Welcome to Meteorology Matters. When we think
of a hurricane, our minds often rush to the immediate
devastation, the terrifying force of the wind,
the relentless surge of water, the chaos that
overtakes everything in its path. Absolutely.
That initial impact is just devastating. But
what truly happens after the storm clears? What
kind of aftermath unfolds once the initial blast
has passed? That's the critical question, isn't
it? In the case of New Orleans following Hurricane
Katrina, this period became, as one former mayor
described it, a profound laboratory for innovation
and change. Hmm. Laboratory. That's a loaded
term. It is. And it immediately begs a critical
question. For whom was this innovation truly
happening? And what kind of change actually materialized
on the ground, especially for the city's most
vulnerable residents? Precisely. Because natural
disasters like powerful hurricanes, they don't
just strike a blank slate, they hit existing
social structures. Right. And in doing so, they
often reveal and frankly, brutally amplify the
pre -existing inequalities already embedded within
those structures. So it rips the cover off things
that were already there. Exactly. Which compels
us to ask. What does recovery genuinely mean
when its experience is so dramatically uneven
across a city's population? That's our focus
for this Meteorology Matters exploration. We
want to look beyond the immediate headlines,
uncover the underlying processes that led to
this, well, deeply unequal recovery. And we need
to focus particularly on the specific challenges
encountered by different communities. A critical
eye needs to be on the experiences of low income
African -American women and their families. Because
their story is so central to understanding this.
It really is. We'll explore how policies and
practices, even those often presented as well
intentioned, maybe even neutral, can inadvertently
or sometimes quite deliberately deepen existing
societal divides. And fundamentally reshape a
city along its most entrenched fault lines of
race. and gender. Yeah, those fault lines become
starkly visible. That's a powerful framing. So
let's really zoom in on this idea of New Orleans
as a laboratory and understand what kind of experiment
was actually conducted. Mayor Mitch Landry, as
you mentioned, once lauded the city as the nation's
most immediate lab for innovation and change.
It's quite a boast, isn't it? It is. But this
grand experiment, as it was sometimes termed,
came with a very real and unevenly distributed
cost. Academic and journalistic analyses of the
period really highlight how a major crisis can
become a powerful liver for what some critics
have termed disaster capitalism. Right. This
idea that a crisis becomes an opportunity. Exactly.
An opportunity for certain interests. Some observers
noted that the decade after Katrina presented
a model case study of this, a period where significant
parts of the state's responsibilities and assets
were essentially sold off or transferred to private
players. While citizens were still reeling. while
they were still reeling from the immediate disaster.
And what's more, these reforms were then quickly
made permanent, cementing a new landscape. It's
a stark thought that a catastrophe could be viewed
and leveraged in that way. It's a key takeaway
here how the concept of disaster capitalism provides
a crucial lens. It helps us understand the rapid
acceleration of what we often call neoliberal
policies. Can you unpack that term neoliberal?
in this context? Sure. So neoliberalism here
refers to a set of market -oriented solutions
that tend to prioritize private interests over
public services. It often advocates for reduced
state intervention, favoring private sector involvement
instead. And when a city is devastated, a common
argument emerges. that traditional governmental
approaches have failed. Which sort of clears
the path. It clears the way for these new market
-driven solutions. In New Orleans, this meant
an accelerated intensification of development
and policy changes that, frankly, policymakers
and business elites in other places could only
dream of implementing so swiftly. Like, what
kind of changes are we talking about? Well, we
saw dramatic examples within just three months
of Katrina. The Louisiana legislature controversially
fired seventy five hundred teachers. Seventy
five hundred. Wow. Yeah. And took over one hundred
and seven New Orleans schools. Most of those
were then closed or privatized, transformed into
charter schools. That's a massive shift in public
education done incredibly quickly. Unbelievably
fast. Similarly, the city's major public housing
projects, which were absolutely vital for many
low income families, predominantly African -American.
and families, they were systematically leveled.
Torn down. Torn down and handed over to private
developers. The plan was to replace them with
mixed income communities. Which sounds OK on
the surface, maybe? Mixed income. Well, the reality
was they ultimately housed significantly fewer
families. We're talking a staggering 64 % reduction
in available deeply affordable units compared
to what was there before. 64 % reduction. That's
huge. It's huge. So these swift, profound changes,
often cloaked in the language of efficiency,
innovation, progress, they reveal how a crisis
can become this powerful lever for a neoliberal
agenda. Prioritizing private interests, profit.
Over genuine public benefit often at the direct
expense of the city's most vulnerable citizens
Especially those women heading households we
mentioned earlier. It sounds like this played
out as a stark tale of two cities then Can you
unpack how this rapid reinvention created such
vastly different realities for residents? It
absolutely did On one hand, you had this narrative
of rapid rebuilding. You know, 80 % of homes
destroyed, yet a staggering $71 billion in federal
support poured in. That signals a monumental
effort, right? Yeah, huge sums of money. But
the human story behind that reinvention... It
painted a dramatically different picture for
distinct communities. We witnessed profound demographic
shifts. Like the numbers you mentioned earlier.
