's become an ingrained
"tradition".

Mark & Juanita writes:


[...]

Predicting that a disaster *will* hit does not help in identifying *when*
it will hit. Yes, Katrina was a large storm that gave some warning (days),
but as far as the infrastructure changes to the levees, the fact that a cat
4 hurricane would hit the last week of August, 2005 was neither known nor
knowable.

Of course, but irrelevant. The time to start reinforcing levees is
when you find they are not good enough to prevent disaster hen it
strikes, and that point had (as far as I gather from assorted
readings) been reached years ago.

But shomehow areas the are likely to be flooded seem to be very
attractive building grounds and protection seems always feeble, in
Bavaria for example some levees had ben raised after the 1999 floods
to be safe up to that level, but the 2005 floods were higher still...
So flood protection blunders are common all over the world.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Juergen Hannappel wrote:

....
... some levees had ben raised after the 1999 floods
to be safe up to that level, but the 2005 floods were higher still...
So flood protection blunders are common all over the world.
....

Building levees in fact is, in general, a prime if not the contributing
factor. Channeling raises level by definition.

Duane Bozarth (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
| ...
|| Danger simply means that more courage is needed to do the job.
|
| Well, it also means it takes resources away from those who need it
| and are appreciative of the efforts--raw "courage" is hardly a
| replacement for common sense. It won't help a thing for a rescuer
| to be lost just to show he has "courage".

I think you're partially right. I don't think you're correct in making
the assumption that the effort will necessarily (or has a high
probablility) of producing a worst-case result. It's not about showing
courage - it's about using it to save lives that are already beeing
lost.

|| If you don't think those people are worth the effort, I disagree.
|
| Don't believe there's more than the proverbial 1 in a million who
| actually think that. There are some who (like I) think that those
| who make providing help a risk to the helper aren't worth nearly
| the effort that those who don't are...

We're in complete argreement here. I'm just not willing to let the
less worthy prevent saving the more worthy - and if I had my druthers,
I'd still prefer that even the less worthy survived.

|| you think the danger is too great, then make it possible for /me/
|| to go help get the job done - not that I wouldn't be scared
|| spitless; but because I'd rather accept the danger than have those
|| people die.
|
| Well, get on your horse and get down there then...I'm sure there are
| plenty of local churches, etc., in the locality that have many
| demands that volunteers could help.

I've already sent what those people said they wanted from me.

|
|| FWIW, being shot *at* doesn't mean becoming a casualty.
|
| Not necessarily, but is it really worth the risk when there are a
| lot of others who aren't shooting to help? I frankly don't think
| so.

It sounds like you're saying that it isn't worth the risk to save the
shooters. I don't have a problem with that. My point is that I think
it's worth some amount of risk to save the non-shooters - who aren't
being saved because somebody, or a number of somebodies, think lives
should only be saved in a risk-free (or extremely low-risk)
environment.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:38:41 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
wrote:

Mark & Juanita writes:


[...]

Predicting that a disaster *will* hit does not help in identifying *when*
it will hit. Yes, Katrina was a large storm that gave some warning (days),
but as far as the infrastructure changes to the levees, the fact that a cat
4 hurricane would hit the last week of August, 2005 was neither known nor
knowable.

Of course, but irrelevant. The time to start reinforcing levees is
when you find they are not good enough to prevent disaster hen it
strikes, and that point had (as far as I gather from assorted
readings) been reached years ago.

But shomehow areas the are likely to be flooded seem to be very
attractive building grounds and protection seems always feeble, in
Bavaria for example some levees had ben raised after the 1999 floods
to be safe up to that level, but the 2005 floods were higher still...
So flood protection blunders are common all over the world.

In a fantasy world where you build for every exigency regardless of
cost, your analysis may have some relevance. I watched a briefing by
Lt. Gen. Stroud(?), the commander of the Corps of Engineers. His
information was illuminating. The levees had been built to withstand a
Category 3 hurricane.

While you may say, "well, that's dumb, what about a Category 5 or at
the very least a Category 4, which is what hit there?" the fact of the
matter according to the statistics he cited was that Category 3 met
99.5% of the probability of an event.

Now the big question is, particularly for those who are constantly
complaining about where their tax dollars are going, what is the cost
to build the levees to even .1% higher a level of capacity or even
more, to take it from Category 3 to Category 4 capability?

And then, of course, if they were built to Category 4 standards (at
tremendous expense) what kind of caterwauling would we hear when (not
if) a Category 5 hurricane hit?

Planning is done considering a cutoff of 100 year or 500 year events.
That means that a statistically huge percent of the structure will
survive, but that a cost/benefit analysis dictates that it is not
feasible to build beyond a 100 year event capacity (not necessarily
the exact terms, but the principle is correct).

Now, take emergency preparedness planning and plug it into the same
model. Do you prepare for the 500 year event? Do you prepare for the
100 year event? Can you predict consequences of either? Even the
planning costs money, the physical preparedness (stockpiling of
medical supplies, foodstuffs, fuel, etc.) costs money. How much is the
taxpayer willing to spend?

It sure is easy to second guess and run the show from the sidelines
with no accountability and no possibility of error, but real world
civil engineering and civic management is an entirely different
prospect. Shoot, in civic management, you aren't even guaranteed
you'll be able to work on the project past the next election.

But calling responsible planning and construction to a standard that
is a tolerable balance in comparison to cost a blunder is the worst
kind of Monday morning negative thinking.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

In article , LRod
wrote:

But calling responsible planning and construction to a standard that
is a tolerable balance in comparison to cost a blunder is the worst
kind of Monday morning negative thinking.

LRod,

I've read that sentence about 12 times and I can't make head nor tail
of it...

Could you rephrase?

Tnx.

djb

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Morris Dovey wrote:

....
We're in complete argreement here. I'm just not willing to let the
less worthy prevent saving the more worthy - and if I had my druthers,
I'd still prefer that even the less worthy survived.

Sure, I'd prefer both, but I'm not going to lose much sleep over the
guilty.

....

I've already sent what those people said they wanted from me.

That's all one can do...sometimes things are out of our individual
"hands-on" hands...


It sounds like you're saying that it isn't worth the risk to save the
shooters. I don't have a problem with that. My point is that I think
it's worth some amount of risk to save the non-shooters - who aren't
being saved because somebody, or a number of somebodies, think lives
should only be saved in a risk-free (or extremely low-risk)
environment.

I don't think anybody's really saying that--and if that's what you
intended, I apologize for the snitty tone previously as I didn't get
that.

I do think that it makes sense to go places that are less risky first as
it takes more resources to do the other safely. I don't think it's
reasonable to expect rescuers to have to risk life and limb beyond the
risks they're already taking w/o supporting protection.

That some innocent thus suffer is unfortunate, but the sad truth is that
most victims of thugs are the innocent.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , LRod
wrote:

But calling responsible planning and construction to a standard that
is a tolerable balance in comparison to cost a blunder is the worst
kind of Monday morning negative thinking.

LRod,

I've read that sentence about 12 times and I can't make head nor tail
of it...

Could you rephrase?


It's almost Steinbeckien in construction, but he's saying that the level
of design that was used covered a high proportion of the expected events
at a cost that was considered justifiable. To then say that not having
built to the 99.99% level after the fact is Monday morning
quarterbacking.

That get close, LRod?

(I tend to write such stuff, too...) (or maybe , I don't know)

/semper paratus/ - always prepared

I'm remiss in not having sung the praise of the "Coasties" before now.

In a place and time where so much has gone so badly and been so badly
handled, the Coast Guard seems to have its act together - and appears
to be doing a magnificent, heroic job.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

In article , Duane Bozarth
wrote:

It's almost Steinbeckien in construction, but he's saying that the level
of design that was used covered a high proportion of the expected events
at a cost that was considered justifiable. To then say that not having
built to the 99.99% level after the fact is Monday morning
quarterbacking.

That get close, LRod?

That's a good enough filter that I can read the sentence and have it
make sense now. Thanks.


djb

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Duane Bozarth (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:

|| I've already sent what those people said they wanted from me.
|
| That's all one can do...sometimes things are out of our individual
| "hands-on" hands...

