Should the people still in NO be allowed to stay even if it's dangerous

[napi21]

to their health? Lou Dobbs Poll today!

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

[LiberalVoice]

1. No nt

[wakeme2008]

2. Hell Yes it is their homes

:grr:

[ladjf]

3. Yes.

[jjmalonejr]

4. I honestly don't know.

It's a real conundrum.

[jmm]

5. I would be more understanding of forced evacuations IF

it could be promised that the people could keep there pets and would eventually be allowed to return to their homes. As long as the press continues to call them refuges and there is talk of not rebuilding I can't blame the people who want to stay especially when they're still having trouble coordinating shelters and aid for these people.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Have them sign a waiver or post a bond

That way, they're not tying up emergency services when they start dying of hunger or thirst.

(Zips up asbestos suit)

[whistle]

7. Will it be more dangerous to them to be removed and sent to

...detention camps outside of Louisiana? I think these people should be allowed to stay if they believe they are safer where they are. They must know something that the rest of us don't. Like they'll loose their homes and the property and never be able to return. LIHOP maybe. I have no idea, but something is making these people remain regardless of the health hazard and we are not getting the full story.

<snip>
Do you think the people still in the city of New Orleans should be allowed to stay even if it is dangerous to their health?

Yes 37% 7057 votes

No 63% 11898 votes
Total: 18955 votes

[LiberalVoice]

11. And what evidence are you going on that their is "something missing"?

It takes all kinds of people to make up this planet we live on. What makes you think the people who want to stay aren't doing exactly what the people who stayed before the storm hit did?

"Oh, it wont hurt me. No way. Not me."

We know its dangerous to stay. We know there are extremely unsanitary/hazardous materials flowing through the streets. Who knows when the mosquitos will start spreading disease from the dead bodies left outside for almost two weeks now.

[judy]

8. I think that if the feeling was that even though they must evacuate

somebody somewhere is guaranteeing that the first order of business will be to rebuild everyone's home, and that they will be able to return, and maybe even work themselves on rebuilding their own homes or rental homes, then I think people would evacuate much more easily.

Right now, if I was in NO, I would have the feeling that if I leave, I will never live in my neighborhood ever again...and I would be reluctant to leave.

So, I think they should be evacuated, but I also think that the Federal and Local government should assure everyone that they will be able to come back and participate in the rebuilding of their city.

That'll be the day. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I think Bushco have in mind the total gentryfication of NO...no more low income anything...

Edited for grammar

[Iris]

9. Yes. Because now it really is a choice.

[napi21]

10. I think they should be allowed to stay. I'm tired of people trying to

save me from myself!

I believe it should be mandatory that children be buckled into child safety seats!

I don't believe you should get a ticket if you don't wear your seat belt! If you want to be stupid, knock yourself out!

I don't think it should be mandatory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. Again, I think you're stupid if you don't, but if you want to be stupid....

In NO, if those who are still there get all the info on just how dangerous things are, and for whatever reason, they decide they want to stay, they should have the right to do that.

Remember, they don'pt want you to be able to decide you don't want extraordinary health care if you are brain dead either!

[LiberalVoice]

12. Stupidity isnt reason enough to let people kill themselves. nt

[napi21]

13. OK, then call it independance! If I'm not harming anyone else,

I don't want YOU or my Gov't telling me what to do!

[jody]

14. Yes if and only if they do not rely on society. n/t

[cornermouse]

15. No.

However, they should put family groups on the same bus. Aside from the fact that its just wrong to put children on one bus and parents on another, it would have eliminated all the confusion, the lost children, and just plain bad publicity.

Also, they should allow them to take their pets that are secured in carriers with them. If they did this, they wouldn't have as many resisting the move.

[SeattleGirl]

16. While I don't want people to lose any more rights than they already have,

I also don't want to see those who are still there end up horribly ill with disease from the nasty water, the mold, etc. And yes, I would probably fight like hell to stay, especially if I thought my home could ultimately be saved, but again, I don't want to see rampant disease. These people have suffered enough.

[TahitiNut]

Yes.

The 'government' within any jurisdiction obtains its authority SOLELY from the residents/ditizens of that jurisdiction. Without it, THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT. As New Orleans is "evacuated," the legitimacy of any New Orleans government authority disappears.

Whomever the residents/citizens of New Orleans are, only they have the authority for local governance, established in whatever 'republican' democratic fashion that's assured by the Constituion they wish. At whatever point this is only "refuseniks" - then that's it.

What's really appalling to me about this is the eventual confiscation of an entire city, not only the confiscation of the property, but the confiscation of the political authority - an authority that can only be legitimately founded in The People, whomever they are.

[zippy890]

17. I need more information

before saying yes or no. Unfortunately this government cannot be trusted to give adequate facts to make an informed decision.

