May 16, 2006.

What’s up with Ray Nagin?

I like Nagin. I think, under ordinary circumstances, it’s good to have a mayor like that, to inject some new blood, and bring in some business sense and efficiency. But when you have an emergency, like Katrina, and the situation we have now, you really need to have a politician, who can talk the talk, and walk the walk, with a reservoir of contacts and supporters and favors that you can call in and count on to get things running.

What did you think about the “Chocolate City” comment?

It really didn’t bother me, personally. I think I know and understand what he was trying to say. (Although I’m not real sure that God has anything to do with it.) What I really thought was the most interesting thing is that the media - at least what I saw - never really picked up on the most significant aspect of the statement, which is how at least superficially hypocritical it was. Because, from the very beginning, Nagin appointed this committee which everyone said was too white, too business oriented, and would result in a smaller, whiter city. Which is why, I think, the City Council went off and appointed their own committee. But, anyway, if he was being critical of the plan, it was his plan. It was his committee. It’s what he wanted. So why is he complaining about it?

Why is he?

Well, I think one of two reasons. Either he realized that a white person was going to jump into the race against him, and the only way he could be re-elected was to energize the black voters, or, what I think really happened was this: I think he really believed, as a businessman, from a planning standpoint, that it made sense to focus on rebuilding the areas that had the best promise for the future, economically and/or from the point of view that they were least likely to be re-flooded. Which is legitimate. But that “smaller footprint” plan for the city was also supported by a number of people who, in addition to that, or separate from that, were simply just racists who didn’t want the blacks to come back. And so I think Nagin, over the course of five or six months, probably had to swallow a lot of anger and bitterness and resentment, listening to a lot of overt or implied racism, and it was Martin Luther King Day, and he was among blacks, and something inside him just clicked.

What do you think of the “smaller footprint” approach?

I have mixed feelings about it. Because I think that people should ultimately decide where they want to live and whether and how to rebuild. On the other hand, I’m not sure that it’s fair to make an entire city bear the costs for a few people who want to live in a particular place, in terms of sewerage and trash pick-up and electricity or emergency services, police and fire, or insurance or whatever. So I think the cost allocation is an issue. But, ultimately, if people are willing to bear the costs, and can, it’s up to them, and the government shouldn’t be telling them “No, you can’t rebuild there.” The other thing is that, while people should be free to come home if they want to, we shouldn’t be encouraging them to come home, where there isn't a home, or a job, school, hospital, etc., just so they can vote in elections.

What do you think about the new Douglas Brinkley book that is really critical of Nagin?

I haven’t read the book, I have only heard a bunch of interviews, and of course Brinkley I'm sure has done a lot of research and knows a lot more about the facts than I do, but my impression is that it sounds like it's probably a little too critical of Nagin and very under-critical of the Bush Administration. That would be my impression. And I think Brinkley has a lot of interesting things to say, generally. Very engaging and interesting to listen to, so I'm sure the book is good. But where he lost some credibility with me was, in one interview, he was criticizing the political landscape generally but then he held out Eddie Jordan as an exception who was one of the really good ones.

I take it you don’t agree?

From what I’ve heard, the D.A.’s Office was in such shambles, even before Katrina, that the A.G.’s Office had to come in and essentially take over a few sections of court. That’s separate and apart from the discrimination, which was present in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, but got so bad when he became D.A. that a jury found him liable of violating the Civil Rights Act. And, finally, I don’t know what he was doing during Katrina. Perhaps Brinkley knows something I don’t, but I remember thinking to myself, watching all of these stories break about the crime, and the evidence room, and prisoners who had escaped, and the looting, and the police department, etc., Where is Eddie Jordan? And I don’t think I saw him on tv until around a week later and I'm not even sure that he was in New Orleans. I heard, later, a rumor that they couldn’t find him, and a second year trial attorney basically set up a make-shift D.A.’s office at the Greyhound Bus Station. They lost all of the evidence. They can’t keep track of the prisoners. I don’t know how they can prosecute anybody. Now, again, I don’t have all of the facts. Maybe Brinkley knows something I don’t. Maybe Jordan was out there doing, or at least trying to do, some heroic things. Maybe he can blame the Chief of Police or the Criminal Sheriff or the Coroner or the Criminal Clerk of Court, who is quite an idiot in her own right. But Jordan is the leading law enforcement official in the city. And you can say whatever you want about Harry Connick, but I don’t think we would have seen that if he had been D.A.

What about Nagin’s opponent for mayor, Mitch Landrieu?

