Per this story about how corrupt Louisiana “business as usual” political fixers stole or re-directed lots of Federally granted emergency prep money -
Since the entire nation is now (effectively) saddled with the financial responsibility ca the Federal government demand greater accountability out of Louisiana notoriously corrupt political culture? How far can the Federal government go in cleaning up a state’s political culture?
Being from Louisiana, I would say no it won’t change. Corruption is as much a part of the culture in Louisiana as it is in Chicago or Rhode Island if not more so. The corruption got implanted deeply during the reign of Govenor Huey Long and later his brother Earl Long. Four time govenor Edwin Edwards is serving a ten year prison sentence for racketeering right now. The state is used to doing business in a way that often runs afowl of the law and ethics. A big difference between Louisiana and other states is that the majority of voters simply don’t consider corruption to be an overall bad thing. Edwin Edwards was re-elected governor twice after being charged with a number of counts racketeering.
Most importantly, Katrina wiped out a lot of infrastructure but most people are still there and their attitudes are not easy to change. If anything, the vast amount of money that flows Louisiana’s way in the next few years will increase corruption. The rest of the country knows to be on guard but you can’t completely protect a 100+ billion dollar cash river.
Per last week’s Time Magazine, issue date Sept 19 2005, pp 21,22, the first $10 billion* had been spent basically on no-bid contracts within a week, and at best the the $62 billion allocated is expected to last through the beginning of October
It makes you wonder how much fiscal control is being implemented by the Feds for this Federal money.
Besides physical reconstruction in the area, what I read is that they are ordering construction/delivery of up to 300,000 mobile homes/trailers/RVs in dozens of mobile-home cities for nearly $5 billion, or $16,666 each, rather than handing out housing vouchers so people can move near jobs and relatives. (There’s such a camp still in Punta Gorda, Florida, a year after they moved there from Hurricane Charley.) Cites: The San Francisco Chronicle and The Washington Post. The cruise ships are being re-allocated to construction guys rather than evacuees. Government micro-purchase credit cards have been bumped up to a limit (per-trip) of $250,000, but it is unknown how many of those credit cards there are (!) and past handling of those cards has been financially sloppy, resulting in mis-spending. Cite: The New York Times.
Sorry, this continues a marginal hijack broadening the subject from Louisiana corruption, but it’s at least a closely related subject.
*The American billion is a thousand million, not the European billion which is a million million.
What seems likely to me is that all the federal government will do is replace one set of crooks with another set, the new folks being more closely tied to the Bush administration.
“European billion” ? 
100 - U.K. & U.S. hundred
1,000 - U.K. & U.S. thousand
10,000 - U.K. & U.S. ten thousand
100,000 - U.K. & U.S. hundred thousand (India lakh)
1,000,000 - U.K. & U.S. million
10,000,000 - U.K. & U.S. ten million (India crore)
100,000,000 - U.K. & U.S. hundred million
1,000,000,000 - U.K. thousand million, U.S. billion
10,000,000,000 - U.K. ten thousand million, U.S. ten billion
100,000,000,000 - U.K. hundred thousand million, U.S. hundred billion
1,000,000,000,000 - U.K. billion, U.S. trillion
I agree with Shagnasty that this won’t change anything. On the contrary, this much money would probably corrupt a government that wasn’t already in that condition.
katrina is going to leave an interesting legacy. i’d be willing to bet that the new laws concerning bankruptcy are going to mess up more than a few lives. the REAL bugbear that’s going to rear its ugly head is this semi-recent decision by the supreme court that a city can take private property (i can’t remember exactly whether or not it wish due compensation. i’d love to believe it is with due compensation, but one can’t be too sure these days) and essentially rezone it to provide a better tax base. long story short, once the millionaires realize that new orleans is a pretty nice place, they’ll pressure the city, which will be strapped for cash for quite a while now, to take away the desirable property. the mayor, who i think can end up looking very venerable through this ordeal, is going to face a hard time with some big time corruption staring him right in the face. had we been spending a good proportion (a good proportion would be a sizeable amount. i know…vague, but enough money to sate both projects) of the defense/military budget on…oh…defense and infrastructure, this problem wouldn’t have been as severe. the problem we are facing now is we have never had to do this. now all the other major cities and ports across the country are looking at their infrastructure and determining that they could use some cash too. obviously, what needs to change is our philosophy, or how we do business. calvin coolidge once said “the business of america is business”. this is true, but we’ve got SO much more in this country going than just businesses. our educational system is severely lacking and losing ground every year to better foreign systems. we’ve lost our edge and we’ve lost our mystique.
According to this, that was apparently the long-standing UK usage, but is becoming disused in favor of the American system, which originated in 18th century France.
[/hijack]
**Least Original User Name Ever ** - When the government takes private property for public use, that’s called eminent domain, and it has been around since the Bill of Rights.
That’s from the fifth amendment to the US Constitution. What was new in the recent Supreme Court decision was that the local government was allowed to take private land and give to to private developers. This may come into play in NO. Your raising of the eminent domain issue as it relates to the recovery from Katrina is very interesting. I hope that smarter people than I will weigh in with their thoughts on how this might play out.
i wish i had the link to exactly what the court said about that case. that could be some VERY interesting fodder for conversation. anyone in law got access to this stuff? furthermore, can i get access to your law database?
Here is the actual opinion. Warning: it is in PDF form. This is from the web site of the Supreme Court of the US.
thanks a bunch. i poked around (after looking at what you sent) and found (easily) the background of the decisions it was based on. now, in the first one, hawaii v. midkiff , it seems that the federal goverment washes its hands of the situation saying that it’s best left to circuit courts and more local avenues of law interpretation.
in the argument for the second case, berman v. parker , this (b) Subject to specific constitutional limitations, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation enacted in the exercise of the police power; and this principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved. P. 32.) is mentioned. courts can’t take away your property but the city council can? if that is the case, wouldn’t it be relatively easy for an affluent (read:wealthy) developer to corrupt enough of the city council to get their way? and yes, i realize that this type of thing happens on a faily regular basis, but this seems to be a tad extreme, taking things with impudence. '(i realize that impudence isn’t the proper word. it’s morning and i’m a college student. give an english major a break).
after that, the counrt said: (c) This Court does not sit to determine whether or not a particular housing project is desirable. P. 33.
THIS court can’t manage a distinction. it doesn’t say as to whether or not further courts could or could not, it merely washes their hands of the blood. keep in mind that the second bit of case law (berman v. parker) has to do with washington d.c. because of that fact, this ((h) It is not beyond the power of Congress or its authorized agencies to attack the problem of the blighted parts of the community on an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis. Redevelopment of an entire area under a balanced integrated plan so as to include not only new homes but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers is plainly relevant to the maintenance of the desired housing standards and therefore within congressional power. Pp. 34-35.) becomes relevant. my problem with this decision lies riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight here: (l) The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive the just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking. P. 36. what exactly does that mean in normal speak? does that actually mean that the compensation equals the price it takes to take the land away? if that’s the case, it could be argued that the price to take the land away is virtually nothing, right?
would it really take that much to persuade a city council or local judge or any legislative body that has domain over these things to take away someone’s land for a shopping mall? for a condominium development? for a strip mine? for oil?
where would it end? it’s also quoted in these decisions that this decision is within a city’s “police powers”. if that’s not a phrase that sends chills up the american spine, i don’t know what does.
would the new use of the land be more economically efficient and more lucrative for the city? how could the city NOT enact these powers, especially new orleans in these circumstances. this could be the brewing of a perfect storm (sorry about the pun again) in new orleans. like they haven’t had enough shit to wade through already.
amendment: the most recent decision DOES say that land can’t be taken away from a landowner and given to someone for their profit. but it does leave some nasty wiggle room for a judge possibly see it the other way.
if something is squalid enough, it can be taken away. i believe in ordinances. i believe in civic pride. i believe in maintaining the upkeep of your property. a city should be able to maintain that upkeep if the property owner cannot do it at cost to the landowner. THAT should be the city’s responsibility. the city must be presented in a “presentable” manner. the way of getting to that manner should not include making its citizen(s) forefit/have their land taken away from them in order to reach those means. after all, in many cities, suburbs, and the like, the city owns a parcel of land that you live on, the part with telephone poles on it. shouldn’t it mean that you don’t mow that part at all? the city does it? it should be more of a symbiotic relationship, when it’s all said and done, not so much of a “what have you done for me lately” type of relationship.
i am now off the soapbox.
(Okay, Least, being a liberal arts type myself, I think I’m going to say that English majors get the least break. Have some pride in your field and apply your skills. Try cleaning up that post as an exercise.)
I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say with that quasi-rant there, but the gist of the Supreme Court’s decision is that all that the Constitution requires is “just compensation.” A court can determine whether that has been given.
The controversial part of the opinion is that the court said that it cannot decide (and that means lower courts cannot also decide) whether a seizure of property for a for-profit enterprise is for a public purpose.
The principles of federalism and separation of powers would tell you that it’s up to the legislature, specifically, the state legislature, to decide when to put on the brakes. The assumption here is that the democratic process has some meaning.
As towards the OP- change might come about in NO’s political corruption if dirt is uncovered in investigations as to whether the original contractors ever built the levees up to snuff or not.
acsenray brings up a couple of good points, one of which concerns the structure and capitalization in your post. Most of us find it easier to read posts longer than a few sentences when they are divided into paragraphs and properly capitalized. Your thoughts, I think, are worth reading. Please try to make it easier to do so.
The other point from acsenray is important and was mostly lost in the outcry over the recent case. The Constitution guarantees “just compensation.” It assumes that government can take property for public use. It doesn’t define public use, and it doesn’t define just compensation. Just compensation has be construed by courts to mean something close to current market value. As best I understand this case, it was about what is public use, and the court left that up to the local authorities. I don’t like this outcome, but I believe that it was properly decided.
i figure the local authorities would be the ones to figure it out, the court decisions say so. i’m just saying that this is some interesting power to give to a city council. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
and i only type like this with online communication. i’m not sure why or when it started, i just know how it ended up. like this.