Log In | Register
30 Comments
PrintGustav revives question: Is New Orleans worth it?
Tue Sep 2, 2008 3:25 AM EDT
Images 
(showing 1 of 2 photos)
(showing 1 of 2 photos)advertisement
Those who love New Orleans say Hurricane Gustav is proof that the billions of dollars spent to protect the city and bring it back to life after the devastating 2005 storm season was worth it.
But what if Gustav had been stronger, a category 4 instead of a 2, and hit the city directly instead of 70 miles to the west? Would it be worth the cost to rebuild New Orleans again if the storm caused widespread destruction as Katrina did?
"That's a question that was there before and after (Hurricane) Katrina, and I think is going to come to the forefront again," said Don Powell, who oversaw the Bush administration's effort to rebuild the Gulf Coast in 2005.
"There's a lot of reasons to continue," Powell said Monday, his voice trailing off. "That's a debate we will continue to have."
Despite fizzling out shortly after it made landfall Monday, Gustav spurred the government into action, probably costing millions of dollars, and put a nation angered by the bungled response to Katrina three years ago back on alert.
Since Katrina ripped through New Orleans three years ago, the federal government has devoted at least $133 billion in emergency funds and tax credits for Gulf Coast disaster relief. Much of it went to rebuilding and better protecting New Orleans from future storms. How much more will be needed after Gustav — or Hurricane Hanna, as that storm creeps up Florida's eastern coast — is unclear.
Former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., infuriated Louisiana lawmakers when he suggested in 2005 that a lot of New Orleans "could be bulldozed" after Katrina and questioned the wisdom of rebuilding it. More dispassionate observers note that no matter how much is spent, New Orleans will continue to swallow federal dollars with each gulp of the Gulf or Lake Pontchartrain.
"New Orleans didn't rise up in the ground from where they were before," Harvey E. Johnson, deputy director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said shortly before Gustav's landfall. "They're still below sea level. So you're still going to get water inside of New Orleans. And they know that."
A study last month by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, concluded that 72 percent of the city's households that fled Katrina returned to New Orleans, as did 90 percent of its sales tax revenues. However, as many as 65,000 blighted properties or empty lots still mar the city, and house rents are up 46 percent.
To die-hard residents and other devotees of the Big Easy, the money poured into the Gulf Coast to continue oil production, preserve local culture and, most importantly, strengthen levees showed that New Orleans could withstand another battering by Mother Nature.
"This will actually be good news, because this makes clear that the historic city can be protected," said Walter Isaacson, former vice chairman of the Louisiana Recovery Authority during the administration of ex-Gov. Kathleen Blanco. "New Orleans rebuilt itself because people love the place, and we're all heartened that the new levee system seems strong, and the city seems safe.
"The worst has passed."
Some observers aren't so sure.
"It's a soup bowl and it's not safe," said Beverly Cigler, a public policy professor at Penn State University, referring to the city's cup-shaped geography.
Local political eagerness to develop property in New Orleans instead of protecting wetlands, which serve as a natural storm buffer, has hampered safety, said Cigler, co-chair of a Katrina task force set up by the American Society for Public Administration. Levees, meanwhile, are still three years away from being fully strengthened. And since there are differing levels of elevation throughout the city, "some places are safer than others."
"My own personal opinion is that you shouldn't rebuild in areas unless you can make them safe," she said. "And nobody's had the willingness to confront these kinds of issues."
Yet abandoning New Orleans hardly seems an option either.
The Gulf Coast is home to nearly half the nation's refining capacity, 25 percent of offshore domestic oil production and 15 percent of natural gas output. Tens of thousands of construction workers, hoteliers, nurses and other service employees who flocked to New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath have helped keep local unemployment low. Not to mention that giving up would, essentially, mean spending all those billions of dollars for naught.
"It's clear that a lot of the money was spent well — even if it's far too early to declare victory," said Don Kettl, University of Pennsylvania public policy professor and co-editor of "On Risk and Disaster: Lessons From Hurricane Katrina."
"If you walk away, you are condemning the city to tremendous suffering," Kettl said. "As serious as the suffering was the last time, it didn't completely destroy the city. The real challenge is deciding what kind of city you want."