Exactly. A tragic figure. Ninety thousand African
-American residents who, years later, still had
not returned to their homes. Ninety thousand
people. Just gone from the city fabric. And alongside
that, an influx of approximately 30 ,000 new
residents, most of whom were white. This wasn't
just a statistical shift. It was a fundamental
reshaping of the city's cultural and social fabric.
And the language used reflected this divide,
didn't it? Completely. The very language used
exposed these deep... fault lines. What was uniformly
described as an existential crisis for many longtime
residents, especially those displaced, became
an opportunity, became framed as an opportunity
for a select few with capital and political connections.
And what was officially labeled neighborhood
revitalization from above was experienced as
something else entirely on the ground. undeniable
gentrification by those who were being pushed
out, their communities transformed beyond recognition,
often losing the very character that made them
home. Delving deeper into that one notable aspect
is how this tale of two cities narrative, while
often presented as somehow unique to New Orleans.
Right, like it was some kind of isolated case.
Yeah, it actually masks a much more universal
pattern of urban redevelopment, doesn't it? It
really does. The notion that New Orleans was
an isolated site of exception, a one -off, incomparable
case, it serves to obscure a critical truth.
Its post -Katrina development actually provided
a powerful prototype, a blueprint almost, for
urban policies that are either already underway
or being considered in other cities facing similar
challenges. Think New York, Cleveland, Detroit.
So what happened there wasn't just about New
Orleans? Not at all. The provisional extensions
of power that were initially justified during
what was deemed a state of exception right after
the storm, they quickly became normalized within
routine governance. Standard operating procedure,
basically. Essentially, yes. The redevelopment
strategies employed in this site of exception
served as a blueprint for how to leverage a crisis
for that neoliberal agenda we talked about. Where
private interests and profit maximization get
prioritized. Over genuine public benefit and
the needs of existing communities. So this isn't
merely about New Orleans, it's a profound lesson
in how cities across the globe can and do respond
to crises. And the often unequal choices they
make about who ultimately benefits from the so
-called recovery. Exactly, who gets included
and who gets left behind. So if New Orleans became
this reluctant laboratory for urban change, it's
crucial to understand the foundation upon which
this experiment was built. What kind of city
was it before Katrina hit? Was it a blank slate
or were there pre -existing conditions that made
it especially vulnerable? Oh, absolutely not
a blank slate. Far from it. What did the housing
landscape look like in New Orleans before the
hurricane? It's vital to recognize that New Orleans
was already grappling with deep -seated inequalities,
particularly concerning housing affordability,
long before Katrina made landfall. The hurricane
didn't create these problems. It simply, as you
said earlier, blew the roof off them quite literally
and magnified their devastating impact. So what
did that look like on the ground pre -Katrina?
Even back in 2000, five years before the hurricane,
census data revealed that two -thirds, two out
of three of extremely low -income households
in New New Orleans were already considered cost
burdened. Cost burdened meaning? Meaning they
were spending over 30 % of their income and often
much, much more just to keep a roof over their
heads. Leaving precious little for food, health
care, anything else. Precisely. And furthermore,
home ownership rates in New Orleans were significantly
lower than both state and national averages.
Less than half of households owned their homes.
Less than half. So a majority were renters. Yes,
a very large portion of the city's population
was already in a precarious housing situation,
renting, often struggling to make ends meet.
This made them extremely vulnerable when any
significant disruption occurred, let alone something
on the scale of Katrina. That paints a stark
picture of pre -existing vulnerability. With
a city already struggling with housing, how did
Katrina itself impact these fragile communities?
Did the storm affect everyone equally? Or did
it, as you suggested, exploit and amplify those
pre -existing economic and racial disparities?
Oh, the impact was anything but indiscriminate.
When Katrina struck, it didn't just cause widespread
destruction. It hit the poorest neighborhoods
hardest. Why was that location? Often, yes. It
specifically wiped out most high -poverty census
tracts. These were frequently historically African
-American communities located in lower lying
areas, making them geographically more susceptible
to flooding. So the geography itself was tied
to historical segregation patterns. Absolutely.
The sheer scale of destruction was immense. An
estimated 80 % of the city was flooded. A staggering
134 ,000 occupied housing units were damaged.
134 ,000. That's roughly 70 % of all occupied
residential units in the city. 70%. It's almost
unimaginable. This disproportionate impact unequivocally
highlights how environmental disasters are never
solely natural phenomena. They become social
disasters. Profoundly social disasters that exploit
and exacerbate pre -existing economic and racial
disparities. That foundational instability in
housing affordability meant that when the storm
surge came, the communities already living on
the margins were the ones most utterly devastated.
Facing not just physical destruction, but the
complete unraveling of their social and economic
fabric. Losing homes, jobs, schools, community
networks, everything. And here's where the story
becomes even more critical and frankly heartbreaking.
At the very core of this pre -existing crisis
and its severe exacerbation post -Katrina was
a profound gendered and racialized impact. Yes.
This is absolutely central. The data reveals
a stark and undeniable reality. Public housing
tenants who faced the most severe displacement
and uncertainty were predominantly low -income
African -American women and their families. Can
you elaborate on the specific numbers? The statistics
are indeed compelling and paint a clear picture
of who bore the heaviest burden. As of 2008,
a few years after the storm, a striking 77 %
of households in public housing. Over three -quarters.