Well, I know Mitch personally. But trying to be as impartial as I can, I think it almost doesn’t matter. We have to elect someone new, or the rest of the country - right or wrong - is going to throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do to help these people if they aren’t even smart enough to get rid of this guy. And, again, I think it’s important, at this particular time, to have an actual politician, who isn’t going to try to run the city like a CEO, because, while there are similarities, it’s not really a business, and the mayor isn’t really a CEO. You need someone who can work with the City Council, and the State Government, and be able to talk to the people in Washington, as well as the local support you need to get things done. Having said all that, I think Mitch is smart, and honest, and articulate. He was hands-on saving people, pulling people out of the storm. I think every time he was on CNN or NBC or whatever, nationally, after Katrina, he did a good job of representing the City and the State. And, it’s interesting; we represent a large hospital in Lake Charles in a big commercial case; and when Hurricane Rita hit, they asked us to help them navigate their insurance claims. So we were down there meeting with several of the hospital executives and I was talking with someone who was designated local FEMA coordinator, who, of course, didn’t know that we had any type of relationship with Mitch. And he said there was this guy sitting at the table next to him, on his cell phone, asking questions, giving out orders, getting things done; he had no idea who the guy was; thought he was someone from Homeland Security or something; and someone said, "'No, that’s Mitch Landrieu, our Lieutenant Governor,' and I was really impressed."

Where do you come down on Hurricane Protection, or I guess I should say Hurricane Response, as primarily a Federal, State, or Local responsibility?

Well, of course, there is some State and Local responsibility. But, from the very beginning, I thought the suggestions that the primary responsibility fell on Local Government were absurd. Even putting aside the overarching environmental issues and the Corps’ responsibility for the levees, the reality is that three days before the storm hit, it was threatening every state from Texas to Florida. They didn’t know where it was going to go. It was, from the very beginning, a multi-state, and actually international, problem. As it turned out, there was considerable damage in, not only New Orleans, but elsewhere in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, and, ultimately, as it turned out, became a national problem very quickly with other states accepting evacuees and with the oil prices, and refining, shipping issues, etc. So to say that, with a regional, if not national threat, we are going to put things in the hands of the Mayor of New Orleans, sounds absurd. The policemen, the firemen, the people running the pumps, the bus drivers, the hospital workers, have their own families to worry about. They have their own houses that are being flooded, or looted, or destroyed. I’m not saying all of them did the right thing, (although many of them, certainly a lot of the doctors and nurses, were heroes), but someone should have anticipated that you would need people from the outside, whether from the National Guard, the Army, Homeland Security, or whatever, to get things done. And forget anticipate. I’ll give them a pass on everything that happened before the storm. You can chalk all of that up to policy decisions, bureaucracy, allocation of resources, etc. But I refuse to accept that the U.S. Government cannot get food, water, medical assistance, transportation, and/or peacekeepers into any city within 24 hours. Much less 5 days.

What about the reports of violence keeping would-be responders away?

That’s a bunch of crap. You gonna tell me that we can send people to Bagdad, but New Orleans is “too scary”? Plus, those reports didn’t really start until a couple days later.

What about the looting? That was on tv pretty much as it was occurring.

Well, first of all, so what? Is it really that big of a deal? I know people are offended that a few scumbags would take advantage of the situation to steal a tv set, or a designer purse, or whatever. But in the grand scheme of things, when you’ve got people that are dying, is that really such a big deal? These places have insurance. I’m not saying it’s okay to loot, but it just didn’t seem like that much of a big story in the grand scheme of things. Which brings me to the next point, which is: What’s that got to do with the Army? Isn’t that all the more reason to get them there? You gonna tell me that they are willing to go to the Middle East and face all of these terrorists and suicide bombers and pipe bombers and everything, but they’re scared of the people stealing tv sets on Canal Street?

One of the criticisms of Governor Blanco which has been used to justify or explain the delay was the fact that she was in a “turf war” with the White House and didn’t want to give up control. Also, that when Bush called and asked her what she needed, she wasn’t specific with a list of action items, but just said “everything you’ve got.” What do you think about that?

As to the first point, I think that’s a bunch of b.s. If I am the President, I say, “Look, I’m the President. I’m sending in the troops. You want to direct them, direct them. But the situation is unacceptable.” Particularly this President, to get caught up in the legalities, seems very odd and out of character. As to the second point, sure an action item list would have been better, but “everything you’ve got” says to me “everything you’ve got.” Not “Go back to sleep.”

What do you think of the current Louisiana Recovery Plan?

I think it’s good. But the more important thing is, and was, having a plan. Some plan. Any plan. Even a bad plan is better than having no plan at all. And this is, I think, really the Bush Administration's fault as well. Because they should have picked someone, like John Breaux, who does not have to bow to political pressure, and said, “Okay, you are the king. You are the czar. You make the tough decisions. What you say goes.” And then you would have had something that lots of people probably would have complained about, but you would have had direction. Instead, you’ve got seven different committees with seven different plans, that have taken months to put forth, and no one knows which one, if any, are going to be controlling. So the plan, yeah, it’s a good plan. But it’s something that could have and should have been done last October. You lock people in a room together, and, within 24 hours, they can come up with something. Will it be perfect? No. Will it satisfy everyone? No. But people will have the information they need to decide whether to come back, rebuild, or move on. Instead, we have stagnation. And paralysis. Which, if it continues, will lead to death.