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Lara Jakes Jordan covered the federal response to hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005 and 2006.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
10 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Lara Jakes Jordan's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: United States , Jordan
 | Hurricane Gustav slams La.; 1M without power | Associated Press | Wed Aug 27 | 0 |
 | Caution urged as Gustav weakens | BBC News | Tue Sep 2 | 0 |
| Gustav no Katrina, but exposes flaws in levees | Associated Press | Mon Sep 1 | 0 |
| Gustav overtopping Industrial Canal barrier in New Orleans.ยป | Think Progress | Mon Sep 1 | 0 |
| Hurricane Gustav Hits U.S. Coast | Agence-France Presse | Mon Sep 1 | 2 |
- Public Discussion (30)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
15
5.7
2.7
{"commentId":2690861,"authorDomain":"seward"}
I have never visited America, but if I ever were to do so, the one City, the one Magical Place that I would like to see and spend some time in, would be New Orleans.
So, yes, for the thousands of people who live and work there, and who call it "Home", yes, of course it's worth it.
{"commentId":2690861,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"seward"}
- 5 votes
#1 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 4:10 AM EDT{"commentId":2691356,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
Sandie,
I hope that you will get your chance. That town has so much soul and history.
{"commentId":2691356,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2701437,"authorDomain":"seward"}
Thank you, New Draper. I hope so, too.
{"commentId":2701437,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"seward"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2710312,"authorDomain":"tcervo"}
I love New Orleans. I've been there 4 times, 3 of those were pre-Katrina. I was there last summer, and was saddened by how different the city was. Many of those who left after Katrina never returned. There's just a completely different vibe there. I found some semblance of the Big Easy I remembered, but there were many reminders that it is a different place than it was before Katrina. I hope the city can get all the way back, and the long-time residents will return.
{"commentId":2710312,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"tcervo"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2691169,"authorDomain":"tipswordgk"}
Like many other places around the U.S., the majority of the taxpayers are paying for a few small percentage of people to live somewhere that mother nature overpowers from time to time. New Orleans is no different from other locations around the Gulf or Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. If we can't protect it from mother nature. Why continue to rebuild there? Those areas are money pits for taxpayer and insurance company monies. Everyone pays for the few.
{"commentId":2691169,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"tipswordgk"}
- 3 votes
#2 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 6:16 AM EDT{"commentId":2691343,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
A) We can protect it. That is to say, we can restore the natural boundaries and protections that we have destroyed.
B) Restoring one of the worlds most historic cities is incredibly important. We have disaster relief funds for just such.... well.... disasters.
c) And this is the thing you need to understand the most. This city is home to a bunch of people, a bunch of American citizens. We all pitch in for each other. When the midwest flooded, or bridges collapse, or earthquakes tear up cities, or volcanoes spew ash and dust we are all in it together. That is that. End of discussion. Sometimes I wonder when we all got to be so selfish.
{"commentId":2691343,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2693497,"authorDomain":"jppager"}
A) More cost
B) More cost
C) More cost
I don't want an unproportionate amount of my money going to one spot. That is what is going to happen in places like New Orleans: disasters will come and wreak havic.
It's not selfish to ask others to be wise in where they locate. I live in an area where I think ranks in the bottom ten for deadly disasters. If someone wants to come live near me, I'm all for it. Enjoy my safety at a cheaper cost.
People have a right to live where they want to, but they don't have a right to expect a bail out. If I built my house in such a manner that it was prone to collapse, and it collapsed, I would have no one to blaim but myself. If I build my house in an area susceptible to hurricanes, and a hurricane came, I would have no one to blaim but myself.
{"commentId":2693497,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"jppager"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2703619,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
Kind of like Mt. St. Helens, Earthquakes, Floods, Tornadoes, fires, oil spills. Shall I continue? I think it is pretty proportional.
I think to make your argument you would also have to factor in the revenue generated by the tourist dollars in the areas you are talking about. It is a pretty complex issue indeed.
What concerns me is the I, me, mine attitude. We are all Americans. New Orleans is an American city. That may not convince you, but it is enough for me.
If we can justify the bucks going into Iraq; we can damn sure justify building the levees properly.
{"commentId":2703619,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2707103,"authorDomain":"jppager"}
If it was proportional, it could be taken care of on a local level.
{"commentId":2707103,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"jppager"}
{"commentId":2708784,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
Do you have any earthly idea what you are talking about?