Yes. And an even higher 88 % of voucher -subsidized
housing units in the New Orleans metropolitan
area were headed by women. 88 % with vouchers.
Wow! This means that low -income African -American
women were overwhelmingly at the epicenter of
this housing crisis, both before and especially
after Katrina. And as heads of households, the
burden on them must have been immense. Immense.
These women bore the multifaceted brunt of the
disaster. They were often solely responsible
for finding new, stable housing for their families
in a completely decimated market. Impossible
conditions. Trying to place their children in
new schools, often in unfamiliar cities or states,
navigating the complex and utterly disrupted
landscape of social services, employment, daily
life. all amidst rapidly rising costs and extremely
limited options. Exactly. Their struggle wasn't
just for shelter, it was for the very stability
and future of their families. Their experiences
are absolutely central to understanding the true...
human cost of recovery. And how pre -existing
racial and gender divides were not only revealed
but tragically deepened after the storm. Deepened
and in many ways institutionalized by the recovery
process itself. It's truly difficult to grasp
the scale of this. The very places meant to house
the city's most vulnerable were torn down. And
what replaced them housed significantly fewer
people and often not the original residents.
That's the crux of it. Let's talk about New Orleans's
traditional public housing, known locally as
The Big Four multi -storied complexes like B
.W. Cooper, St. Bernard, C .J. Peat, and Lafitte.
These weren't flimsy structures, were they? Not
at all. They were solidly built brick structures.
And even after the storm and flood, they were
pronounced structurally sound. That's correct.
Engineering reports deemed them sound. Yet the
Housing Authority of New Orleans, ANO, pursued
aggressive demolition plans, even taking legal
action to enable it. Can you detail the scale
of this demolition? The scale was immense. Approximately
4 ,500 public housing units, despite being deemed
structurally sound, were slated for demolition.
4 ,500 units. Gone. And the plans propose to
replace them with only 1 ,600 units of mixed
-intem housing. From 4 ,500 down to 1 ,600. That's
a massive reduction already. And crucially, of
these new 1 ,600 units, only about one -third
would be deeply subsidized, meaning genuinely
affordable to the lowest -income residents, the
original tenants. So only around 500 truly affordable
units replacing 4 ,500. That's the math. By 2013,
the redevelopment had ultimately replaced 6 ,171
pre -storm public housing units citywide, including
others beyond the Big Four, with a mere 2 ,114
new units. OK, so a lightly broader picture there.
6 ,171 down to 2 ,114. Still a huge loss. A huge
loss. And of these new 2 ,114 units, only half
were subsidized or public housing. The other
half were market rate. Meaning completely unaffordable
for the original residents. For the vast majority,
yes. This represents a drastic reduction in deeply
affordable housing stock, a loss of over 65 %
of those original units. It fundamentally transformed
the housing support landscape for thousands of
families. Particularly those headed by low -income
African -American women who had relied on these
homes. They were disproportionately impacted
by this demolition and the failure to replace
those units adequately. That's a staggering reduction.
And this large -scale demolition was funded through
specific federal initiative wasn't it? Yes that's
right. Could you tell us more about the Hope
Six program and how Katrina impacted its implementation
in New Orleans? Absolutely. This large scale
demolition was primarily funded through the Federal
Home Ownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere
program, known as Hope Six. Hope Six. OK. This
program, initiated back in the early 1990s, was
originally designed to revitalize severely distressed
public housing. The idea was to demolish existing
high rise structures and replace them with smaller
mixed income communities. but often with significantly
fewer deeply affordable units, as we just heard.
That was often the outcome. Yes. And what's particularly
striking in New Orleans is that before Katrina,
only one Hope Six project was even planned for
the city. Just one. Just one. And there were
reports the Bush administration was actually
considering canceling the program entirely nationwide
due to mixed results and growing concerns about
displacement. So it wasn't exactly a universally
loved program at the time. No. But the hurricane
created an opportunity, quote unquote, to accelerate
its implementation in New Orleans with what observers
described as zeal. Using the crisis to push through
a program that might have otherwise faded away.
Precisely. And the underlying ideological shift
here, often called the deconcentration thesis,
argued that mixing income levels would somehow
benefit the poor. How so? What was the argument?
The argument was it would expose them to middle
class role models and opportunities, thereby
breaking cycles of poverty, sort of social engineering
through architecture. And the outcome? Well,
as we just discussed, the practical outcome was
a massive reduction in deeply subsidized units.
It effectively pushed out the poorest residents
who, as we've established, were overwhelmingly
low income African -American women and their
children. So the colorblind rhetoric of social
integration. in practice had a profoundly racialized
and gendered impact. It arguably exacerbated
the very inequalities it claimed to address by
dismantling vital community infrastructure without
adequately replacing it for those who needed
it most. And the effects of this demolition and
displacement didn't stop at the public housing
complexes themselves, did they? They rippled
across the entire city's housing market. Oh,
absolutely created immense pressure. How did
this impact rents? And what were the consequences
for the city's low -wage renters? the majority
of the population. The consequences were immediate
and severe. Rents across New Orleans rose sharply
and dramatically. The median rent was up an astonishing
89 % since 2000. 89%. And we saw a particularly
brutal 39 % increase in just the three years
between 2005 and 2008 alone, right after the
storm. Just when people could least afford it.
