FEMA Kicking Katrina Survivors Out of Trailers
Leaving the Trailers (via Ned Sublette). A related news item: 3.5 million American kids under the age of 5 are at risk of hunger, and Louisiana has the highest child hunger rate.
He failed to qualify for one federal program and was told he missed the deadline on another. But he did get a trailer to live in while he carries out his own recovery plan: collecting cans in a pushcart to pay for the renovations to his storm-damaged apartment, storing them by the roomful in the gutted building he owns.
It is a slow yet steady process. Before the price of aluminum fell to 30 cents a pound, from 85 cents, he had accumulated more than $10,000, he said, almost enough to pay the electrician. But despite such progress, last Friday a worker from the Federal Emergency Management Agency delivered a letter informing him that it would soon repossess the trailer that is, for now, his only home.
"I need the trailer," said Mr. Hammond, 70. "I ain't got nowhere to go if they take the trailer."
Though more than 4,000 Louisiana homeowners have received rebuilding money only in the last six months, or are struggling with inadequate grants or no money at all, FEMA is intent on taking away their trailers by the end of May. The deadline, which ends temporary housing before permanent housing has replaced it, has become a stark example of recovery programs that seem almost to be working against one another.
Thousands of rental units have yet to be restored, and not a single one of 500 planned "Katrina cottages" has been completed and occupied. The Road Home program for single-family homeowners, which has cost federal taxpayers $7.9 billion, has a new contractor who is struggling to review a host of appeals, and workers who assist the homeless are finding more elderly people squatting in abandoned buildings.
(Image: Lee Celano for the NYT. )
the latest
latest episodes
Can't someone that lives there spare a fracking room for this poor man? Jeez.
Let me know when there's a government agency or program that doesn't fit that description.
In other words, kids conceived since hurricane Katrina in 2005. How about airdropping some contraceptives instead?!
This exactly why you should not depend on the government.
This is exactly why we need smaller government.
This exactly why we need intact families.
Big government is exactly why we don't have intact families.
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
So is he just going to store the cans until the price goes up again, and just complain in the interim that he doesn't have any money? I admire his initiative, but feel I don't have the whole story.
Last night I attended a special screening "Trouble the Water," a great independent documentary showing a street-level, first-person view of the events around Katrina from poor residents of New Orleans. The government incompetence and indifference is breathtaking even years later.
Zuzu: I find the notion that only wealthy people should have the right to reproduce rather cynical and callous.
It's been almost 4 years since Katrina hit. Do you expect the government to provide housing for Katrina victims in perpetuity?
"It's been almost 4 years since Katrina hit. Do you expect the government to provide housing for Katrina victims in perpetuity?"
How about providing them with real housing options before taking away the substandard trailers they've been given?
The deadline for the removal of FEMA trailers was 18 months, which I wrote and spoke about widely after publication of my report, "Big, Easy Money: Disaster Profiteering on the American Gulf Coast."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14004
FEMA was not permitted to provide permanent housing, though it was clear to me even in the beginning of 2006, while interviewing people who had built decks or gardens around their FEMA trailers next to rotting houses, that the deadline was going to catch a lot of people by surprise.
Rita J. King
So where exactly did that $7.9 billion in relief money go?
I note that AIG got their bailout right away.
#1 Airdropping contraceptives? Wow. That's mature.
#4 Absolutely not, but if they're going to wrap the aid programs in enough red tape to suffocate an elephant, then they shouldn't be removing these trailers. Or, if they are, they need to offer some sort of assistance immediately.
How about an analogy?
Your car breaks down. You take it to the dealership (because it's under warranty and that's what you're supposed to do, according to the guidelines) for repairs. They tell you, "We have no idea how long it'll take, but here's a loaner car." Months go by and you get the same answer, "Not sure when, but you still have the loaner car, right?" Suddenly, they show up and take the loaner car. You call the dealership and still get no answers. The best you've gotten is, "It's not done yet."
What would you do? Say, "Ok. I guess they couldn't loan it to me forever" and just let it go? You wouldn't put up a fight? Or complain?
For these people that car is their house, the loaner the trailer, the repairs are the government aid that they are entitled to (and, in some cases, promised!), and months have been years.
@ Anonymous #3:
How exactly would smaller government have been more effective at building working levees or effectively managing relief efforts?