Yes, I know - but I don't have to like it that way...

|| It sounds like you're saying that it isn't worth the risk to save
|| the shooters. I don't have a problem with that. My point is that I
|| think it's worth some amount of risk to save the non-shooters -
|| who aren't being saved because somebody, or a number of
|| somebodies, think lives should only be saved in a risk-free (or
|| extremely low-risk) environment.
|
| I don't think anybody's really saying that--and if that's what you
| intended, I apologize for the snitty tone previously as I didn't get
| that.

No apology needed. I realized after sending that I might have sounded
self-righteous. That wasn't the spirit in which I wrote. I do believe
that it's wrong to ask someone else to do something I'd be unwilling
to do myself. If it came down to me or nobody, it'd have to be me.

| I do think that it makes sense to go places that are less risky
| first as it takes more resources to do the other safely. I don't
| think it's reasonable to expect rescuers to have to risk life and
| limb beyond the risks they're already taking w/o supporting
| protection.

This makes me _really_ uncomfortable - it's too close to leaving
wounded on the battlefield - still more uncomfortable when I see small
children on those rooftops. I can't imagine that it's any more
comfortable for the rescue personnel on scene.

| That some innocent thus suffer is unfortunate, but the sad truth is
| that most victims of thugs are the innocent.

I know. I don't care much for that either...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Morris Dovey wrote:

Duane Bozarth (in ) said:

....
| I do think that it makes sense to go places that are less risky
| first as it takes more resources to do the other safely. I don't
| think it's reasonable to expect rescuers to have to risk life and
| limb beyond the risks they're already taking w/o supporting
| protection.

This makes me _really_ uncomfortable - it's too close to leaving
wounded on the battlefield - still more uncomfortable when I see small
children on those rooftops. I can't imagine that it's any more
comfortable for the rescue personnel on scene.

I'm sure it's not. But, there are small children on those other
rooftops, too...

| That some innocent thus suffer is unfortunate, but the sad truth is
| that most victims of thugs are the innocent.

I know. I don't care much for that either...

That's being human (and humane)...

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Duane Bozarth
wrote:

It's almost Steinbeckien in construction, but he's saying that the level
of design that was used covered a high proportion of the expected events
at a cost that was considered justifiable. To then say that not having
built to the 99.99% level after the fact is Monday morning
quarterbacking.

That get close, LRod?

That's a good enough filter that I can read the sentence and have it
make sense now. Thanks.


Took some careful parsing, granted...

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:52:53 +0100, LRod wrote:



But calling responsible planning and construction to a standard that
is a tolerable balance in comparison to cost a blunder is the worst
kind of Monday morning negative thinking.

Sorry, guys. Yes, Duane had it pretty much right. Let me add some
punctuation and artificial pauses for emphasis.

Naming as a blunder, however, responsible planning, and construction
to a standard, which yields a tolerable balance-in-comparison-to-cost,
is the worst kind of Monday morning negative thinking.

Better?

Sorry, it was plain as day to me when I was pecking it out, but I can
see that it was a tester.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:26:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Predicting that a disaster *will* hit does not help in identifying *when*
it will hit. Yes, Katrina was a large storm that gave some warning (days),
but as far as the infrastructure changes to the levees, the fact that a cat
4 hurricane would hit the last week of August, 2005 was neither known nor
knowable.

But having an effective disaster plan doesn't depend on knowing *when*
the disaster will occur.


On that we are in violent agreement.

Even acknowledging that every plan will be flawed and will have to be
adjusted on-the-fly, it still seems to me that somebody, somewhere,
should have said "What happens if a big mofo storm hits, the levies
rupture and the pumps fail?" and had some sort of action plan in place.

What I'm seeing and hearing strongly suggests that was NOT the case.

For instance, why are these buses sitting in water when the mayor of
NOLA called for an evacuation of the city before Katrina hit?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015


Not going to disagree with you there either. Same as I wonder why, after
the governor lost contact with her ground observers, she did not ascertain
that things had gone from bad to worse and acted accordingly.