Exactly. This rapid escalation created what many
called a second exodus. It hit low -wage renters
who were disproportionately African -American,
especially hard. A second wave of displacement
driven by economics this time. You got it. Imagine
36 % of renters in Orleans Parish. A significant
jump from 24 % pre -storm were forced to pay
50 % or more of their pre -tax income just for
housing. Half their income just for rent. Leaving
them with extremely limited resources for everything
else. Food, transportation, child care. It's
an impossible situation. And for those displaced
public housing residents, could they even access
the new mixed income housing? It was incredibly
difficult. They faced much tighter eligibility
restrictions and significantly higher affordability
thresholds. So even the affordable units were...
affordable for them. Often not. These new units
were typically only affordable to those making
maybe 40 % to 100 % of the area median income,
not the original 30 % or less that the most vulnerable
residents relied on. So it was a complete overhaul
that essentially screamed out the poorest. It
effectively made it nearly impossible for many
to return to their communities or even remain
in the city. It locked them out of the new New
Orleans being built. That demonstrates such a
systemic issue where the very policies designed,
ostensibly, to facilitate recovery, instead created
new barriers and reinforced existing ones. Exactly.
It really leaves us wondering who was truly benefiting
from this redevelopment. The narrative of rebuilding
often focuses on, you know, shiny new buildings,
economic revitalization. But the human cost of
these shifts is immense. The policies implemented
created a system where the very people who had
lived in and contributed to these communities
for generations found themselves locked out.
The drastic reduction in affordable housing,
soaring rents, stricter rules. It meant that
the New Orleans was not, in fact, built for the
old New Orleans, particularly the most vulnerable
ones. And this systematic process of displacement
disproportionately affecting low income African
-American women and their families. It reveals
how a market driven recovery can deepen. rather
than alleviate socioeconomic divides. It clearly
demonstrates a racial and gendered bias in the
ultimate outcomes of these post -disaster policies.
Turning recovery itself into a mechanism for
demographic and economic restructuring that favored
a different population. That's a harsh but accurate
assessment of the outcome for many. Speaking
of market -driven recovery, let's turn our attention
to the architects of much of this change. The
developers themselves, and what some have dubbed
the gentrification is good, The idea that market
forces will lift all boats, even if some get
swamped in the process. You had powerful local
figures like Pres Kabakoff and Sean Cummings,
both from families with deep roots in real estate,
who really championed this approach. Kabakoff's
company, HRI Properties, for instance, specialized
in inner -city revitalization. often through
privatizing public housing and creating these
mixed income communities we've been discussing.
Exactly. And projects like the New Orleans Healing
Center or the Bywater Art Lofts, often funded
by a mix of tax credits and grants, were explicitly
designed to attract the creative class, ostensibly
to drive economic growth for the city. It really
felt like these, I don't know, urban alchemists
were turning crisis into what they called growth.
But as we're hearing, this growth wasn't for
everyone. Not at all. And it's striking to observe
how these developers weren't merely reacting
to market forces. They were actively shaping
them. How so? They actively leveraged their influence
to modify federal policy in ways that profoundly
benefited their projects and their particular
vision for the city. Can you give an example?
Sure. Take Preskavikov again. He successfully
lobbied to double the income threshold for affordable
housing units. Doubling the threshold. What does
that mean practically? It meant properties could
qualify for affordable status and the associated
subsidies even if they were priced well out of
reach for the city's poorest residents. It broadened
the definition to include more moderate incomes.
Making it easier for developers to fill units
but not necessarily helping those most in need.
Precisely. He also successfully advocated for
artists to be eligible for affordable housing
which, while seeming positive, also served that
broader goal of attracting a specific creative
class demographic seen as key to gentrification.
And Sean Cummings. His reinventing the Crescent
project involved a massive $300 million transformation
of the Mississippi Riverfront, and he acquired
much of the city owned land for it while he was
concurrently chairing the New Orleans Building
Corporation. He was chairing the city agency
selling the land that he was buying. That's what
the record suggests. It certainly raised significant
ethical questions about the blurring lines between
private game and public service. To their substantial
benefit, yes. This symbiotic relationship between
powerful developers and governmental bodies further
solidified a market -first agenda. often at the
expense of long -established, vulnerable communities.
And what's truly striking, almost jarring, is
that some of these developers were quite candid
about the consequences of their actions. They
were surprisingly open at times. Brest Kabakov
himself, when discussing the effects of revitalization
efforts, was quoted, say, and I'm quoting directly
here, in terms of race. Black people in this
town have less money. When neighborhoods revitalize,
I think it chases all poor out. And in our city,
the poor are almost all black, so it's more of
a coincidence. Coincidence? He continues, and
there's probably some racism involved in that.
That's the downside of neighborhood improvement.
Wow. That's quite an admission. The downside
of neighborhood improvement is chasing out poor
black residents. It's an unflinching truth, right?
