angledge | Splinter cell.

It's been at least a few weeks since our last reorganization here in FEMAland, so we were way overdue for some bureaucratic reshuffling. My group has been assigned to Hazard Mitigation, which I'm actually quite pleased about. The purpose of Hazard Mitigation is to rebuild damaged structures in such a way that they are less prone to future damage (stronger roofs, higher floor elevations, burying power lines instead of restringing them on poles, etc.). This is an intelligent approach to disaster recovery & is therefore terribly underutilized.

But what to call our new group? "Group" is too easy, for some reason. There's a lot of bad feeling about "teams" due to the ineptitude of previous teams (who have been dissolved in this current reorganization). "Committee"? Too bureaucratic. "Division"? Too militaristic. So what did they settle on? Oh yeah - we're being called a "cell".

Hello? Do you people follow current events? You've decided to follow al-Qaeda's nomenclature? Awesome. I propose to name our group "al-NOLA".

As an aside, I had waaaaaaaaaaay too much Dr. Pepper at lunch today. Wheee, caffeine high!!!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"Cost effective"!!?? No disrespect, but I already gave my opinion about building structures ten feet below sea level immediately next to the sea. :-| Considering that this is the US Gov'mint footing the bill, how does "cost effective" even factor into the equation? FEMA feels they can spend our dollars faster than they're burned in Iraq, so it almost doesn't matter if they add another zero or two to the end of the numbers.

Sorry, just ranting. Nothing personal! I do respect the work you're doing!!

Unless we've decided that we don't want to rebuild New Orleans AT ALL, we MUST rebuild lots of structures at low elevations in vulnerable floodplains. It's just a given. So certain structures - such as the one I was referencing, which is a transmitting station containing millions of dollars' worth of electronic equipment - should be raised so we don't have to replace those contents again next time a storm surge rolls down Mr. Go. It *IS* cost-effective to raise buildings like this one.

I know that everyone is infuriated with FEMA right now, but SOME of the stuff we're doing is actually pretty sensible. It just takes a long, long time.

Also, we're nowhere near spending money as fast as the Iraq situation. Not even within an order of magnitude.

My first impression of the situation was to abandon the whole city and rebuild elsewhere. Your assessment convinced me that it would be more costly, as well as disheartening to the natives that survived.

Rebuilding the current structures is the best plan of action. Rebuilding the levees to withstand more powerful hurricanes will need to be done before most people think about investing time or money back into the area.

I applaud you again for adding your expertise to the situation. Your skills are valuable at this time. They could probably use your help over in China as well, considering the catastrophe that occured there recently.

I know, I know... I was just venting. Like I said, I trust you to do a great job there! :-)

Splinter cell.

Re: Maybe, if it was cost-effective.

Look.

Re: Look.

Re: Look.