Forced evictions in NO

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DeseoUnTaco

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
290
What do you think of this?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/07/national/a140412D61.DTL

I find it appalling. What's the point of me owning my home if someone can come and tell me that I have to leave? I understand that it's under martial law, and from what I understand of martial law, it means, "your rights are suspended, do what we tell you to do or we can shoot you", but this is horrible. What if I'm one of the ones who is truly well-prepared for the disaster, to the extent that my house is still fine and I'm comfortable being there? Ie, my house is on stilts (above sea level) and I have solar power and whatever else I need. Why should I leave?
 
As long as they let me pack a few things, BRING MY PETS, secure the place and BRING MY CCW PIECE I'd go quietly (of course I'd have bugged out before the storm hit, but that's not the question here).

However there's no way I'm leaving my pets or my carry piece behind...and I ain't going easy if they insist on force.


THIS kills me :p
The police chief boasted that 7,000 more military, police and other law officers on the streets had made New Orleans "probably the safest city in America right now."
Click to expand...
Even with all those "authorities" I bet we could compile a list of 100 American cities that are safer
 
There is no valid justification. I believe the authorities are hoping the declaration of martial law will allow them to do it without a valid justification. Public health isn't the issue, since public health is actually best served by leaving potential carriers alone in the disaster area, not mixing in the convention centers with others.
 
I agree. The hurricane is not a threat, and I can see that one cannot expect that they stay in their homes still expect delivered water on a regular basis - but if someone said they are are handling themselves in their own home, that is their business.

I wonder how things will turn out on these forced evictions. As well know, home ownership is not truly free ownership is it - even if it is all paid for.
 
It's interesting. The regular military has rushed to distance itself from the plan, and the state has also said it is so far not agreeing to assist. That leaves the city government and what's left of the nearly worthless police force to come to the same people the completely failed to assist or protect and tell them they have to leave forever.

There is some authority that the Coast Guard and civil authorities can force people out of harm's way during an emergency. But this deals with what's going on in the middle of a storm or other active disaster when responders (esp on the high seas) have to work fast. But there's also a great deal of authority that the state has no power to force food, aid or medical treatment on the unwilling. So long as the holdouts are not inteferring with operations, I think they'd have a good claim. Of course the courts have a tendency to kowtow to authorities in these circumstances. The infamous US Supreme Court decision upholding forced "evactuation" of all Japanese citizens is a good example.

There's another issue here, too. The city government is no doubt planning on declaring the bulk of the city unfit and grabbing all of it WITHOUT PAYING. This is more difficult to do if you have people still living in the area. If all you have are empty houses, hey just let the bulldozers go. This is part of a land grab by the city government, which can then do what it wants with the neighborhoods. Just watch.
 
Anyone who's still there should've left a long, long time ago.

That said, how exactly do you force someone out who's dead set on staying?
 
I realized one interesting thing: A lot of people on this board are fond of repeating, "The police have no duty to protect anyone in particular. That's why I need to protect myself." That's almsot true! They do have a duty to protect certain people in certain situations. If you call up the police and say, "A man with a gun has just broken down the door of my house and he's shooting at me," guess what, they have no duty to do anything about it. So when do they have a duty? When they have taken control of a person. When a person is in government custody, or is otherwise under the control of the government, THE GOVERNMENT HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT THAT PERSON FROM HARM! This is why prisoners in high-profile cases often wear ballistic vests to and from court. The government must protect them!

So it seems to me that if the government evicts a person from his house by force, the government has taken control of that person, and then must protect him from harm! Now, it is known that most of the evacuation centers right now are extremely dangerous places. Hmm. It seems like someone who was forced to evacuate, and then got hurt, could have a doozy of a lawsuit about it.
 
AFAIK, zoning regulations fall under 'police powers'. That means they can forcibly evict you from your home if it is not in compliance (IANAL). It doesn't require a declaration of martial law.
 
If you are going to do a land grab it would be easier if the real estate records are destroyed.