A direct acknowledgement of the inherent mechanisms
of displacement embedded within this model of
market dread and redevelopment. That statement
is incredibly revealing. It forces us to ask,
when neighborhood improvement is openly acknowledged
to inherently chase out the poor who are disproportionately
black in New Orleans, is that really a coincidence?
Or is it an inherent feature? Exactly. Is it
an inherent and predictable feature of the underlying
development model being pushed? Such candid admissions
challenge the often assumed neutrality of the
market. Right, the market isn't just some natural
force. No, it reveals the deeply political nature
of these economic processes. It exposes how policies,
even when framed in colorblind terms about economic
efficiency or revitalization, can have profoundly
racial and class -based outcomes. Especially
when they prioritize profit and private investment.
over the fundamental needs and rights of existing
communities. And this is where the racial and
gender divides become even more insidious, often
coded in that seemingly race -neutral language
about income and work ethic, while systematically
impacting specific demographics, particularly
black women and their families. So on one hand,
the city wants the jazz, the gumbo, the unique
vibe, the vibrant culture. The very things that
make New Orleans, New Orleans. But on the other,
it seems to be actively pushing out the very
people who create it. It's such a stark contradiction.
It really is. New Orleans unique culture. It's
live music, distinctive cuisine, iconic architecture.
It's absolutely critical to his tourism economy,
a major industry. Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu
even lobbied Congress for millions to support
cultural tourism. Arguing quite rightly that
Louisiana has an economic asset that other states
can only dream of. A multifaceted, deeply rooted,
authentic and unique culture. But the very culture
bearers. predominantly working -class black residents,
like musicians, chefs, artisans, they face a
minefield of obstacles just trying to return
home and re -establish their lives. It's a profound
and heartbreaking irony. The city celebrates
and aggressively markets its culture. Yet systematically
undermines the ability of the people who embody
and create that culture to actually remain within
it. Exactly. The economic realities for these
culture bearers, predominantly low income African
American individuals and families, meant that
as the city rebuilt and costs soared, they were
being priced out of their own neighborhoods.
Facing immense financial pressure. Immense. Musicians'
average earnings, for instance, remain stagnant
at a meager $17 ,800 per year, according to studies
from the time. $17 ,000 a year, while the cost
of living was skyrocketing. Skyrocketing. And
beyond just economics, they also faced an increasingly
hostile environment. Hostile how? Stricter noise
ordinances, zoning regulations for performance
venues, things like that. Which might be framed
as quality of life improvements for new, wealthier
residents. But directly impacted the livelihoods
and cultural practices of musicians and artists
who rely on those very spaces barred. clubs,
even street corners to earn a living and share
their art. It sounds like a form of cultural
extraction. That's a good term for it. The aesthetic
and economic value of a community's heritage
is embraced and commercialized, but the people
who create and sustain it are effectively pushed
to the margins. Unable to participate in the
revitalization, they are ironically essential
to. And the very presence of working class black
residents in these newly gentrified neighborhoods
was, in essence, sometimes seen as a threat to
the perceived improvement and the desired demographic
shift of the city. Let's shift now to what was
perhaps the most significant state -sanctioned
divide in the post -Katrina recovery, the massive
homeownership bias. Yes, this is absolutely critical
to understanding the unequal recovery. President
George W. Bush's vision, declared in Jackson
Square just weeks after the storm, was crystal
clear. Homeownership is one of the great strengths
of any community, and it must be a central part
of our vision for the revival of this region.
A strong emphasis on owning property. Very strong.
He even proposed an urban homesteading act for
renters, supposedly designed to help them become
homeowners. But that initiative never materialized.
It just vanished. Interesting. So the talk was
there, but the action wasn't. Seems that way.
Instead, the largest federal program, the Road
Home Program, which allotted $15 billion between
2005 and 2007. A huge amount of money. Went overwhelmingly
to homeowners. Can you detail how this program
created such a dramatic imbalance? This brings
us to a critical point regarding the state's
role in actively perpetuating inequality through
policy design, not just passively allowing it.
The Road Home Program, despite its massive funding,
directed a crucial 80 % of its funds to homeowners.
80%. 80 % to homeowners. Despite renters being
the majority of New Orleans's pre -storm population,
it was 55%. Exactly. Renters were the majority,
55%. Yet homeowners got 80 % of the largest pot
of aid. This wasn't just an oversight. It was
a direct policy choice that amplified pre -existing
disparities based on wealth and race. And homeowners
got other benefits, too. Yes. To make matters
worse, homeowners also benefited from the extension
of federal tax credits, providing further financial
advantages. And who benefited most from this
homeowner focus? Unsurprisingly, the vast majority
of these benefits disproportionately accrued
to white homeowners who, due to historical inequities
like redlining and discriminatory lending, were
much more likely to own property in the first
place. So the program reinforced historical advantages.
Absolutely. This program, while presented as
a neutral disaster relief effort, was in fact
an extension of historical entitlements that
inherently favored property owners. It transformed
disaster aid into a mechanism for transfer, bolstering
those who already possessed assets rather than
being a truly equitable recovery effort. And
it solidified this idea you mentioned, a property
-based definition of urban citizenship. Precisely.