Read up on hurricanes and get back to me.
{"commentId":2708784,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2738326,"authorDomain":"jppager"}
You said the spending was proportional. Proportional means that each area receives about the same portion that they put out. If that was the case, federal spending would be pointless. But we spend federally because City A gets into more financial trouble than City B, requiring money from City A + B to be distributed to City A. That is not proportional.
So what this has to do with how Hurricanes operate (Really, what do I need to research about hurricanes? Their likeliness? Predictability?), I don't know. It has to do with New Orleans being continually hit by hurricanes until there is no more ocean there, requiring an unproportionate amount of spending.
You know full well that New Orleans takes in more than it gives. That means there has to be an area that gives more than it takes in. People can stand mosquitoes sucking blood from them only so long. (And don't get defensive about the analogy, it's a bash of the system, not the people)
Why do only large cities deserve fancy infrastructure? Nowhereville USA is an American city. They deserve subways just as much as New York does. Same goes for me paying to repair someones risk prone city.
{"commentId":2738326,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"jppager"}
{"commentId":2691357,"authorDomain":"psulion"}
I think the very last line of the article says it all..."The real challenge is deciding what kind of city you want." The United States has always been a country that feels compelled to help, whether within our borders our out (sometimes whether our help is wanted or not).
It does raise the question though of how much is enough? Gustav did not cause as much damage as expected, but the costs for the response before it arrived will be significant. It remains to be seen what the totals will be after all the damage has been assessed. I cannot imagine being an insurance provider down there the last few years.
If Gustav had been strong enough the break the levees, would it make sense to spend hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars again to rebuild. For people that call the area home, I'm sure the answer is yes. You can't just abandon a city where millions of people live. However, there's the saying about throwing good money after bad. If weather patterns are beginning to change, and this area is now more prone to stronger storms on a more frequent basis, then how much is our Government willing to commit on an ongoing basis to rebuild after such events?
Look at the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Build a house on this beach and if a flood damages it, we'll pay. Why don't we have a National Tornado Insurance Program, and a National Hail Insurance Program, etc., etc.? This is just a microcosm of why Government spending has gotten so out of control. The weather cannot be prevented, but there are may ways to prepare for it. We should ask if our methods of preparation make sense.
I think that, if these events continue to occur, we will see the population of the New Orleans area slowly decline over time. Think about what this was like for the 1M - 2M people that had to pack up and trek out of town. Many will eventually get tired of the constant inconvenience and seek a new home elsewhere.
The city will not go away, and we will not abandon it. However, we do need to be smart in how we address the protection for it against events which we cannot control.
{"commentId":2691357,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"psulion"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 7:25 AM EDT{"commentId":2691385,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
Look at the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Build a house on this beach and if a flood damages it, we'll pay. Why don't we have a National Tornado Insurance Program, and a National Hail Insurance Program, etc., etc.?
Better question: Why don't the insurance policies we pay into our whole lives (practically) cover all these things?
{"commentId":2691385,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2691690,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
So what did people do before government bailouts? or insurance companies? Katrina wasn't the first big storm to hit New Orleans. How about the big earthquake in San Fransisco in the early 1900s? After each of these natural disasters the people buried thier dead and got on with the business of living. Some moved away others chose to stay and hope it didn't happen again. The American dream of working hard and making it means that sometimes life slaps you down to zero and you have to start over. That's what people did back then why do we now feel that the government has to fix it?
I'm all for giving someone a helping hand and by that I mean a hand not a handout. I'll help you build in a safer place but if you chose to live where a naturally occuring disaster has happened repeatablly then you are on your own. Why rebuild under sea level when there are plenty of places above high tide? Why rebuild on a flood plain when there's that hill back there that never goes underwater?
Don't get me wrong I'm sure that NO was and is a great city with a long history. But I'm sure it didn't start being built under sea level. Why continue to keep making the same mistake over again?
{"commentId":2691690,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2692146,"authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}
Steve, out of sheer foolishness. We destroy the coastal buffer and continue rebuilding a city that doesn't belong where it is.
{"commentId":2692146,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"backroadsbubba"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":2714467,"authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
Steve,
Thanks for the astute analysis of the situation. You may consider a few things, though, like population, building costs, infrastructure, materials, etc. when comparing this disaster to something that happened in the 1900s. I don't think there is much to compare really.