Why aren't they in Texas after transporting people out of harm's way?

djb (definitely playing armchair quarterback)

... and that's the problem isn't it? It's always easy to call the
correct shots after the events have unfolded. I find myself doing that a
lot even in evaluating my own work -- which, to an extent is good. Only a
fool fails to take advantage of lessons learned. It becomes self-defeating
when such evaluations are undertaken to find someone to blame and punish.
That may solve the immediate problem, but has the undesirable side effect
of having people during future events hide or alter evidence in order to
avoid being similarly punished.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Juergen Hannappel" wrote in message
...

Of course, but irrelevant. The time to start reinforcing levees is
when you find they are not good enough to prevent disaster hen it
strikes, and that point had (as far as I gather from assorted
readings) been reached years ago.

The failure here was in a new section.....water went over the concrete wall
then undercut the "dry" side.....this was in a water return canal used by
the pumping system. They had spent about $40 million last year and like
amounts or more each year all through the past decade. Rod

"Swingman" wrote in message news:...

I am beginning to suspect that we could do worse than making a calculated
effort to replace the current crop of "emergency management" _leadership_,
at the national and regional levels, with a core of seasoned, ex military
combat leaders. I doubt there is anyone in this country, as a group, who
is
better trained and more qualified to think, plan and react as you point
out
** above.

As has been so clearly demonstrated in the past 36 hours, the proof of the
above is in the pudding.

Once again, this country would do well to forego the current crop of
"emergency managers", with their know-it-all, we know what's best for you,
condescending attitudes, observed firsthand in my personal experience with
the current school of thought in "emergency management" during TS Allison in
2001, again in this very thread, and shortly thereafter, and tragically,
during this aftermath of Katrina.

Military combat operations are the epitome of "emergency management", and
there is no one better trained in leadership and _effective utilization of
resources_ than those trained and experienced in same.

We already have them, we've already paid to train them, and we need to make
a calculated effort to utilize that prior investment in a civilian capacity,
and with a special emphasis in the homeland security department. In these
times ... yours and my kids lives may soon depend on it.

The past 36 hours amply proves the point, without question, or yahbuts.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:02:46 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:

"Swingman" wrote in message news:...

I am beginning to suspect that we could do worse than making a calculated
effort to replace the current crop of "emergency management" _leadership_,
at the national and regional levels, with a core of seasoned, ex military
combat leaders. I doubt there is anyone in this country, as a group, who
is
better trained and more qualified to think, plan and react as you point
out
** above.

As has been so clearly demonstrated in the past 36 hours, the proof of the
above is in the pudding.

Once again, this country would do well to forego the current crop of
"emergency managers", with their know-it-all, we know what's best for you,
condescending attitudes, observed firsthand in my personal experience with
the current school of thought in "emergency management" during TS Allison in
2001, again in this very thread, and shortly thereafter, and tragically,
during this aftermath of Katrina.

Military combat operations are the epitome of "emergency management", and
there is no one better trained in leadership and _effective utilization of
resources_ than those trained and experienced in same.

We already have them, we've already paid to train them, and we need to make
a calculated effort to utilize that prior investment in a civilian capacity,
and with a special emphasis in the homeland security department. In these
times ... yours and my kids lives may soon depend on it.

The past 36 hours amply proves the point, without question, or yahbuts.

Not disagreeing with what you are saying above. but I'm wondering why we
are becoming so dependent upon the federal government to solve all of our
problems. Much of the problems observed in the past 72 hours could better
have been solved at the local level with adequate preparation. Certainly,
federal help for the evacuation and re-build are needed; but the initial
preparation should have been accomplished at the city, then state levels.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Not disagreeing with what you are saying above. but I'm wondering why we
are becoming so dependent upon the federal government to solve all of our
problems. Much of the problems observed in the past 72 hours could better
have been solved at the local level with adequate preparation. Certainly,
federal help for the evacuation and re-build are needed; but the initial
preparation should have been accomplished at the city, then state levels.

Not arguing, just wondering, but haven't the big problems always been
"solved" at that level? Wars, civil war, the great depression ... and this
was a biggie.

It's taken close to 40,000 troops and they're just getting started.
Louisiana, mostly rural, has always had a high proportion of its population
in poverty, and I am not so sure that it had the resources under the best of
circumstances, particularly when you consider how the population density has
increased the past twenty years..