You mentioned the Corps’ responsibility for the levees. You’re a lawyer. What do you think of the various lawsuits flying around?

We are handling a lot of business interruption and property damage claims. (And, in fact, we offered to handle insurance claims for policemen and firemen who stayed on the job during the storm pro bono.) We also have some cases against Murphy Oil relating to the oil spill in St. Bernard. With respect to the Corps, we are prosecuting some cases for flooding as a result of the MRGO, which is intended for navigation, as opposed to flood protection. The 17th Street Canal breach is a little more complicated because the Corps has an immunity with respect to “flood protection” efforts. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with these immunities and other defenses; I think the Government should pay for the damages it caused. And I certainly understand the feelings of a lot of people who think what the Government did was criminal. But, emotionally, I don’t personally view this in the same way as I look at a suit against someone like Ford, or Merck, or Philip Morris, with something like the Pinto, or Vioxx, or cigarettes, where someone says, “We are going to kill people, but we don’t care, because we are going to make money.” The government's got limited resources, and a lot of priorities, and hindsight as to how they should have been allocated is 20-20. Although all of the warnings were certainly there, it’s hard to believe that the responsible parties truly expected something like this to happen, and they didn’t have anything to gain.

What about private contractors or engineers that were working for the Corps and maybe did have something to gain?

Well, with respect to the 17th Street Canal, Modjeski & Masters apparently told them to dig the sheet piling down to at least 17 feet, if not 37, and the Corps did not listen to them. There may have been some other contractors who were cutting corners, but they are likely going to have all types of immunities and defenses.

What do you tell people from out of town?

Well, you know, I am sympathetic to the people in leadership because they are in kind of a Catch-22. They need to say that the City is up and running and open for business and better than ever, so that they can get the tourism dollars they so desperately need. But they also need to say that the City is a mess in order to get the money out of Congress they desperately need.

Which one is correct?

Well, ironically, both statements are true. If you are a tourist, and you come to New Orleans, and you stay downtown, or in the French Quarter, it’s not that different. You can see the sights, and eat great food, and hear great music, tour the cemeteries and the old Garden District homes, Magazine Street, Royal, St. Charles, all of the art galleries and antique shops, etc., great zoo. But if you go to the places where people actually live, it’s a mess. The hospital system is a mess; the schools are a mess; there’s still no power in places; the drainage pumps are messed up; the houses and neighborhood businesses are destroyed; cable and phone and cellphone service is spotty; traffic; long lines; shorter hours; places are closed; there’s trash; debris. Yet people are coming back. Opening businesses. Rebuilding. There is a lot of chicken-and-the-egg type of things. I can find a job, but not a place to live. I can find a place to live, but I won’t have a job. I can get staff, but no customers. I can get customers, but not enough staff. Makes you realize how interdependent everything is.

Did you agree with the decision to have Mardi Gras?

Absolutely. If for no other reason than to say, “Fuck you, we’re still here.”



Steve Herman

[Note - The views expressed on this political blog New Orleans blog / blawg on Ray Nagin, Eddie Jordan, Katrina-related lawsuits, Nagin's "Chocolate City" comments, Mitch Landrieu, the election, Modjeski & Masters, and Douglas Brinkley are the personal views of Steve Herman and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, Herman Mathis, AAJ, ATLA, LAJ, LTLA, Public Justice, TLPJ, Loyola Law School, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.]

Apparently I was wrong. Apparently the now infamous (or presumably not-so-infamous to a majority of Orleans Parish voters) “Chocolate City” comment wasn’t just something that “clicked”. The mayor is apparently on the road doing some type of dog-and-pony show to tell people in other cities to invest in New Orleans and said it again. I think he was in Chicago, in a church or civics group or something, and he said something about God wanting to shift some type of paradigm. And then something about the Chocolate City... concluding with an invitation to his white chocolate friends, his brown chocolate friends, and definitely his dark chocolate friends to come on down. - (“You’re the next contestant on The Price is Right!”)

FYI, the Times Pic has two interesting stories just yesterday.

Judge Bigelow, while criticizing Jordan’s plan to add more sections of court, mentions that the Judges have been requesting again and again since Katrina for an accounting from the DA’s Office of the cases that are scheduled to come before the Court, but still haven’t received it. Or Jordan’s so-called “plan”.

Then, on the next page, DeBerry talks about how the DA’s Office had to abandon a high-profile murder case involving a toddler because they couldn’t show probable cause, despite the availability of eyewitness testimony. The article goes on to say that, under Jordan, only 41% of violent criminals booked by the police faced actual charges. Jordan tries to blame the police for failing to file reports on time, but there is no way that the DA’s Office doesn’t have, or shouldn’t have, a screener or someone making sure the reports, or whatever needs to be done, get filed.