New Orleans Times-Picayune, September 6:

Specialists working for the New Orleans Notorial Archives have been
stymied in trying to enter the city and rescue some of the most
historic documents in the city’s history, from original land grants
to slave sale records and title records. The Notorial Archives hired
Munters Corp., a Swedish document-salvage firm that freezes and then
freeze-dries records to slowly remove moisture from them. But
Munters’s refrigerated trucks were turned away by uniformed troops as
they tried to enter the city, said Stephen Bruno, custodian of the
archives. The trucks were headed to the Civil District Courthouse on
Poydras Street, where many of the city’s real estate documents are
housed, and to the Amoco building at 1340 Poydras St., which houses
historic documents such as a letter from Jean Lafitte to Washington
demanding for his expenditures during the Battle of New Orleans. Eddy
Pokluda, head of national sales for Munters in Dallas, said the
company tried to get one person in to make an assessment of the
damage but was turned away, even though days earlier they had
arranged with New Orleans Police Department to have an escort into
the city.

“I don’t think people realize the importance of these records. It’s
imperative we get in there and see if these can be saved,” Pokluda
said.
 
They should be allowed to stay if they want to.

Just make sure next of kin are notified, and that they sign a waiver acknowledging there will be no emergency services if something happens to them. It's their death wish, see here:

Toxins in Floodwaters Kill Five
 
Good catch. I'm sure SOMEBODY realizes the importance of the records!! We may be witnessing the early stages of the greatest act of governmental theft since the Trail of Tears. Maybe my tinfoil is on too tight right now, but something about this smells bad--beside the floodwaters. While parts of the city will still be under water for awhile yet, other parts are now dry. The sooner homeowners can get in and start drying things out, destroying water-damaged parts and making insurance or aid claims the sooner the city will come back to life. A normal mayor would WANT that to happen ASAP. But not this one.
 
There's another issue here, too. The city government is no doubt planning on declaring the bulk of the city unfit and grabbing all of it WITHOUT PAYING. This is more difficult to do if you have people still living in the area. If all you have are empty houses, hey just let the bulldozers go. This is part of a land grab by the city government, which can then do what it wants with the neighborhoods. Just watch.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. We shall see.
 
As to the question of how to remove someone who is dead set on staying. My fear is that the answer that the NO officials will come up with is "dead".

People won't leave. Send in the SWAT team. People die. I wound't put it past them.

And a huge drawback of that, aside from more useless death, may well be the effect it would have on the RKBA. Can't you just imagine the how the media would react to a few "Little Wacos" in whats left of NO? May well put a dent in any gains made due to people finally realizing that the may in fact need to take care of themselves instead of depending on 911 and the gov.
 
Jake--you're reading their minds. Here's a SWAT team going in after a supposed "sniper" holdout. Probably some old black guy with a scattergun:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/national/nationalspecial/07cnd-storm.html

07hurr.184.jpg

New Orleans' Finest! When danger reared its ugly head, they bravely turned their tails and fled. But now that things are calm, they'll gladly return to kill you and take your property.
 
Yeah, leave them there. Let them die. :banghead:

Have you seen the water quality reports? I'm surprised the whole town hasn't dissolved. Heck, the rats, roaches and termites are probably mutating right now. And the human waste content of the standing water is off any scale ever used.

Anybody see the film of the guy in NO dipping his toothbrush in the standing water and brushing away? :barf:

Land grab? In Louisiana? What's that old saying? Half the state is under water and the other half is under indictment.

John
 
Here is my take. Give them a few days to get out. After a set date, no food and water will be given out, no emergency services available. If they want to stay, fine. That is an option. But you do it on your own.
 
If they want to stay, fine. That is an option. But you do it on your own.
Click to expand...

That's the issue. By means of what is being discusses on the news circuit right now, it is not an option. However I just watched FOX news' Bill O'reilly defending taking homes by force, and a ex-judge he had on basically debating him saying it's simply unconstituional to go into someones home and remove them without a warrant. O'reilly argued imminent domain. Uggh...
 
That's the issue. By means of what is being discusses on the news circuit right now, it is not an option.
Click to expand...

Nope, because the people in power don't want to be seen as the heartless monsters for not providing for those in need. Despite the fact that those people are intentionally keeping themselves in danger, and will require food and aid.

Even if the water isn't contaminated, people can't live in water for many months. Walking through even a few hundred yards of water gets tiring real quick. Where are they going to get supplies? They expect people to come around in boats every day and give them food and water?

Mandatory evacuation should not be the case, but neither should continuing the support of those that refuse to leave.
 