Where simply owning property dictated who received
significant government support and who was largely
left to navigate a decimated housing market alone,
particularly renters, overwhelmingly African
-American renters. So while homeowners were receiving
the lion's share of aid, what about renters and
the small renters owners who provided most of
the city's rental stock. They faced huge disadvantages,
right? Immense disadvantages and frustrating
administrative hurdles. The contrast is stark
and really highlights a systemic issue. How little
aid went to them. Only a meager 20 % of the road
home funds went to small rental owners. Just
20%. Even though they provided over 80 % of the
city's pre -storm rental stock. That's right.
These were often local individuals or families
who owned maybe a duplex or a few small properties,
providing naturally occurring affordable housing
to their communities. They were a vital part
of the housing ecosystem. And the hurdles they
faced getting that 20%. Imagine this, small rental
owners only received eligibility letters for
road home funds after they had already rebuilt
their properties. Wait, after? How could they
rebuild without the funds? Exactly. It effectively
disqualified countless individuals who simply
couldn't afford to front the massive cost of
reconstruction themselves. It was an impossible
catch -22 for many, a bureaucratic nightmare.
That seems designed to fail, almost. It certainly
had that effect. And on top of that, new requirements
for improved amenities and adherence to stricter,
new building codes, while maybe well -intentioned
for future housing quality, added significant,
often prohibitive costs and delays for rebuilding
affordable rental housing. Making it even harder
and more expensive. for those small landlords.
Much harder. And the result? Three years after
the storm, studies showed only 13 rebuilt affordable
rental units could be directly attributed to
road home funds. 13 out of a $15 billion program.
13 units specifically for affordable rentals
from that main program. It's shockingly low compared
to the billions poured into homeownership. Meanwhile,
what was happening to property values in areas
that didn't flood? Property values in unflooded,
often wealthier and wider areas, like the historically
elevated sliver by the river near the Garding
District in Uptown, they received a huge boost.
So existing homeowners there saw big profits.
Significant profits further widening the already
massive economic chasm between property owners
and renters and between white and black communities
in the city. That's such a clear example of how
housing tenure whether you owned or rented, became
a gatekeeper for full urban participation. It
really does seem like there was a tacit property
-based definition of urban citizenship at play.
Indeed. It demonstrates a system where your ability
to return to the city, to find work, to enroll
your kids in school, to even participate politically,
was directly tied to whether you owned property.
How did that play out practically with things
like temporary housing? Well, homeowners, for
instance, were allowed to place Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or FEMA, trailers directly
on their private property. Giving them a place
to live, even if basic, right in their neighborhood.
Exactly. It gave them a crucial advantage immediate,
albeit temporary, housing. It allowed them to
return to work sooner, to oversee repairs, and
importantly, to participate in local reconstruction
decisions and planning meetings. And renters.
Renters were not afforded the same right. They
couldn't just put a FEMA trailer anywhere. Many
were relegated to vast, often isolated trailer
camps located outside the city limits. Cut off
from jobs, transportation, their old communities.
Completely cut off, often in areas lacking basic
services or social networks. Others face precarious
and often temporary hotel stays or struggle to
find scarce, expensive rental accommodations.
So this created that de facto citizenship definition
you mentioned. Yes. A tacit property based definition
of urban citizenship where without private property
the majority of citizens particularly low -income
African -American women and their families had
no legal or practical claim to return easily
to their neighborhoods or to meaningfully participate
in the city's political institutions and decision
making processes. Their physical displacement
became a political disenfranchisement as well.
It absolutely did. Losing your home meant losing
your foothold in the city in multiple ways. This
whole discussion brings us to some fundamental
critiques that seem to resonate across history.
We can look back to Friedrich Engels' seminal
work from the 19th century, The Housing Question,
and see some startling parallels in post -Katrina
New Orleans. It's surprising how relevant those
19th century critiques still feel, isn't it?
It really is. Engels argued that framing housing
solutions purely on rights and justice can be
insufficient if it doesn't fundamentally address
the underlying economic relations and power structures.
Right. The focus on abstract rights can sometimes
obscure the concrete economic realities. So in
New Orleans, how did the legal framework of property
rights? maybe designed decades ago for different
circumstances, becomes such an unquestionable
force, pushing out the very idea of a universal
right to housing after a disaster. That's a crucial
connection. Engel's critique helps us understand
that legal frameworks, even when presented as
neutral or universal, are often deeply rooted
in existing economic relations and can serve
to mask and perpetuate inequalities. How did
that play out with federal aid? In post -Katrina
New Orleans, federal aid for private property
losses became almost automatically legitimized
through historical precedent. It became a kind
of policy doxa, an unquestioned belief or common
opinion within policy circles that property rights
were paramount. So it didn't even need debating
anymore. It felt like it no longer required serious
legislative deliberation. This uncritical acceptance
of property rights as the primary frame meant
that aid flowed predominantly to homeowners without
a deeper critical examination of who those homeowners
were, who they weren't, and what that meant for
broader social equity. And this sidelined other
ways of thinking about recovery. Absolutely.