Flying over any part of the country today and looking down, as opposed to 40
years ago, you can't help but be aware of the remarkable increase in
populated area. We may well have passed the point of state and local
governments being 'resourceful' enough to handle any situation of similar
impact.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:28:17 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Not disagreeing with what you are saying above. but I'm wondering why we
are becoming so dependent upon the federal government to solve all of our
problems. Much of the problems observed in the past 72 hours could better
have been solved at the local level with adequate preparation. Certainly,
federal help for the evacuation and re-build are needed; but the initial
preparation should have been accomplished at the city, then state levels.

Not arguing, just wondering, but haven't the big problems always been
"solved" at that level? Wars, civil war, the great depression ... and this
was a biggie.


Absolutely agree, the aftermath for a problem of this proportion will
require help from across the country. I would prefer to see more private
charitable help, but federal help restoring and keeping order is also
important. It looks like, once again, Americans are stepping up to the
challenge and doing right, organizing and donating to help those in need.
We spent a good portion of our morning Bible class discussing ways to help
those being bussed into the Tucson Convention Center, to the point of
people asking whether we could help some of them enroll in our school. It
also is gratifying to see that Kuwait is offering to donate $500M to the
disaster.


It's taken close to 40,000 troops and they're just getting started.
Louisiana, mostly rural, has always had a high proportion of its population
in poverty, and I am not so sure that it had the resources under the best of
circumstances, particularly when you consider how the population density has
increased the past twenty years..


That is going to be a major challenge

Flying over any part of the country today and looking down, as opposed to 40
years ago, you can't help but be aware of the remarkable increase in
populated area. We may well have passed the point of state and local
governments being 'resourceful' enough to handle any situation of similar
impact.

OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes and
other tax revenue. If state and local governments are resourceful enough
to handle that kind of tax growth, they should also be using some of that
revenue for disaster planning.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
....
OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...

Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
services, what more expensive additional programs.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
...
OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...

Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
services, what more expensive additional programs.

How then are local governments able to provide those services?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
...
OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...

Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
services, what more expensive additional programs.

Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
support those residences.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
...
OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...

Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
services, what more expensive additional programs.

Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
support those residences.

No, I didn't forget any of that. I only said that residential property
taxes are not sufficient in themselves to justify growth. It's a mantra
often used by people as a reason for growth but it doesn't pay.

It takes all the business and other taxes to help subsidize the property
tax, if you will.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:03:34 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
...
OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...

Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
services, what more expensive additional programs.

Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
support those residences.

No, I didn't forget any of that. I only said that residential property
taxes are not sufficient in themselves to justify growth. It's a mantra
often used by people as a reason for growth but it doesn't pay.

It takes all the business and other taxes to help subsidize the property
tax, if you will.

I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up. Given
that most homes reside on 1/4 to 1/3 acre lots, and, in my area at least
generate approximately $3k per year in local property taxes, that's
approximately $6k to $9k per acre per year in property taxes.
Infrastructure is typically paid by the developer and passed through to the
home-owner, so the only infrastructure cost with the neighborhood streets
is maintenance. That leaves schools, and police and fire. Given that the
sales taxes are, for the most part, also paid by the homeowners local to
their area, this hardly seems to be "subsidizing" property taxes nor does
it reduce the assertion that growth will increase tax revenue. (i.e, if
those folks were not in the developed area, they would not be paying those
sales taxes through those businesses. Nor, in many cases would those
businesses be located in that area because no market would exist for their
products.
While some of the effects of growth are not desirable (loss of good
farmland for example), the above tax argument does not seem to be a valid
argument to pursue as one for opposition to growth.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

....

I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up. ...

It's unusual in places I've been for developers to pick up all the
associated costs of developments--they may put in the sewer lines in the
subdivision, for example, but they don't add on to the central station
for increasing it's capacity. Nor do they build the new schools and
other infrastructure such as the fire department additions, et al. I
don't have actual data at hand but no city in which I've resided has had
individual personal property taxes which covered all the ancillary
services on a per capita basis.

I don't think it would be hard to find, however. What does your city
spend on such developments as well as routine services and how does that
compare to the personal property tax revenues? I doubt it will cover it
w/o the sizable business tax revenues.

I wasn't arguing so much against expansion, simply observing that the
residential growth alone more likely than not doesn't pay its way by
itself.