Everyone,
I think we all need to take a deep breath here and look at some facts. (After all, it is a little egotistical, pompous even, to assume the position that we get to call whether an entire city survives or not.) Megalomania aside, has anyone stopped to think that it would be more costly to raze a city, displace millions of people, close industry, and police the ruins than it would be to rebuild?
The thing that no one is mentioning here is that Katrina did not destroy New Orleans. The catastrophe was that the levees broke. Everyone was well aware of the problem. Money was allocated. Nothing was done. Infrastructure is a nation wide problem that must be addressed. (I might add, also, that the levees breaking did not destroy the city either. There are some resilient folks down there.)
Some flooding occurred with Gustav. The city wasn't destroyed. Disasters occur all over the nation. WE ALL PITCH IN AND TAKE CARE OF ONE ANOTHER! If you can't dig that, you don't need to call yourself Americans. This I, me, mine attitude, the complete disregard of compassion, the loss of any notion of duty to our fellow human beings. This is the downfall of this nation. It is far more insidious than terrorism.
{"commentId":2714467,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"NewDraper"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2714972,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
I'm all for pitching in to help our neighbors when bad things happen. I'm not for helping them make the same mistakes again.
After the big floods along the Mississippi a while back why did they rebuild in the same places? The towns were settled where they were because the river was the main transportation route in the 1800s and people lived near where they worked. Now we have cars and busses to get to work and trucks to move most freight.
The fact remains that N. O. is build under sea level. Most of the population was moved out after Katrina. Sure leave what wasn't destroyed but don't rebuild the whole city in the same place.
{"commentId":2714972,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
{"commentId":2691366,"authorDomain":"geekmo44"}
I have been to N.O. a number of times. My wife and I love the food, the music and the "old feel" but with parts of it being 18 ft. under sea level, it never should have been built. It's a big bowl and even a normal rain storm turns into flooding their. Don't get me wrong,the charm of the city brings us back and until the day when "they" say enough is enough and demolish it, I'll be coming back. I'm just happy that most people listened and left when told too.
{"commentId":2691366,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"geekmo44"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 7:26 AM EDT{"commentId":2693628,"authorDomain":"washingtoncm"}
Why do we ask this question about New Orleans and not Los Angeles and San Francisco? Both of which are on fault lines. And all scientists say that it's just a matter of time before the BIG one hits.
Discrimination based on race/socio-economic factors comes out in many shapes and colors. Sometimes the person doesn't even realize they're being racist; until their comment is analyzed and served back to them.
So unless you are prepared to make the same statement for ANY city living in a natural danger zone, ask yourself, "Why does this seem like an acceptable solution for New Orleans and nowhere else."
Re-birth, Re-build, Re-New Orleans.
{"commentId":2693628,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"washingtoncm"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 10:51 AM EDT{"commentId":2696312,"authorDomain":"jppager"}
If San Francisco were destroyed, I would be against rebuilding it (however, since it's more affluent, people might rebuild without the governments help, no way to know). Florida, also. There are simply areas that people choose to live in that pose greater risk than others. Rather than admit that, people want that risk removed.
{"commentId":2696312,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"jppager"}
{"commentId":2693663,"authorDomain":"dreamer"}
Um. It's below sea level; the cost of repairing it year after year-not worth it.
{"commentId":2693663,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"dreamer"}
- 4 votes
#6 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 10:53 AM EDT{"commentId":2701542,"authorDomain":"Merchant"}
I think we have to look at New Orleans as a challenge. This isn't something you can only think of yearly, but maybe a hundred years into the future. The sea level will continue to rise no matter what we do. So if we decide to stand by New Orleans it should be long term, not something used as a political hot potato. It should be done, frankly, as a source of national pride. It may be as big a project like the Hoover Dam, if not bigger.