It supplanted a much needed broader discussion
of inequality and the potential for, say, a right
to return or a right to housing for everyone
affected, it effectively marginalized the political
responses of community groups advocating for
renters. Like Acorn, the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform now. They were big in
New Orleans, right? They had their largest chapter
in the city, yes. Their efforts to advocate for
a more equitable recovery for renters were often
dismissed or sidelined because the dominant legalistic
approach effectively depoliticized the discussion.
Making it seem like the government was just upholding
established rights. Rather than making a strategic
choice that dramatically favored one segment
of the population, largely more affluent white
residents over another predominantly low -income
African -American women and their families. Beyond
the legal framework, there was also a significant
moral component to how the housing crisis was
framed, wasn't there? Again, echoing Engel's
critique of those who linked housing shortages
to the supposed moral failings of the poor. Yes,
that narrative was unfortunately quite prevalent.
In post -Katrina, New Orleans, there was a discourse
that associated poor people and public housing
residents with things like laziness, welfare
drainage, a lack of investment in their own neighborhoods.
This is where the racial and gender divides become
even more insidious, often coded in that seemingly
race neutral language about income and work ethic,
but clearly targeting specific groups. Can you
give some examples of this moralizing rhetoric?
Well, this Deserving versus undeserving poor
narrative effectively demonized those who were
most vulnerable and conveniently justified their
exclusion from recovery efforts. For instance,
the New York Times columnist David Brooks infamously
advised integrating people who lack middle -class
skills into neighborhoods with people who possess
these skills, which subtly blames the poor for
their own situation, implying they just need
exposure to better people. Exactly. It locates
the problem within the individual, not the system.
More explicitly, the New Orleans City Council
president at the time made a highly problematic
comment suggesting public housing should be reserved
for those willing to work and not for soap opera
watchers. Wow. Directly linking housing insecurity
to perceived moral failings or lack of effort.
Just blatant. Blatant. This moralized discourse
served to deflect attention from the systemic
causes of poverty and housing insecurity. Things
like low wages, lack of affordable child care,
historical discrimination, and place the blame
instead on individuals. It's a powerful tool
for maintaining existing hierarchies, isn't it?
Incredibly powerful. It allows policymakers and
perhaps segments of the public to rationalize
decisions that deepen inequality by framing them
as the natural consequences of individual choices
rather than the result of deliberate policy.
And what about the grassroots recovery efforts
led by nonprofits and philanthropists? Didn't
that help? While there was a visible push for
that and many groups did amazing work on the
ground, the overall structure often masked systematic
inequalities in resource distribution. Wealthier,
predominantly white, homeowner groups were often
better connected, had more resources, and were
simply more effective at capturing and benefiting
from the available aid and philanthropic dollars.
Where even the grassroots efforts could reflect
the existing power dynamics. To a large extent,
yes. The moral framing effectively served as
a smokescreen for the continued advance of urban
neoliberalism, blaming the poor for their own
displacement while facilitating market -driven
redevelopment. And finally, we have to look at
the housing question through the lens of urban
development itself. How post -Katrina redevelopment
was often framed as just urban development as
usual. Right, as if a catastrophic disaster didn't
fundamentally change the context. Ingalls critiqued
how modernized housing projects in his time often
benefited capitalists more than the poor they
were supposedly built for. Here we saw what's
been called an unprecedented supply side policy.
Creating essentially a free enterprise zone with
extensive tax exempt financing, depreciation
benefits, things designed to spur private investment.
And what was the outcome of this approach? What
got built? The outcome was a dramatic surge in
luxury condos and high end apartments catering
primarily to wealthier new residents or investors,
while deeply affordable housing remained incredibly
scarce. So the subsidies ended up fueling luxury
development. To a significant degree, yes. The
expensive tax cuts and incentives associated
with this free enterprise zone effectively masked
the state's significant hand in subsidizing private,
often luxury development, not affordable housing
for those displaced. It's truly paradoxical then
that in 2009, when the city was still desperate
for affordable housing, the Louisiana State Bond
Commission actually stalled affordable housing
subsidies for over a year. Stalled them? Why?
Citing fears of too much affordable housing,
their stated concern was that an abundance of
affordable units would detract from the demand
for market rate housing and thus hinder private
development profits. Let me get this straight.
They were worried that helping the poor too much
would hurt the market for the rich. in the middle
of a housing crisis after a disaster. That was
the explicit logic presented. It reveals the
deeply ingrained market first agenda. Any other
examples of that thinking? The speaker of the
Louisiana House of Representatives at the time
even expressed concerns about the concentration
of low and moderate income people all over the
city and its potential major impact on employment
and lifestyle. Wow. that powerfully reveals the
underlying social anxieties and biases against
lower -income residents, framing their very presence
as a problem for the city's desired image and
economy. It demonstrates how the state, under
the guise of market -led recovery, actively intervened
to protect and expand the interests of the property
class. The decisions made by institutions like
the Bond Commission, cloaked in economic rationale,
had direct detrimental consequences for low -income
residents. Particularly low -income African -American
women who relied disproportionately on affordable
housing. Exactly. It reveals how the language
of urban development can be manipulated to serve
specific economic interests, transforming the
city itself into a commodity where the perceived
value of property and attracting higher -income
residents take precedence over the fundamental
human right to adequate housing for all. In the
face of all these systemic challenges, though,
it's incredibly important to remember that there
was and continues to be significant resistance.
