New Orleans Mayor Takes Swipe At NYC

ballz2wallz · 08-25-2006, 11:01 AM

But when Pitts points to flood-damaged cars in the street and a house washed partially into the street, the mayor shoots back. "That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair."

Nagin has quite a list going now of what not to say when in political office.

smokie700 · 08-25-2006, 11:06 AM

I still can't believe my fellow cajuns voted this clown back into to office. Can you imagine the backlash of a white mayor saying let rebuild a vanilla city.

Publius · 08-25-2006, 11:06 AM

What a worthless piece of shit that man is.

beez · 08-25-2006, 11:34 AM

He does have a point. The breadth of the damage is much wider seeing as huge portions of land were totally destroyed whereas in NYC it was a couple of city blocks.

smokie700 · 08-25-2006, 11:52 AM

13 city blocks is a lot more than a couple. Besides N.O. is normally trashed so I'm sure there is not much of a difference from before to now.

P.S. I am from south louisiana and speaking from experience in a joking manner.

Scrum · 08-25-2006, 11:59 AM

He has a point.

ballz2wallz · 08-25-2006, 12:10 PM

he doesn't have a point! you're talking about how many tons of steel and concrete that came down in those towers? piles and piles of it, in the middle of NYC no less...not a lot of room to work. they just now got it cleaned up. and he says 'they can't get it fixed'. what does 'fixed' mean? towers rebuilt? it took them longer than 5 yrs to build them in the first place. towing away cars in the middle of the street is not even comparable to rebuilding from 9/11. he's foolish for making the comparison.

smokie700 · 08-25-2006, 12:15 PM

I'm not defending Nagin at all. I was saying that he is an idiot for trying to compare the 2 places.

Scrum · 08-25-2006, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

he doesn't have a point! you're talking about how many tons of steel and concrete that came down in those towers? piles and piles of it, in the middle of NYC no less...not a lot of room to work. they just now got it cleaned up. and he says 'they can't get it fixed'. what does 'fixed' mean? towers rebuilt? it took them longer than 5 yrs to build them in the first place. towing away cars in the middle of the street is not even comparable to rebuilding from 9/11. he's foolish for making the comparison.

No they are both disasters.

Why is there still a hole in the ground in NYC after 5 years?

Publius · 08-25-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No they are both disasters.

Why is there still a hole in the ground in NYC after 5 years?

because city planners can't decide what they want to replace it with. Tell me, what are they going to replace flooded out homes and cars with in New Orleans that requires them not to clean up first?

Scrum · 08-25-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

because city planners can't decide what they want to replace it with. Tell me, what are they going to replace flooded out homes and cars with in New Orleans that requires them not to clean up first?

So you are saying it's bureaucracy that's slowing down the WTC site development, but NO should be pristine after a year?

Money has to come from somewhere to clean up.

edit- and how do we know all those homes are going to be rebuilt? Many aren't going back to NO.

Publius · 08-25-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So you are saying it's bureaucracy that's slowing down the WTC site development, but NO should be pristine after a year?

Money has to come from somewhere to clean up.

NYC was cleaned up within a year, they were most of the way done removing rubble when I visited NYC in March of 2002. Taking time putting something else on the spot after it has been cleared is a little bit different from simply failing to clean up rubble which can be a medical and environmental hazard.

Publius · 08-25-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

edit- and how do we know all those homes are going to be rebuilt? Many aren't going back to NO.

So if they aren't going to replace it, they should be okay just leaving it there?

ballz2wallz · 08-25-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No they are both disasters.

Why is there still a hole in the ground in NYC after 5 years?

they've just recently gotten the rubbled cleaned up.

Scrum · 08-25-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

NYC was cleaned up within a year, they were most of the way done removing rubble when I visited NYC in March of 2002. Taking time putting something else on the spot after it has been cleared is a little bit different from simply failing to clean up rubble which can be a medical and environmental hazard.

I agree. You can't compare the two.
But NYC still has a hole and NO still has destruction.

Scrum · 08-25-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

they've just recently gotten the rubbled cleaned up.

Originally Posted by Publius

NYC was cleaned up within a year

Perhaps you two should clear this up...

beez · 08-25-2006, 12:43 PM

There's more rubble spread out over a wider area in NO. It's going to take longer to get cleaned up, especially when nobody really cares about NO or the South in general.

Scrum · 08-25-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

So if they aren't going to replace it, they should be okay just leaving it there?

For now, yes.

Scrum · 08-25-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by beez

There's more rubble spread out over a wider area in NO. It's going to take longer to get cleaned up, especially when nobody really cares about NO or the South in general.

ding ding ding.

Publius · 08-25-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Perhaps you two should clear this up...

ballz is wrong if he is referring specifically to the site of the Towers, but if he is referring to the entire area of the city then he may be right. Cleared up.