Also, what the does government have to do with "intact families?" Are you referring to the families that have been broken up by one or more parent serving time in prison or do you think that the Feds are putting something in the water that makes people want to get divorced?
Whats the problem? Just move those people to FEMA Concentration Camps
This article must be leaving out some details because I do not understand Earnest's plans:
* He has no place to go, yet he is renting a (storm-damaged) apartment?
* Is he still paying rent on his storm-damaged apartment??
* If he has $10,000, why didn't he move out of his trailer years ago?
* If I was homeless yet had $10,000, hiring an electrician to perform renovations would not be one of my top priorities.
I moved out of NOLA in July of 2007. There were articles in the newspapers then that there was an upcoming deadline and that people wouldn't be able to live in those trailers any longer. I can't believe that this was much of a surprise to most of these folks. As far as the money goes, my experience in the short time I was there was that more of the blame for people not getting their money rests with the local gov't, not federal. There was article after article in the Picayune talking about the state/local govt's not living up to their end of things in getting the people what they needed to rebuild. The red tape and governmental stupidity/corruption there is ridiculous.
In the case of Mr. Hammond--the article says he's repairing an "apartment"? As in...something he was renting before Katrina? Or are they using apartment in a different sense? I'm confused as to what his situation is...
My apologies -- the latter part of my comment was to Chutoturo. (At the time it was #4 -- is #7 now.)
He owns the apartment building and lived in one of the apartments before Katrina. But now the building isn't really livable for anyone.
@14
The way I read it...to answer your questions is thus:
He OWNS the apartment building (not just one apartment)...therefore is not renting.
"storing them by the roomful in the gutted building he owns."
He's 'built up' the $10,000 to pay for an electrician to fix the building he owns, since it appears that the Gov't can't/won't help.
He's only homeless because of the storm. His apartment that he owns is likely uninhabitable by law.
I'm not arguing against reproductive rights. What I am arguing is that children are not an entitlement. Children are expensive and an enormous responsibility.
Poor people who have barely survived a natural disaster don't have the resources to take care of themselves, let alone babies.
Family planning is rather the non-cruel way of going about population control, yes. Don't create the surplus population to begin with. Is that such a bizarre request?
Maturity means I buy and use contraceptives (or pay for abortions, in that eventuality) so that I don't have children that I know I cannot afford.
@#3: "Big government is exactly why we don't have intact families."
Correctoin:
Big __business__ is why we don't have intact families.
#11. That is a great analogy, if you can find a dealership that will repair your out-of-warranty 1971 AMC Gremlin for free...and give you a loaner.
I feel bad for the people that are going to be forced out, but is it the government's responsibility to house these people? Poverty, unemployment, and homelessness are nothing new in New Orleans. This man (or at least thousands like him) were probably homeless before the storm. There are a lot of people around the country that would love to have a FEMA trailer for 4 years and collect cans.
Again, I'm not saying this isn't terrible or that these people don't deserve help, but the government has no means nor money to repair all of the problems in America. Handouts and trailers are not the way to cure these systemic problems.
Another way to look at why these people are owed: Their homes and livelihoods were destroyed through the incompetence of the Federal government. The storm may have been a natural disaster, but the flood was a man-made one. The Army Core of Engineers built the levee system that many warned was riddled with flaws (and remains so today).
If a private corporation allowed a city to drown through faulty engineering and depraved indifference they would be held financially liable for doing so.
Zuzu: Planning for kids is great, but people who are homeless and jobless through no fault of their own shouldn't have to sacrifice the right to have a family on top of everything else.
Why does it take the American government so long to get started helping them build/fix permanent homes? Hamas started rebuilding those bombed homes almost immediately.
Actually, yes they do. Having a home and a job are prerequisites for having a family (as opposed to merely breeding).
"Fault" doesn't enter into it. It's a matter of reality; the cold hard facts about you providing resources such as food and time and education and immunizations for your offspring.
You don't have a right (i.e. entitlement) to a family. You have reproductive rights because of self-ownership / morphological freedom.
But the world doesn't owe you the means to support children of your own, just as it doesn't owe you a house, or a car, or a yacht, or a catered wedding. Children are optional.
(It's not like the bad old days before hormonal contraception or legal abortions.)
#14 - You do realize that some people BUY apartments, right? If he was renting, he wouldn't be the one paying for repairs.
