I wonder if that being earthquake country had anything to do with preparation?

Maybe the, "Can't happen here" attitude was not as bad because of the frequent reminders from the ground about who is really in charge.

Patrick

More likely it's past fires that serve as the reminder. The Cedar Fire here was devastating and is still current history in San Diego. We've seen these before and anyone who thinks it can't happen here is an idiot.

I'm surprised that so many here appeared to have been caught short and had to pack in literally 10 minutes. When I smelled the smoke Sunday I finished my workout and then went home to finish packing. We never got the evac call.

Thats sounds like good thinking on your part. The fire threat seems really scary to me. Seems like it could be a serious danger in a very short time period.

Here on the Gulf Coast you know when the hurricanes are coming and a general idea of the potential damage.

I am really impressed with the way you folks handled the situation and all pulled together. I havent seen anyone on TV blaming anyone else; or at least the citizen on the street.

I think this is a cynical and shortsighted perspective. The idea that a primary reason for NOLA's Katrina woes was "they wuz jus po' folks so nobody cares" is wrong, IMO.

There are a number of very important differences between the SoCal and NOLA disaster responses, the least of which is "money":

1) SoCal obviously has LEADERSHIP. NOLA was betrayed ultimately by their incompetent mayor and governor, not the eeeeevil Federal government ("George Bush hates po' peoples!").

2) SoCal had planning and a sense that "the big one" really could happen, due to their experiences w/ earthquakes and previous fires. Despite the warnings of a few Cassandras, few thought that NOLA would ever really get hit w/ the big one. Year after year the big storms had veered away, inducing complacency.

3) The NOLA residents most affected by Katrina had adopted a culture of dependency and living off the government teat. This is the ultimate result of the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. policies of the "war on poverty", which (adjusted for inflation & per-capita) really hasn't helped poor people in a statistically significant way. While there is certainly an element of this in SoCal, not everyone there has been infected with the same PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. disease suffered by the majority of the California legislature.

4) The state and Federal agencies learned from NOLA's experience and did a better job this time around. Now they get criticized anyway, as being more interested in "rich" people. It's a no-win situation for them: if they don't do better in SoCal, they get ragged for not learning from past mistakes; if they do better in SoCal, they get ragged for catering to "rich" people.

Personal story: a couple my wife and I know had moved to the Mississippi coast a couple years before the Katrina disaster. The woman got a good job there so they moved. When Katrina happened, they evaced in time and came back here (Atlantic coast) to stay for a while and regroup.

This couple is very liberal politically and they ravaged the "evil" George Bush for his obvious hatred of po' folks. I asked them how they managed to escape. They said "we got in the car and left when things looked bad". I showed them the photos of swamped, unused buses in NOLA and said "the local leaders kept those buses parked and ordered everyone to the dome. Stop being ruled by your emotional politics and embrace reality. Inciting class warfare will only get you so far".

I only half agree with you. Money wasn't the only difference between these two, but it's far from the least important.

First of all, the two disasters aren't really comparable in terms of the amount of destruction and the number of people affected. But given the exact same type of disaster in both areas, I'm sure these California residents affected by the fire would still fare better than the New Orleans residents. I'm not saying that everyone in California is rich, but I would guess that the average California evacuee is probably better off than the average New Orleans resident that was stranded in Katrina. And in this particular type of disaster, money opens up a lot of options that probably weren't available to the NOLA residents. If you think about it, why did the NOLA residents end up in the superdome in the first place? People with the means to leave and the money to get a hotel room probably did so. It's only the stragglers that didn't have that option that ended up in the superdome.

This isn't the huge, widespread EOTW type of event that has people bartering for food and trading ammo, it's just small (relative to Katrina) wildfire where life is still normal for most people. And in everday life, cash is still king.

And to bring up your other points:

1) Socal has leadership - I have not seen any outstanding example of leadership during these fires. Maybe from the fire crews, but what has the government done so far?

2) Socal had planning - We knew the Santa Ana's were coming, just like they do every year, just like NOLA knew katrina was coming. I don't think most people took any extraordinary precautions, and we aren't any better prepared than any other state. If anything, we're probably a little worse than most, because we haven't had a "big one" in a long time. People tend to forget the dangers unless it recurrs every year.

3) NOLA residents were dependent - Yes, they lacked money, was supported by the government. Where was most of the middle class during Katrina? Probably in some other state, far away from the Superdome.

4) Government learned from NOLA - As I said in the first point, I haven't seen any oustanding examples of leadership. There are still complaints of wasted resources, tankers sitting on the ground instead of fighting the fires, crews not communicating. I think Katrina was just too big for anybody to handle, I seriously doubt if another Katrina happened here, they'd be any better prepared than they were before.

Some additional factors for differences between the Katrina and SoCal fires (I agree with most of the other factors identified)/

1. Major highways: There are only one East-West interstate (10/12) and 3 North-South (49, 55 and 55) leading from the NOLA area. And once you get out of the NOLA - Baton Rouge area they're all 4 lanes.

2. Distance to safety/shelter: Katrina evacuees had to go 50+ miles to seek shelter (most had to go 100+ miles).

3. Area/Infrastructure Affected: The fires affect a relatively limited area and infrastructure outside of the immediate areas is not affected. After Katrina, areas a far as 20 miles inland were devastated and infrastructure was damaged in areas more than 200 miles inland. (I live 120 miles from the MS gulf coast and my power was out for 5 days - some nearby areas didn't have power restored for 2 weeks.) Fuel here was in short supply for more than a month after landfall.

4. Leadership (Applies to LA only, MS did and is doing a pretty good job): What can one say about Ray Nagin that hasn't already been said (except why did they re-elect him???). Gov. Kathleen Blanco was a "deer in the headlights" for a week while the feds were asking her to ask for their help (States MUST request assistance from the FedGov - its a Constitutional issue and I agree with it) (and she has lost her re-election campaign). The LA Emergency Management Agency was no where to be seen and I don't know if it's really been seen since. Then there's Congressman William Jefferson, whose district includes the 9th ward, commandeering a National Guard 5-ton truck to save his personal belongings while the water was still rising (the FBI found the $90K in his freezer later) (yeah, they re-elected him, too!).

Access has a lot to do with it. It's fairly easy to move in any directon in SoCal. But if SoCal topography was a bowl with limited escape routes and the fire cut off most escape routes, the end result would have been totally different.

Never mind the poor folks, never mind the poor government of NOLA. New Orleans sits in a river delta, it's built on thousands of feet of soft sand, silt, and clay, it's between six and ten feet under sea level, it's sinking at the approximate rate of three feet every 100 years, and half the population lived in the part that would normally be underwater.

And people on this forum are sneering at rebuilding in CALIFORNIA???

Sue

Very well written AND VERY accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although you covered the fact that we have the best politicians that money can buy,,it distresses me that you have overlooked the fine tradition of duty displayed by the NOPD during the Katrina Emergency that once again proved that we have got the best police that money can buy.

It's hard to find anything to be proud of as a Lousy-anna state resident when we are at the bottom (49th or 50th) of every list that ranks states from the best (#1) to the worse (#50)!!!!!

I think building below sea level is foolish. I also think living in a tinder box is foolish. But you can take active steps to reduce the risks in the latter.

Now if only the tinder box would keep from slipping down the hill.... This thing isn't over yet, no matter how much cheering people want to do. Wait until spring.