Cali Wildfires vs. Hurricane Katrina

[Savaric]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304939,00.html

"Unlike the New Orleans Superdome, at Qualcomm, toilets flushed, garbage was kept in cans and the field was empty and clean. Only the big-screen TVs broadcasting flames and the occasional smell of acrid smoke hinted at the wildfires still scorching Southern California.

Inside the stadium, juggler Stryder Staffa entertained Qualcomm's youngest guests, while signs hinted at the amusements on offer: free comedy improv, acupuncture, free international calls, Wi-Fi and massage.

"It seems like a carnival," said Vivian Yu, a 14-year-old freshman student from San Diego.

Amazing.

[Aristotle]

Interesting comparison.

New Orleans is a mismanaged, corrupt, joke of a city.

San Diego is pretty well run, for the most part.

That's your difference maker.

[Malacasta]

Also, there was no access to the stadium except by helicopter, the power was out, there was no food or water for swathes of time.

SoCal is a disaster, but it is a slow moving disaster where for the most part infrastructure is intact.

My understanding is about 2000 houses have been destroyed. Absolutely horrible. However, over 200,000 houses were destroyed in Katrina in a few hours when the levies broke.

Over 1800 people died in Katrina. There are many reasons for such a high death toll, but I think it does speak to a difference in the type of catastrophe that NOLA and San Diego are enduring.

Savaric, what do you put the difference in the conditions at the two stadiums down to?

[Malacasta]

I just remembered that there were a lot of 'good news stories' coming out of neighboring states that looked after NOLA refugees in stadiums too.

Wouldn't you consider the conditions in those stadiums more comparable than the NOLA stadium, since people were free to come and go from them, there was access to running water, food, electricity etc.

[Malacasta]

CNN has an article that lays out some of the differences between the fires and Katrina, see:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...ema/index.html

FEMA and other relief and rescue services face significantly different challenges in the fire zone than they did on the Gulf Coast in 2005.

For example, the fires aren't covering every square foot of the region, as Katrina did. The devastation in California is intense but not universal.

During and immediately after Katrina, the destruction was so complete that relief personnel and supplies -- even the U.S. Army -- could not get within miles of the disaster's epicenter, New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, for several days.

By contrast, roads in Southern California have remained open for residents to get out and help to get in without delay. Residents there are generally more affluent and are able to use their own vehicles to escape, whereas many of Katrina's victims were poor and had no means of transportation.

Victims in California are not stranded on rooftops without food or drinkable water, but are able travel the relatively short distances to safe places.

One of those safe places is San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium, which is not endangered by the fires. FEMA and other relief agencies are able to stage supplies and meet victims' needs in an organized way.

New Orleans' Superdome, on the other hand, sitting in the center of the disaster zone, was severely damaged by hurricane winds and threatened by rising water. What had been a shelter devolved into a trap.

Katrina also wiped out the Gulf Coast's communications infrastructure, crippling the coordination of relief efforts -- even for the military.

[aelyn]

I really don't think it's fair to compare the wildfire situation with the Katrina situation. I'd pretty much agree with what Malacasta posted - ESPECIALLY the fact that the Q was in no way damaged or threatened by the disaster, as opposed to the Superdome.

To me, it's really hard to find any similarities between the disasters at all.

That said, I am proud of my city anyway I think that a lot was learned from the fires four years ago - the reverse-911 has worked pretty well, for one. I know several people to whom the fire came pretty darn close - my co-worker has been evac'd from Fallbrook since mid-day Monday.

[Aristotle]

I think the comparison is actually quite valid. Of course no two situations are the same. But if anything, the failures of New Orleans are even worse since we know about hurricanes days or weeks in advance and these wildfires just came out of nowhere.

Knowing about a potential disaster in advance so you can (in theory) plan for it is a much bigger advantage than any of the other advantages you listed in San Diego's favor.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by Aristotle
I think the comparison is actually quite valid. Of course no two situations are the same. But if anything, the failures of New Orleans are even worse since we know about hurricanes days or weeks in advance and these wildfires just came out of nowhere.

Knowing about a potential disaster in advance so you can (in theory) plan for it is a much bigger advantage than any of the other advantages you listed in San Diego's favor.

There absolutely was a failure of disgraceful proportions at local, state and federal levels in New Orleans. But the original poster was drawing some sort of comparison between the clean bins and wifi of one stadium, and the overflowing toilets and bins of the other stadium, when the other stadium didn't have electricity or trash collection. This was not just a failure of planning, this was also failure of infrastructure (ie, the building itself, electricity, communications and physical isolation).

Maybe the original poster is just saying "look how much nicer it is in the SOCAL stadium than it was for those poor NOLA folks". In which case I'd agree.

[aelyn]

Well, I meant in reference to the comparison of the stadiums... it doesn't seem like they /can/ be compared. Except in that here it was a smart move to send people to the Q and there it was a dumb move to send people to the Superdome.

I think it's fairly obvious that the whole emergency situation has been better run in San Diego than New Orleans.

[Wrent]

I feel there are literally countless reasons it is not a fair comparison stadium vs stadium or their condition/state for evacuees. Largely because the stadium in question was not damaged and cut off from the infrastructure of the State and Federal relief agencies as with New Orleans. It's easy to keep clean and safe when you have 1/10th of the volume of people to handle and are completely in physical contact with the working relief bodies.

A fair comparison is disaster relief quality and timeliness. California has many "unexpected" disaster situations which it has always seems to respond to quickly and efficiently. Earthquakes and wild fires are very often completely unexpected.

Katrina was known to be a danger for days (nearly a week if I remember right) prior to it's landing. The dilapidated levies are the single largest failing of government (I believe the State held responsibility for their upkeep? anyone recall that being accurate?) support/safety in a long long long time. Their piss poor condition is a major reason the flooding and damage was SO FAST and SO EXTENSIVE.

Another thing that these comparisons (whether I agree they're fair or not) brings to my mind. The people in these two regions are quite different. I do believe that -some- of the horrid conditions people in the Superdome had to endure were self inflicted.