#23 - Because the American government prefers to spend it's money on blowing things up and killing people rather than on repairs and helping people.
Why haven't any Katrina Cottages been built by now? And why doesn't the Times article include information about how to help, protest, donate, whatever?
@ Zuzu #25:
Perhaps part of the reason I find your attitude so callous is because I've had firsthand experience with both a) responsibly planning for a family and b) dealing with unexpected tragedy that throw those plans to pot.
You certainly aren't helping to make yourself sound much more sympathetic by referring to the children of the unemployed as "broods" instead of "families."
The way I interpreted that inquiry was, how can someone both own a building and have $10,000 but still be a homeless trash-picker? Moreover, complain about your emergency FEMA housing being repo'd.
Why not cut your losses and use the $10,000 and whatever you can sell the building for to start a new life doing something else somewhere else? A life that doesn't include being homeless and scavenging. Seems like this apartment building is a white elephant.
OMG, Zuzu, again with the social Darwinist rants? Expecting everyone to make sound reproductive choices is fruitless, as many will choose not to make said sound choices: but policymakers CAN choose rational ways of dealing with others' bad choices. Which is easier, offering those services to poor families that you're decrying, or dealing with the many awful social costs that denying said services will incur? I choose the former, but, again, I'm not a social Darwinist....
Zuzu...
At 70 years old...you want him to just start over somewhere else? After working his life as a truck driver and now this? He owns a building that is no longer inhabitable because of the storm and it's aftermath. That means no source of income. He's accumulated that amount of money scavenging. GOOD FOR HIM. It's not the best job...but HE'S TRYING to get his life back to the way it was...without much help from the government.
To be clear, the order of events is significant. A tragedy could strike that turns what seemed like an economically viable family into dire straights.
If you had kids, and then Katrina struck, that's a rather different story.
(Though one still rife with how much reserve capital, insurance, and planning you should have before investing in the capital costs of bringing children into the world.)
But the "children Katrina survivors under the age of 5 who don't have enough to eat" screams negligence. People who've had kids in the years since the disaster and who cannot provide food for their kids, are acting cruelly and selfishly.
This isn't about "blaming the poor", this is about the price of people acting without responsibility or forethought being paid in the form of hungry toddlers!
Shorter Zuzu: "Let them eat cake. Then euthanize them. Take back any remaining cake."
@ Zuzu #32:
I think you mean "Dire Straits." Few tragedies can change sexual orientation.
It seems we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this so I'll back out now. I hope you at least consider how the Federal Government's role in creating this disaster through its flawed levee system puts it at a higher level of responsibility, even from a social Darwinist's perspective.
Maybe the problem has to do with "trying to get your life back the way it was". It's an endowment effect.
That's the whole problem with rebuilding New Orleans, period. Reconstructing a city that's below sea level just to be wiped out again by another hurricane in the future.
Isn't it more reasonable to give up on sunk costs and move somewhere else?
Let's say that before the hurricane his apartment building was worth $500,000. Now, being uninhabitable, it's worth maybe $50,000. Put that towards moving to an apartment somewhere else and getting a job as a Wal-Mart greeter or movie theater ticket taker or whatever. That retirement life doesn't sound too terrible to me; certainly better than collecting cans.
Yup, thanks for the correction. :)
(I think my brain goofed on that since typically bands use a homophonic spelling.)
Sure, but there's also a lot for saying "don't live there!" too. Just as you shouldn't live in southern California if you can't cope with earthquakes, or in Hawaii if you can't cope with volcanos.
(I don't think I'd trust a Federal lava levee to protect my home; I'd probably expect it to somehow funnel lava towards my home faster.)
Likewise, do you trust that the government will build the levees correctly this time?
I'm socially entitled to a rocket car and a toilet made of solid gold. Please let me know when I can expect you to deliver them to me.
"Let's say that before the hurricane his apartment building was worth $500,000. Now, being uninhabitable, it's worth maybe $50,000. Put that towards moving to an apartment somewhere else and getting a job as a Wal-Mart greeter or movie theater ticket taker or whatever. That retirement life doesn't sound too terrible to me; certainly better than collecting cans."
That's cool...but WHY should you have to work in RETIREMENT? The whole (basic) idea of it is that after decades of work you get one off before you die. Some don't make it that long. It's NOT about what the apartment was worth before and what it's worth now either. Also consider that he might not be able to sell. Either no buyers or legal reasons.
