City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090701309.html

Confusion Reigns Over Forced Evacuations
Wednesday, September 7, 2005; 3:18 PM

Confusion reigned Wednesday over whether officials will force people out of their homes in New Orleans.

A Louisiana official said this morning the state won't make people leave their homes in the besieged city just one day after New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin authorized law enforcement officers and the military to force the evacuation of all residents who refuse to leave. Released late Tuesday, Nagin's emergency declaration targets all those still in New Orleans who have not been designated by government officials as helping with the relief effort.

.................................................. ..........

Meanwhile in Baton Rouge, La., Ed Jones, chief of disaster recovery and mitigation for the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, said the decision to use the military and state rescue personnel to forcibly evacuate citizens from New Orleans lies with the governor, not with the mayor.

National Guard and state rescue workers have not received any communication from Mayor Nagin about forcing people out of their homes and an order to take such action would need to come from the governor, said Jones at disaster headquarters in Baton Rouge.

At this point, Jones said, National Guard and state rescue workers "will not force people out."

"It's a very tough decision to force an American out of their home," Jones said.

..............................................

But later in New Orleans, Police Supt. Eddie Compass said city officials would go forward with the mayor's plan. He said once the "voluntary evacuations take place, then we will concentrate our efforts and forces to mandatorily evacuate residents."

Compass said thousands of people still wanted to voluntarily evacuate the city.

"We hope that most people cooperate," Compass said. "We have a large enough manpower force with the army and the state, city and federal agencies to do this expeditiously and as safe as possible." Compass said authorities will use "the minimal amount of force necessary to evacuate people from the city."

Officials said the authority for the mandatory evacuation order came through state statutes.

As of midday Wednesday, there were no reports of anyone being removed by force, according to wire service reports.

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

Far as I remember Blanco did issue a mandatory evac in press conferences both before and after the hurricane. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, I watched so much news coverage both local and network that it all seems to be one big mass of unsorted information

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

Force some people out of there homes without authority?

Thats a lawsuit...

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

More channels getting crossed and communication not being clear (or even existing) between entities.
If they don't get this sorted out and make sure the paperwork's right, I can see folks suing the city, police force, etc for making them leave a physically unsafe environment.

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

Ever hear of "eminent domain"? http://oprano.com/msgboard/images/smilies/smile.gif

Addenum: It's called "compulsory purchase" in England and Wales.

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

I'm sure thats fine.

However , "get the fuck out now!" , I doubt is an invitation to treat and therefore not a purchase contract lol

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

Emminent domain wouldn't work in this though... would be kinda hard to justify increased tax revenues from a few thousands lots where there's no business (all the people are gone) and no business wanting to build on top of land infected with toxic Superfund site hazardous waste chemicals...

No, wait. I bet we could easily convince a big chemical plant to build there or the existing chemical plant that blew up could just do some expanding! There, all settled. Kick 'em out! :p

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

Just give all the land to Trent Lott, so he can build a gigantic mansion with a nice massive front porch for him and his boy Georgie. He'll pay higher property taxes than he did previously. Eminent domain problem solved. Sweet tea, anyone?

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

Keep SweetT outta this. ;)

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

Now, see, that's the kind of post that sends an Oprano thread spiraling off-topic. Can you watch those please? ;)

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

No problem. We'll talk about coffee then.

Ever have one of those Coffeecoolata drinks? Mmm, mmm, refreshing!

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

I believe they served them during the mandatory evacuation.

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

I'd like to give that post the "Determinedly Staying On Topic" Award! :okthumb:

(Your serve, Dravyk! :) )

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

They can and have used emminent domain to buy out land because of flooding, and for no other reason than it will probably flood again. I had friends forced out of their homes in the St. Louis area after the Flood of '93, in several cases because of "repeat claims" (they had flood damage in 1973 as well).

The danger of fire, the danger of infectious diseases, the danger of potential toxic exposure to all kinds of mean, nasty shit - all of those are perfectly legitimate reasons to force someone out of their home. When the flood waters threatened a propane tank farm (there were 62 tanks, each containing something like 200,000 pounds of propane), they did a manatory evacuation of about 4 square miles - and they did NOT say pretty please when you were ordered to leave at gunpoint.

Re: City doesn't have authority to do mandatory evacuations
 

"I had friends forced out of their homes in the St. Louis area after the Flood of '93, in several cases because of "repeat claims" (they had flood damage in 1973 as well)."

Ahh. It seems then that the city could use the reverse of tax revenue - actual cost to the city/state - as a reason. I'm not motivated enough to go look it up and see if they can lawfully do that at the moment, but it does kinda jive. I'd think they'd also be able to buy up land that was simply hazardous to the public or somehow proclaim it uninhabitable, using environmental guidelines.