People didn't just accept this. No, absolutely
not. There was incredible organizing and pushback.
Social justice activists and post -Katrina New
Orleans adopted the powerful framework of the
right of return for displaced residents. And,
importantly, extended it to argue for a fundamental
human right to housing. Where did that framing
come from? It was firmly grounded in international
human rights treaties, specifically citing things
like the guiding principles on internal displacement.
It tried to elevate the issue beyond local politics
to universal principles. And they took legal
action, too. Yes, they filed a major class action
lawsuit against the Department of Housing and
Urban Development HUD, known as the NOAA case,
representing public housing residents who had
lost their homes and were being denied return.
So, a powerful attempt to challenge the established
narrative and the legal frameworks that were
facilitating displacement using a human rights
lens. A very powerful attempt. But it illustrates
the formidable obstacles faced when trying to
challenge entrenched power structures and dominant
ideologies. Especially when those structures
are clearly benefiting from the very crisis they
are supposedly addressing. Right. Human rights
organizations, or HROs, faced significant difficulties
in actually advancing these human rights frames
within the established housing and community
development field, the HCD field. Why with that?
Weren't people receptive? It was complicated.
Many chose an inside strategy, trying to work
within existing institutional channels to affect
change, lobbying legislators, working with agencies.
Trying to get incremental change from within
the system. Exactly. But these channels often
prioritized what they called resonant frames,
language they thought would appeal to policymakers.
Like what? Things like housing opportunity or
choice. These were perceived as more palatable,
less confrontational than what were deemed more
radical frames like human rights or right to
return. So the human rights language was seen
as too challenging? By some key players, yes.
Research suggests that some organizations, like
a prominent national affordable housing advocacy
group referred to as Housing Org in some analyses,
actively marginalized the human rights message.
Fearing it would damage their legislative agenda
in Washington, maybe compromise their relationships
with funders, or make it harder to get bipartisan
support for policy changes. They saw it as potentially
counterproductive to their more mainstream goals.
So it forces this incredibly tough choice for
activists, doesn't it? It's a real bind. Do you
stick to your radical principles, speak truth
to power using the strongest moral language,
and risk being ignored or sidelined? Or do you
soften your message, use the resonant frames
to gain a seat at the table, potentially diluting
your original transformative impact, but maybe
achieving small wins? It's a constant, difficult
negotiation between principle and pragmatism
that grassroots groups face all the time. And
it speaks to the ongoing complex struggle for
equitable and humane reconstruction in New Orleans
and really beyond. The fight for these principles
continues. It does. With some struggles expanding
into what's known as the right to the city, a
broader concept advocating for all residents,
especially the marginalized, to have a say and
a stake in how their urban environment is shaped
and governed. And there's also a significant
shift or at least an attempt towards overhauling
federal disaster response legislation. Like the
Stafford Act. Right. The Stafford Act typically
governs how the government provides disaster
relief and dictates federal resources after major
emergencies. And the goal is to incorporate human
rights principles directly into those foundational
laws. That's the push. To make equity and human
rights central to disaster response from the
outset, not an afterthought. It shows that while
the battles are hard fought, often involving
difficult compromises, the fundamental questions
are still being asked. questions about who gets
to rebuild, who truly benefits, and who has a
right to return and a right to the city, they're
still very much alive and evolving. And this
underscores the critical need for deep, rigorous
practice and scholarship that actively confronts
the persistence of racial and gender inequality
in urban contexts, especially now in the wake
of increasing climate related disasters. Because
the New Orleans experience, particularly for
low income African American women and their families,
vividly illustrates how natural disasters are
not just physical events. They are profound social
and economic reconfigurations that expose and
exacerbate pre existing racial and gender inequalities.
It's not an isolated case. Not at all. It serves
as a powerful canary in a coal mine for other
communities grappling with the increasing frequency
and intensity of climate related disasters and
the complex urgent issues of achieving truly
equitable recovery. And that wraps up another
illuminating exploration here on meteorology
matters. We hope this look at post -Katrina New
Orleans gave you a lot to think about regarding
the long -term impacts of hurricanes and these
crucial issues of equitable recovery. It raises
fundamental questions. It really does. When the
market's the market, as one official put it,
but if that market consistently pushes out the
most vulnerable, then what is our collective
responsibility? Should housing be treated purely
as a commodity or as a fundamental human right
for everyone? something to really ponder. A crucial
question for our times. You can continue this
conversation by hitting that like button, subscribing,
and leaving a review for the Meteorology Matters
podcast. Your feedback really helps us reach
more listeners. We appreciate the support. To
keep up with all things weather and beyond, you
can follow meteorologist Rob Jones on Instagram,
at, at, meteorologist. That's all one word, meteorologist.
And on TikTok. On TikTok, he's at TV Meteorologist.
And on YouTube, just search for Rob Jones Hurricane.
Again, all one word, where you'll also find the
Meteorology Matters podcast playlist with all
our deep dives. Great resources there. We look
forward to our next exploration together on Meteorology
Matters.