"Cut your losses" is a great line UNTIL it's YOUR losses were talking about.
Zuzu, if the building stays uninhabitable it isn't worth 50,000. It might not even be worth 10,000.
The old guy's 70 years old. That's no time to start over; it's the time to go fishing. It sure isn't the time for collecting goddamn tin cans. He gets a SS check every month.
Go get you some catfish, man!
Hardly. I don't expect or want special protections or subsidies. It's not like I've never had to accept losses on bad investments or damaged property. But I have had to move because of some of them, or because of closed opportunities.
Agreed, I was speculating on the alternatives.
Other than the government making everything harder than it needs to be for this guy, I see this as a success story.
He's going to come out OK, this guy, because he's not giving up and he's not sitting on his ass waiting for a handout. He's getting out there and grubbing for cans and he's working to make his life better.
Go, man, go! I'm a-rootin' for you! I hope I can be as tough a man as you when I'm your age (which is going to be distressingly soon). If I ever get down to gator country again I'll help you scrounge cans!
@Brainspore:
and also:Suppose we accept the assumption (and I have no reason not to do so) that the government (in the person of the Corps of Engineers) bears the responsibility for the displacement of a hypothetical family of three. Suppose also that our hypothetical family grows to a family of four at some later point, say 24 months down the road.
Does the government bear the same responsibility towards the new arrival as to the earlier family members? That is, does the order matter?
Zuzu, you're obviously not socially entitled to any of those things: your lack of them is no real lack, as you're not deleteriously affected by said lack.
Rather than rights or entitlements, it seems better to focus on the pragmatic issues raised by improvident folks having too many children. Your social Darwinist twaddle got voted out waaay long ago last century, my socialist safety-net model got voted in by most advanved industrialized societies. You do the math.
The stench of Randroid droppings is thick in the air here, today.
I'm sure all those rugged individualists and other Randian Supermen would not only have successfully ridden out Katrina, they would have realized a huge profit on the suffering of others.
Curious, since hormonal contraceptives were only invented in the late 1930s / early 1940s, IIRC.
Would you also characterize Planned Parenthood as a eugenics organization? Do you oppose genetic counseling? or oppose reprogenetics?
Argumentum ad populum
Democracy is not a panacea; though sometimes it's espoused as a crypto-political religion.
More people believe in angels than in biological evolution. Does that make angels real and evolution false?
First of all, I see corruption and greed among the rich and powerful. And that's because they don't love God. Secondly, I will never be homeless as long as I have my hands and can walk. I had nothing to start with years ago. I worked in nursing home laundry room, housekeeping, took care of old people and did a lot of dirty job. But I bought a house, the cheapest house in town, owner financing since I didn't have credit, and paid it off in less then 10 years. Then I worked hard again and bought my second house. I didn't speak English well and was already grown up when I first came here. If you are willing to work, you will always be able to save and have your own place. Think about being a janitor for an apartment building in exchange for a free room. I never bought any new clothes and ate the cheapest junk food I could find as long as they are not in a garbage can. That's how I could take care of myself. Don't wait until too old to do the hard work. Do it when you are able and just don't spend. Put your money away in the bank and forget about you have any.
zuzu; the 1930s/40s WERE last century. Sorry to put a downer on you, I guess you were born in the late 70s and still see yourself as part of the young generation but hey life goes on.
Also I love your mocking of anyone that thinks belonging to our society entitles them to anything. Obviously the idea that paying taxes entitles you tot he benefits of any kind of social contract is ridiculous, and I for one am glad that you're sticking up for us misanthropes who hate everyone.
I stand corrected. I was thinking of eugenics as a late-19th century phenomenon, but it did encompass the turn of the century.
Do you pay taxes voluntarily? A contract requires consent.
I belong to no one but myself. Anything else is slavery.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
If you're going to be nice don't be a dick about it.
Zuzu, it's quite wrong, silly even, to dismiss nearly a century of worthy social programs as an argumentum ad populum. It's called experience. It's not the public's belief in a social program that determines its validity, it's the real-life benefits of said program as measured across time and people's lives. That Europeans like socialized medicine isn't proof of its value: that socialized medicine works better for Europeans, as shown by valid metrics and benchmarks (fewer deaths, less sickness, less cost, etc.), proves its validity.
Duh.
I love the irony, though, of a libertarian social Darwinist constantly providing Wikipedia links to "prove" his rugged individuality. It's a corporate intellectual product, man, Randites beware! "Listen to me, Internet, I belong to no-one but myself and I'm BLOGGING about it!" Ha ha, thanks, as ever, for the laffs.
Wake up America!
This video gets the message across in simple terms that even your brainwashed leftwingers will be able to understand.
A Libertarian nation will ALWAYS be superior to a socialist sh-t hole like Holland or Scandinavia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
I still cry every day over my neighbors like this one.
She received this email this morning which resembles so many others I have been sent.
"Thank you for giving me a glimmer of hope. Road Home/LRA wont return my phone calls, letters, faxes or e-mails. I've lost my home, life savings and my health since Katrina. They even took my FEMA trailer (along with my personal belongings and crucial documents) while I was in the hospital in a coma in 2007. I had an extension from both FEMA & St. Tammany Parish. However, FEMA cut me off without any further assistance. I had no health insurance & I became homeless after being a police officer since 1980. I appreciate the things you have done to help those of us that have "fallen through cracks". Respectfully, xxx"
I need what federal workers call 'an early out'.
ZUZU's just yanking your chain, DAWWG. He knows he's a slave to something. We are all slaves to whoever or whatever we love. My children, for instance, hold me in thrall. I wouldn't have it any other way.
To be free of love is to be dead. Or a psychopath.
coldspell misunderstood: "* If I was homeless yet had $10,000, hiring an electrician to perform renovations would not be one of my top priorities."
You don't understand our new found homelessness and desperate obsession to getting back in our homes. We had to scratch together every penny we had plus our insurance money and grant to rebuild a house only 75% the size of our flooded home. Our family of four lived in a one bedroom then two bedroom apartments while rebuilding and were falt broke despite over two hundred k in cash in the bank. We rebuilt and are still broke, but it feels great to be home.
Yes, we do feel 100% ENTITLED to f'n government help because our outfall canal levee floodwalls fell down long before even being overtopped by storm surge waters because of stupid engineering mistakes made by employees of the US Army Corps of Engineers. i.e. the party responsible for our losses (and tens of thousands of deaths from drowning, heat stroke and of despair since the storm), claims immunity, says FU, neglects its moral responsibilities to its victims, cheats us every which way they can, slanders and spreads numerous myths about us, they lie, nickle and dime us and DENY individual citizens the opportunity to recover.
So, New Orleanians have to do whatever we can, the we they can. We have no experience dealing with the type problems we've had the past 3.7 years. This ain't as easy as it looks.
A good friend, a recently retired engineer, kind of sickly, is still rebuilding his home after years of delay due to trying to line up enough money to move forward. He and his wife still live in their FEMA trailer in front of their home (rebuilding only 1200 sq ft because of expense) which should be done in just a few months. It sure will be a lot easier on them if FEMA would just please give them a three or four month extension on that stupid worthless disposable FEMA trailer which my friends hate having to inhabit.
Disenfranchisement here is wide spread.
Anon said:"The deadline for the removal of FEMA trailers was 18 months, which I wrote and spoke about widely after publication of my report, "Big, Easy Money: Disaster Profiteering on the American Gulf Coast."
This despite the fact it took FEMA almost 6 months to START delivering trailers to New Orleans. It took them nine months to allocate (partial - minimal) recovery funding for homeowners and our stupid state government still hasn't finished distribution of the funds to homeowners and the state & HUD severly mismanaged the program - no fault of the victims. And, the state government decided to give the homeowner money to both insured and uninsured homes damaged by either flood or wind rather than just flood, like it should have been so there would have been enough money for the families whose losses were caused by the Federal Government rather than the others whose losses were caused by nature.
Give the victims a
Word up. But it's in my nature to yank that chain right back. I like your idea of being a slave to love, though: a nice imaging of our delicate web of social obligations, voluntary or otherwise. "To be free of love is to be dead," so true: to want to be free of love is to be a teenager, or Zuzu.
zuzu, the children would need be younger than three to have been conceived since Katrina and guess what. For a few weeks after the storm with eight feet of water in our home for weeks, no job, no school for our kids, cut off from our bank services, phone services, the rest of our friends and family and no idea if insurance was going to cover us or what, at least we were together and had the comfort of love. We're lucky she didn't get pregnant because contraceptives (and sanity) were lost to the flood.
