I'd like to get your opinion on Falls Creek....
 

(I don't know how to post the handy links...sorry..)
In the "Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans" thread, Happy Monkey's post #111 has a link - "refusal of individual assistance". The person who wrote the story sees the Falls Creek church camp being turned into more of a "refugee detainment center" than a refugee shelter. They cannot leave the camp for five months for any reason (not to visit somebody, apply for a job, shop, attend church, go out to eat. etc.etc.....).
They cannot use the kitchens located in each individaul cabin, accept donations from any more individuals or from the churches that own the cabin they're in. (It's not the church's cabin now, it's FEMA's for the next five months).
I'd really like to know what you folks think of this, assuming it's all true....

This is the link
The good news is they're not going to use that camp. :headshake

Thanks! Do you know why they aren't going to use it now? I saw some coverage of the preparations on TV, and a LOT of people spent a week getting ready!

Reading through at least 10 pages of comments on that link, it appears this story was widely circulated and a lot of people were pretty upset about it.
The link was forwarded to a lot of politicians and press. It appears FEMA was worried about image and killed the project. They have plenty of other "camps" that haven't been scrutinized. :eyebrow:

I think that if people were in line with the religious philosophy of the group, and agreeable to the rules, and requested the site, it would be fine.

I think it would be a big problem if they sent a batch of athiests there, though.

Religious philosophy was not an issue. The church offered the facilities and the state accepted. The the Feds took control and everyone else was out of the picture. The Feds set up the camp the way the Feds know how from their experience with military bases and prisons. Control not compassion. :dead:

What is the it you are talking about, here? The problem isn't who is being sent there, but how they're treated.

Not treated...going to be treated...the camp was not used. ;)

What I was trying to get at, was that there were significant restricitions placed on any potential residents by the camp administration. While there are certain behavioral necessities for disaster relocation camps (simple stuff like "I won't rape any of my fellow evacuees" and "I won't steal from any of my fellow evacuees") rules necessitating certain types of worship, for example, are beyond what can and should be requested. As far as I'm concerned, since folks are only supposed to be in temporary shelter at these places, they can be in the middle of fifty miles of desert just so long as basic needs for food, water, safety, and shelter are met.

In short, if refugees wanted to be part of a specifically Christian Community, and would have requested such a placement, then I have no issue with the camp's rules. If non-Christians would be forced to go to such a setting, and forced to participate in all of the camp programming, that's what I have a problem with.

That's bad, too. The camp should be used, and the people should be treated like citizens. If they would rather close the camp than treat people humanely, that's wrong.

Which rules are you talking about, here? I may have missed some, since I didn't read the whole thread. The rules I have problems with are the ones put in place by FEMA; I didn't see any place where the camp was planning to impose religious rules.

Wolf, go back to post 6. ;)
HM, they closed it saying they didn't need it, they already had enough room at other facilities.

The camp didn't have any rules or programs for the refugees. They just made the camp available. When the churches, who each own different cabins, offered to cook meals for "their" cabin of refugees, FEMA said no. When they offered to send a bus for anyone interested in going their church services, FEMA said "No, they can't leave this camp for five months, if they leave they won't be allowed back in."
All rules there would've been FEMA rules.

I read that a thousand refugees are going to be housed in the old Lowrey Air Force Base up in Denver. That story made me damn curious to go up to Lowery for a visit, but I betcha I wouldn't be allowed on base. Its a nice secure facility with barbed wire cyclone fences the last time I saw it which was, admittedly, some years back. :eyebrow:

First post!

http://www.denverpost.com/carman/ci_3006502

'nuff said.

From vhampyre's link That ought to warm the natives hearts.

Welcome to the Cellar vhampyre. :biggrin:

I was just about to quote the same piece of the article.

[tinfoil]It's part of the new world order planned resettlement to change the demographic of the more conservative western states, I tell you![/tinfoil]

From the Denver Post:

All day Tuesday, people arrived at the Lowry site. A truck from Mountain Man Nut and Fruit Co. pulled in to deliver supplies. Volunteers came to offer counseling and help finding housing, furniture and clothing for evacuees.

Kathy Arford, who owns a small remodeling company, Kateri Homes, arrived offering two jobs at $10 an hour.

"I need help," she said, "and I can teach people how to do the work."

The only problem was she couldn't get near the survivors.

"I've spent two hours trying to find somebody who'll listen to me," she said.

She wants to give a couple of desperate people a chance at a new life. She just needs to get through the fence.


I hear that black folks actually do live up in Denver. It doesn't sound as though the 3 Denver has will be getting any company any time soon. :eyebrow:

PS Glad to hear they kept the fence. Its a nice one.

Hi, Vhampyre!

What I'm really curious to know is where they are "sheltering" or relocating the displaced looters, rapists, and murderers that they arrested during the take-back of New Orleans. Likewise, what have they done with all the jail/prison inmates and occupants of mental health facilities which had to be emptied because of the flooding? Maybe here is the perfect use for the cruise ships which the feds were so determined to charter; the evacuees did not want to go there because then they would not be able to leave at will :p

Norristown State Hospital readied a building for "30 to 50" mental health consumers displaced by Katrina.

I don't know if they ever got them. I'll have to ask the boss tonight.

Mental health consumers?

http://nwn.bioware.com/underdark/ima...e_illithid.jpg

Giggle.

That's just what we're supposed to call them instead of our preferred technical designations "nuts," "kooks" or even "loonies."

I used the term "mental health consumer" with a patient one time when I was first starting out and was trying really hard to sound open and welcoming ... she responded "I have never eaten a psychiatrist."

I went back to using "patient" and "client" after that.

Well, one of the CNN commentators said something today about what they did with the people in the jails as Katrina bore down on New Orleans, they RELEASED THEM :eek: Um, did anybody check what they were jailed for in the first place before letting any serial rapists or ax murderers walk? Suggested that they go to the Convention Center or the Dome for refuge, I guess. Along with 15-20,000 unarmed women and children and sick people and Geraldo. And apparently less than 10 policemen. There was also at least one prison which was flooded but they didn't say if or how they evacuated any of the inmates. The law enforcement there admits they have no idea what happened to the thousand and thousands of registered sex offenders and have no means or priority to check on them right now. The Police Chief (an African-American) also admitted that nobody was searched or checked in any way before being admitted to the refuges. Gangs entered freely, bringing drugs and weapons, with tragically predictable results.

I hope nobody is still trying to tell the media "We had no idea it would happen like this/be this bad/get out of control." How did we ever get so many stupid people in one place and one time like this?

And it's been a priority to take weapons away from folks who were appropriately defending their lives and property.

Sure. They're the ones sitting and taking it. The looters don't stay in one place, and they tend to shoot at people who try to take their weapons. (and people who don't for that matter).

I've seen a number of stories about FEMA recently which make me think the response would have been better if any FEMA officials not actively involved in rescues or food distribution had simply been shot on sight.

What did you think of the Sheriff of Gretna, who had his men block the exit from that overpass where several thousand people were stranded without food or water for 4 days? His men were even ordered to shoot at anybody trying to rush them. Very righteously said on camera that he wasn't about to allow the Superdome to move into HIS jurisdiction when they didn't have any more resources to share :mad: