ShareThis Page

New Orleans tires of talk

| Saturday, Oct. 17, 2009

NEW ORLEANS — A day after an enthusiastic, almost-gushing crowd met President Obama on his first visit to New Orleans since taking office, some in this still-suffering, hurricane-struck city are wondering when platitudes and political speak will give way to greater progress.

Among them is recent law school graduate Gabe Bordenave, 29, who sees what he considers a continued nickel-and-diming by the Federal Emergency Management Agency over critical rebuilding projects, like a downtown hospital shuttered since Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005.

"I don't want to hear how problems are being solved," Bordenave said Friday. "I want to know why the problems are not solved."

Obama vowed that Gulf Coast rebuilding would be a priority of his administration, but progress often has been overshadowed by bureaucratic holdups and hard feelings among government officials about the response to Katrina and the slow pace of the recovery.

Sandy Rosenthal, the founder and executive director of , said her disappointment with Obama's visit was intense, mostly because he referred to Katrina as a "disaster of nature."

Rosenthal said the levee failures that sent water pouring into the city prove it was a manmade disaster, too. Obama's failure to recognize that, she said, felt like a tactic to show that recovery money was coming from "the realm of generosity" rather than a government obligation to help New Orleans.

Others, like Terence Butler, are holding out hope the president will come through.

"I guess they're trying to do what they can," said the 52-year-old painter, speaking through an iron-wrought door in a section of Gentilly where he said crime is a problem and reminders of Katrina's devastation — the FEMA trailer, empty house with overgrown yard and blue tarp strips flapping on a roof — are hard to miss.

Said Butler: "He did give a good speech."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me