|
I agree with the OP's list, 911 was a smaller problem - with an intense 2-3 hour period of destruction, massive loss of life, a huge fire to put out (which took weeks, if not months), then the massive clean up - which was slow to allow the best collection of human remains. The city was shocked, horrified, and in mourning - but almost all of it was totally in control.
By the time of September 11th, Gulliani had outworn his welcome in NYC. But, he did do a credible job at the time of 911 - mostly because he tried very hard to keep people informed and even admitted not knowing things he didn't know. This time period emphasized his best characteristics and allowed ignoring his worst. Remember though with in a few hours, the towers were hit, fell and they were gone. Mark Green, the Democratic candidate for mayor answered a question by saying that he would have done as well, which although probably accurate killed his chances.
The police and firemen had trouble communicating because their equipment weren't compatible - a Gulliani problem, but they worked very hard to find and save survivors. Unlike NO where the situation continued to worsen with no help, from the first day the incredably awful situation got better. Even on the first day, there were firemen from NJ helping. Over time, they had help from all over the country.
We went in to see a Broadway show in the last week of September - about 2 1/2 weeks later -as people were encouraged to do. 2 1/2 weeks after this, even residents won't be going back.
Part of the difference is emotional: On 911 we were attacked by foreigners and they hurt both our buildings and our sense of security. Also, NYC (which I love) is the center of the news media and is very much in love with itself. Something happening in NYC gets far more weight then elsewhere.
|