SO,.. I would come down on the side of letting the people stay in their homes.

(Its awful to not be able to trust your government to do the right thing)

[enigami]

18. Hell yes

These people know what everyone else is only now starting to figure out. Once they get you out, you will play hell getting back in, if at all.

It happened before (to my family in Missouri 1863. Forced removal, confiscation. Never got it back.

[SmokingJacket]

19. Yes. Otherwise, they have nothing.

And you KNOW that if people leave, big business will roll on in and take whatever the hell they want.

[incapsulated]

20. I understand how some of them feel, but no

This is a public health issue.

I sympathize especially with those who have nothing and nowhere to go. But neither did the tens of thousands that have already been sent all over the country. And they didn't get the patient treatment that these holdouts are, they were packed on buses like animals and sent to god knows where. I'm not saying that therefore these people should be treated the same way, just the opposite, let someone be treated with some humanity in all this, at last. But they have to drain and detoxify that city, and you can't do that with people living in it. Let them take their pets and get them somewhere safe and close by so they don't feel they are being permanently evicted. As I said, that will be more than the rest got.

As for the white well-to-do waiting for their takeover, leave them and bulldoze their homes with them in it. (joke, ahem...)

[TahitiNut]

22. It's not about "feeling." It's about "Consent of the Governed."

When the ONLY "governed" left are 100% opposed to leaving, then that's what establishes the very legitimacy of local 'government' itself.

[incapsulated]

23. Not reallly

There is still an elected Mayor of that city and he has the right to order an evacuation, which he has. Those that refuse to leave can't form their own government just because they are the only ones left.

[TahitiNut]

25. Elected by WHOM??? Just WHO are the citizens of NOLA, now???

People who leave a city, county, or state no longer have any say in its governance. Only the people who live there have authority.

[incapsulated]

27. Wrong

The hundreds of thousands of people who evacuated are STILL RESIDENTS OF NOLA. Are you suggesting that if you leave town for a few months you lose your residency? Are you saying they have abandoned their homes on purpose, to leave to whomever wants to claim them?

Leaving a city does not strip you of your residency any more than leaving the country for strips you of your citizenship.

[TahitiNut]

29. You think not? Watch. Learn.

One of the "story lines" is about how people are finding "acceptance in their new communities." Jobs. Assistance. Relocation - not just visiting but working and going to school.

It's even been recognized somewhat twistedly on DU - how much have folks talked about how the area will become "gentrified" ... a Disney Theme Park for the party crowd. Jazz and booze. Beignets and boobs.

The only question is how long it'll take for 'government' to become resynchronized with the citizenry. Right now, it's capsized in the floodwaters. I think that's why the water got toxic.

[Zynx]

21. So long as they assume ALL responsibility and don't have kids with them

[TahitiNut]

24. When did we Turn The Constitution Upside Down?

All government derives its power from the consent of the governed, without which the government is illegitimate.

When did "due process" take place that permits anyone (either us or our government) to deny these people their civil liberties? The sole legitimacy of any "Homeland Defense" rests upon the very notion of "homeland" -- and New Orleans is the homeland of its citizens! Since when is "Homeland Defense" equal to "Homeland Abandonment"?

The objective is to defend and support our neighbors - our national "community." When we've used the power of government to deny them their sovereignty over their homes, neighborhoods, and city, then what's to stop this nation from doing that anywhere?

The job is to provide relief and assistance in rebuilding - not to eradicate their citizen's enfranchisement.

[lindisfarne]

26. The State epidemiologist 2 days ago said it's really not that dangerous

As long as you don't drink the water sitting on the ground! All the diseases that have been mentioned: malaria, typhoid, require there to be an infected population for it to spread. That population doesn't exist in NO. Cholera and dysentery require you to drink bad water.

The bigger danger is from the lack of emergency services. If someone is hurt trying to do repairs, etc., there's no ambulance service. If a fire breaks out, the fire department may not be able to respond. (The NG should be able to handle any "personal security" issues). Also, any kind of scratch or cut is at much greater risk of getting infected, especially in areas that flooded because of the bacteria in the water. Tetanus is a risk.

Older people, in my opinion, would be better off leaving for a few weeks. Younger people (but not kids) could probably stay.

[TahitiNut]

30. "the lack of emergency services" ... and all such civil services

... grow out of the citizenry. (Not vice versa.) We the People create them. If those services are like a roof, then the People are the walls and foundation. What we're seeing is a big roof where the walls and foundation have been 'evacuated.' So, the roof is only made reasonable to the degree the existing walls and foundation can hold it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. On A Practical Level

What happens if whole areas have to be razed and you are the only person that doesn't want to leave?


Eminent domain is one of the powers government has... It should not be used promiscuously but I would think any reasonable person could envision scenarioes where it can be used....

Certainly in this instance a case for eminent domain can be made....