in federal help??
2007-10-29 03:29:37 · 7 answers · asked by tom the plumber 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Their local and state government was better prepared and where leaders. In Louisiana the local and state government was run by politicians that only new how to talk, not lead.
2007-10-29 03:33:50 · answer #1 · answered by Chris 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Maybe because they are getting well taken care of right off the bat. They had to obey the evacuation and got to take a few things with them. Unlike Katrina some "Chose" to stay and some tried to leave but couldn't get out and they had NOTHING. It all happened very fast. The fires have been going on for days. Also the CA people as a whole are more wealthy and have more resources that some in Katrina had. Not all I am not lumping anyone together but the homes taken in CA are very large nice homes.
In both cases it is a tragic loss, everything you own gone in a minute and nothing you can do.
I think America has learned a has lesson with Katrina that we were not ready for huge disasters. Now we are doing better.
Sad it take disasters to bring people together but God Bless all those currently fighting the fires and God keep and protect all who have lost.
2007-10-29 10:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by Teddy's Mom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about. The San Diego area has been declared a Federal Disaster Area. FEMA is there helping people out.
But, also, keep in mind that the fires in San Diego are a miniscule problem compared to the devastation from Hurricane Katrina.
2007-10-29 10:35:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The victims of California's wildfires have asked for federal help and federal help is going to them. This is however, a very different kind of disaster than Hurricane Katrina. It is also notable that the satae was far better prepared and mobilized to evacuate and shelter those in the paths of the fires tha Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas were. Southern Californians are much more mobile than the citizens of New Orleans and those that choose to live in areas that are at risk for wildfires, have plenty of catastrophic insurance coverage. The short answer is that in california, the people affected were much more aware of the danger and much better prepared to handle it.
2007-10-29 10:38:42 · answer #4 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me start by saying my question is not mentioning anything about race. It boils down to the types of cities they were before the natural disasters. New Orleans was a city that depended on government aid to survive. It was largely a city of poverty. A gimmie, gimmie, gimmie city. San Diego is quite the opposite. However, they are getting federal aid and Bush gave the aid when it was requested by the state government. I don't think you will have a fraction of the corruption that N.O. has.
2007-10-29 10:41:50 · answer #5 · answered by That Guy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Their state and local governments responded to their needs, the feds came when CALLED- werent called timely in Katrina and most importantly, they are self sufficient people more like the people of Mississippi who just rolled up their sleeves and got to work helping each other. LA is the most corrupt state in the union for a reason
2007-10-29 10:35:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Different class of people. A lot more self reliant and many have insurance, which is something that the welfare dependant people of N.O. did not have.
2007-10-29 10:33:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