{"commentId":2701542,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"Merchant"}
- 1 vote
#7 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 4:15 PM EDT{"commentId":2705746,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
I'm confused. Which part of national pride says we have to make the same mistake over again? The city is built below sea level. It takes a massive amount of funding to keep it there, plain and simple. So why not say that as a national challenge we are going to rebuild it better then it ever was but over "there" on the higher ground. (there being someplace above the highest tide)
As for comment #5: please this has nothing to do with the color of skin or how much you make (at least from me, I'm a mutt. so if I start being a racist I'd hate myself) In my mind it has to do with not repeatly making a mistake. If you hit yourself on the thumb with a hammer you watch where you put your hand the next time. Why shouldn't this lesson be the same with rebuilding a city? When SF was leveled a 100 years ago the feds didn't rebuild it, the people that wanted to live there did. If you look at the racial make up of LA I think you'll find that the minority is caucasian.
{"commentId":2705746,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2709013,"authorDomain":"makinhavoc"}
It is a city of history. What part of the word history do you not understand? To keep rebuilding something that can't exist is silly.
{"commentId":2709013,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"makinhavoc"}
- 1 vote
#8 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 10:48 PM EDT{"commentId":2710469,"authorDomain":"Merchant"}
I never said we have to repeat our mistakes, that simply won't due. If we repeat our mistakes then we are NOT saving a city, we are insuring its doom. It is a source of national pride and therefore we should be smart about it. If necessary we could remove the city brick by brick. Simply put, we should be smart about saving NO, but the country as a whole should decide to do it.
{"commentId":2710469,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"Merchant"}
#9 - Tue Sep 2, 2008 11:40 PM EDT{"commentId":2728862,"authorDomain":"Merchant"}
Um. It's below sea level; the cost of repairing it year after year-not worth it.
Yes, NO is a city in a bowl vulnerable to heavy seas and flooding. There is no way I can refute this argument.
However, if you ask someone what New Orleans is worth to you, is there a price tag?
I'm of the feeling of New Orleans being priceless, so its only a question of engineering to me.
{"commentId":2728862,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"Merchant"}
- 1 vote
#10 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 3:58 PM EDT{"commentId":2738479,"authorDomain":"jppager"}
Great. Now we can make New Orleans the City of Ornate Spending. Lets show the world that we can literally throw money into the ocean and not even flinch. Everything must have a price--there has to be a point where we say no.
{"commentId":2738479,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"jppager"}
{"commentId":2742240,"authorDomain":"Merchant"}
Great. Now we can make New Orleans the City of Ornate Spending. Lets show the world that we can literally throw money into the ocean and not even flinch. Everything must have a price--there has to be a point where we say no.
If you only look at a problem as a price tag then you miss the point.
We know there are things we can do other than the failed policies and neglect. Repairing the marches around the region, in areas where buildings haven't been repaired or repopulated could be turned into an area where we do not build, a spillway I think. Where revitalization has occurred stronger levies can be placed.
Again, look beyond the cost: There lessons to be learned here. There are other cities along the coast of the United States that can benefit from what we learn from New Orleans. If all we learn is that we should abandon New Orleans, then you may as well prepare to abandon New City and Washington D.C. Hurricanes don't usually affect these cities like NO, but they are vulnerable. I must point out that seas levels are going to rise.
Everything must have a price--there has to be a point where we say no.
Maybe you have a point.
Maybe we can save money by abandoning Washington DC, after all parts of this city is only 6ft. above sea level.
{"commentId":2742240,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"Merchant"}
- 1 vote
#11 - Wed Sep 3, 2008 11:42 PM EDT{"commentId":2747028,"authorDomain":"seward"}
If the Global Warming Pundits are to be believed, within the next hundred years or so none of these coastal Cities (including London), will be habitable due to repeated floodings and rising sea levels.
Whole swathes of coastal areas will be lost for ever, and people will be forced to move inland to higher ground.
Although I do not think that this will happen, I do feel that any money spent on "proper" substansial coastal defences will be money well-spent. An investment against the worst case scenario.
{"commentId":2747028,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"seward"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2760975,"authorDomain":"Merchant"}
The Gulf Coast is home to nearly half the nation's refining capacity, 25 percent of offshore domestic oil production and 15 percent of natural gas output.
An investment in defences would also secure these resources. I do believe our weather is changing from own observations. I makes sense to build and prepare for future conditions. We are beginning to learn to control our environment. Are levies designed to meet level 5 hurricanes enough over 10 years or 50?
We should learn everything we can and do what we can do.
{"commentId":2760975,"threadId":"345885","contentId":"1814770","authorDomain":"Merchant"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Thu Sep 4, 2008 4:41 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"345885","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2010 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