Zuzu: FWIW, I'm with you all the way. Most of the folks here just can't see it the way you do, but there are some of us who absolutely get it. (And we're all very happy souls.) Keep up the great posts! :)
Is anyone going to point out to Zuzu that New Orleans is only one part of Louisiana? It's not even the state's most populous (Baton Rouge), or poorest (Shreveport) area anymore.
Look, I am as compassionate and understanding as the next guy when it comes to helping people that genuinely need a leg up and some assistance to get their lives back on track after the ravages of Katrina. With that said however, the likelyhood of a cat 4 or 5 storm hitting new orleans has been a realistic possiblility and almost a forgone conclusion for years. The only question was not if..but when it was going to hit. Now lets look at the reality of the two demographic groups that were adversely affected by this storm , and for the purpose of my point, we will refer to them as: The Haves (TH), and, The Have Nots (THN). Prior to the storm, TH's were the section of the population that earned income..from modest to wealthy. These people went to work every day, lived comfortably enough to own one or two cars and rented or owned their own homes. They were obliged to go to work every day, in many cases put their kids in daycare (and as a result were not able to spend precious time with their kids while growing up) but did what they had to do in order to pay the bills, including paying their insurance premiums to make sure that they were covered in the event that a major hurrricane or other natural event wiped out their home and destroyed their belongings. Some parents had to work extra jobs and weekends to make enough to pay the bills, but they made the decision to do so in oreder to have the peace of mind that comes with being responsible parents/citizens. These people covered all races, all creeds, and all colors. One of the built in advantages of earning a paycheck and being able to buy things (like cars) so that if they ever needed to leave the city, they would never have to depend on amyone else to get out. They owned transportation.So when Katrina was projected to hit New Oleans dead center, and they were asked and then told to leave the city..they did what they were prepared to do all along.
The HN's on the other hand, are members of the New Orleans community that (and I am speaking in generalities for both groups incidentally as their are always exceptions to the rule)have decided to take the path of least resistance for most of their adult lives. This starts with dropping out of high school, becoming pregnant as teenagers, hanging out with the wrong crowds, getting involved in crime and generally putting themselves at a distinct societal disadvantage by sabotaging their futures at a young age. They have learned pretty early on that the government will take care of them at a subsistence level for the rest of their natural lives if they so choose. The upside is that they don't have to get up to go to work every day, they don't have a boss that tells them what to do, they don't have to worry about daycare and the costs for their kids, and they don't need transportation to get around the community as they pretty much just hang out in the area or wt least stay within walking distance of one another. With the assistance of government, bumming from their friends and committing petty crime, they can pretty mcuh get everything that they need albeit at a subsistence level. Life ain't that hard if you don't have to work for a living. The problem with this group is, of course, that they can't afford the things that a paycheck offers you. Like automobiles and insurance. Which is what you need when a Cat 5 Hurricane is going to make a direct hit on your community and home. And then you have to suffer the consequences of making bad decisions and for being lazy and for breaking the law, and for commiting crimes, and for having kids out of wedlock. You have made no prvosions, you could not leave the City, and now you are at the mercy of other people to save you from the rooftops of your flooded Government sponsored home. And now it's time to blame Pres Bush, Kathlen Blnco, Ray Nagin, the Government, FEMA, the National Guard, the media, the police..everyone but the person that is most responsible for the predicament that you find yourself in. YOU/YOURSELF. Yes the other parties all share some of the blame. But you have to eat 90% of it. Because, at the end of the day, you have to look after yourself..and every kid in America have heard these words half a dozen times by the time they reach their teens..You cannot depend on anyone or anything..but YOURSELF.
So, if you want to prevent this situation from occuring again..do whatever it takes to make sure that you have the indepencence to never be stuck and at the mercy of someone else for your wellbeing, reagrdless of how you got into that situation in the first place. And it all boils down to RESPONSIBLE behaviour. Wanna know how you can tell the differnce between irresponsible and responsible behaviour? Listen to that little voice inside your head. It's ALWAYS right!
Thanks for listening.
Tman.
By the way, I lived in St Charles Parish for 12 years..I know ALL about New Orleans. A great place, with great people..God bless the crescent City.
Peace.
Why don't they just let the people keep the trailers? It's not like FEMA is going to do anything useful with them.