The real issue isn't in the waterlogged parts of town--it's impossible to survive there for very long without aid. The real issue is in the parts of town that AREN'T underwater--the parts the media mostly ignores. The mayor's mandatory evacuation applies there, as well. The city has allowed some residents to come back briefly to find pets and grab things.
 
If in the better areas folks can truly be self sufficient then no way should they be forced out. Some may have not only food but water treatment gear enough to get them thru.

Forcing such folks out would be IMO criminal but hey - who is to argue with ''authorities''! :rolleyes: :uhoh:
 
Actually, the problem is rather worse than you think. It's not just a question of electricity and water services being out...

1. The freshwater system is hopelessly contaminated, and even when water is restored, a "boil advisory" will remain in effect for between six months and a year. Also, the entire system will have to be sterilized and sanitized, which means massive concentrations of chlorine and other chemicals will have to be added to the system (concentrations too great to drink, and which can't be filtered out without specialized equipment).

2. The disease risk is very, very high, not only in flooded areas, but in areas adjacent to them also. The mosquito population has already exploded, and will rise further. They carry West Nile virus, among other nasties, and anyone in the area is going to be at very high risk. Also, the toxic sludge left behind when the waters finally drain out is going to be filled with all sorts of diseases and hazardous micro-organisms, including some types of mold spores which can take root in one's lungs and grow. Not nice to have literally black lungs - from the inside... :barf:

3. The sewage system is completely destroyed. Anyone flushing a toilet is basically dumping untreated sewage into the canal system, with all of the consequences for others exposed to this health hazard. One simply can't have a few thousand residents constantly renewing the supply of pollutants like this. It will be many months before the hundreds of sewage treatment locations will be working again.

4. Most roads will still have restricted access, partly due to blockages by wreckage and sludge, partly due to building demolition/repairs, partly due to massive construction projects to rebuild the electricity, water, sewage and other systems.

Given all these factors, even if one's home is dry and undamaged, it simply won't be possible to stay put without being at risk of injury or disease, and one's presence will slow down and/or otherwise inhibit the recovery and reconstruction effort. I can therefore understand why a mandatory evacuation will be enforced.

However, I agree with earlier posters that something will have to be done to preserve property titles and rights. Simply having the city government bulldoze your property because in their opinion it's not repairable is not an acceptable option. There has to be some legal condemnation process, where you're given an opportunity to hear and respond to their concerns, and where they have to provide suitable compensation for any land siezure that they may decide to apply. The courts have to have the final say in this.
 
I oppose the idea of forced relocation; but except perhaps for those who have plenty of independent supply stocks, verified clean running water and have not had any flood water even near the foundations of their homes, I think it is insanity to stay there.

Look for the news to break at some point with something called "New Orleans" or "Katrina Syndrome". Syndrome, a government catchall term for; "The medical establishment is not going to do individual pathological studies on each and every one of you and pinpoint the individual cause of your symptoms and cure it. But here is your medication to treat and ease the symptoms which you can take for the rest of your life .... uh, at a small charge. And if you don't die from it".

For a start, watch for thousands of people that are going to have "mystery" skin rashes and other wonderful symptoms that never go away from wading and soaking in that polluted and putrid floodwater cocktail.
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
I strongly sympathize with animal owners who stayed behind out of dedication to their animals. I survived living within a 10 mile radius of the Three Mile Island disaster. As dog breeders with a small kennel, we stayed behind because of, as I recall, 9 dogs that would have been prohibited on evacuation routes. It was unthinkable to just walk away and leave them and certainly a problem to consider shooting them. I don't believe the idea of setting them free ever came up. We gambled and won, since the distaster came under control.
 
It's not clear by media reports just WHO they want evacuated. Certainly I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that toxic stew that covers most of the city - disease, chemical burns . . . a really bad mix. I'm not tough enough to stand up to a force of nature, deadly chemicals, or a brew of dangerous pathogens. I'd be GONE.

But IF someone is in a house on high ground well away from the highest reach of the floodwaters, and IF they have provided the basics (food, water) for themselves, there's no reason, legal or otherwise, to remove them with the threat of deadly force ("Kill them to save them") in the absence of a valid warrant charging them with some specific criminal actions.

Remaining peacefully in one's own house is NOT criminal, no matter WHAT the mayor says.

Of course, there's no reason for the city to be expected to resupply these folks, but if they initiate force in order to remove people from their own homes, they ought to expect force in return.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top