Unacceptable to whom? The ultimate decision rests with the citizens of New Orleans. It is their home. It is their property.
Then you shouldn’t be wondering why the flooding problem is likely to happen again, and with increasing frequency for that matter, barring major action to change the basic parameters, should you? Think about it *just * a little bit.
Yawn. I hope saying that made you feel better about yourself. Didn’t fool anybody else, though.
So if others find the actuarial and tax-burden realities a tad difficult to swallow, tough shit to them instead? Just throw good money after bad and STFU, because even though you’re helping to foot the bill, it doesn’t mean you should have an oppinion that matters?
You’ve advocated abandoning the city. You haven’t put forth any plan for exactly how you’re going to do that yet - other than to have some amorphous group of “them” move the population somewhere (also as yet unidentified). Nothing on what happens to the property that is physically in the City, nothing on how, or if, or by whom, the property owners are compensated or how this compensation is figured. Nothing on who gets to make the ultimate decision not to rebuild.
I’ve pointed out a few concrete impediments to your plan. Until you come up with something other than "Move everyone somewhere else, " you’re exactly correct - your opinion doesn’t matter for shit.
Again, I don’t understand this. The challenge, presently, isn’t to move people out, because they’re already out. Chances are, for a large percentage of them, everything they own besides what they could carry has been completely destroyed and they’ll have to rebuild from the ground (such as it is) up. The businesses that employed them, the stores that supplied them, the schools that taught them, a whole bunch of it is now flattened or under water, and probably covered with toxic waste. It will be a considerable challenge to move everyone back before a year has passed, so they’re saying now. Is there nowhere else in the Gulf Coast region these people couldn’t build a home and eke out a life with their insurance money and Federal aid? And could they not expect those new investments to be safer in the long term than if they move right back to where they were, in a place more-or-less the way it was before the hurricane devastated it? Why is this proposal not worth a shit? What’s so unreasonable about it?
The business, civic, political, and financial interests that have invested in New Orleans are not going to let this happen, so the point is completely moot.
I can just see the discussion around the big table in the conference room now:
“OK - who’s going to make the decision that we’re not going to rebuild New Orleans, 'cause it sure ain’t going to be me? How 'bout you, Loopydude? And by the way, can I have your corner office once you’re out of a job - which should be in about 5 minutes once you make the decision?”
Your solution is completely reasonable and completely delusional all at the same time. 
Do you believe this role is reserved to you?
Yeah, Miller. What the hell is this San Andreas rubbish you’re babbling on about? I, too, would like some cites and evidence of this boogeyman you seem to have pulled from thin air. San Andreas, indeed. If you’re going to make something up at least try to make it sound like it actually exists. :rolleyes:
Well, what is the expected scope of the damage? How likely is various levels of destruction, and where is it most likely? Is it a near certainty, for instance, that San Francisco will be completely flattened and rendered uninhabitable for many months to a year?
That sort of stuff. I don’t doubt it’s a high risk region, and, quite frankly, I question the sanity of some who build in certain locations there as well (a hillside from where your house is going to slide 500’ down when the foundation gives out, for instance). It’s my understanding that the cost of the destruction caused to San Francisco in 1903 is, adjusted for inflation, probably on the order of what we’re going to see in New Orleans when the final tally is taken. However, much of that destruction was due to poor construction and the fires that consumed much of what hadn’t fallen down. I’ve also read that currently San Francisco would fare far better if quake of similar magnitude struck it today, because proper precautions have been taken, and continue to be.
And, unless I’m wrong, the strength of Earthquakes isn’t expected to trend upward by 50% over a 30-year span, on average.
I think it’s fair to ask what the comparable risks are, since that’s being offered as an arguing point.
You are aware that there really is a San Andreas fault, right? He’s not talking about the video game. Actually, there is a town of San Andreas as well, in Calaveras County, California.
Didn’t anyone else hear that incredibly loud Whoosh a few minutes ago? Gotchaya 
This will take a while.
Firstly, I want to address the statement that homes can be made livable after being soaked to the rafters…
I believe the homes the person mentioned were in Grand Forks or northern Minnesota. I’m not even going to address the resale value or the livability of those homes. I just want them to compare those homes with New Orleans homes.
-
The northern homes weren’t soaking in water for 12- 16 weeks as estimated today by New Orleans’ mayor.
-
They probably didn’t have this particular problem, as anyone who lives or has visited NO for any length of time will attest is a huge problem.
-
The average humidity probably isn’t 76per cent.
So, is it worth rebuilding homes that are decrepit, infested, and will probably never dry out? (If you answer “Dehumidifier!” or “Orkin”, you fail the quiz.)
Secondly, I want to address whoever it was that questioned by assessment that New Orleans is largely based on tourism. To him, I say just do a Goodle search with the following parameters: “New Orleans” “without tourism”.
The sites are too numerous to list here. Do it your own dam self.
But there’s an aha! in those sites. Chicago comes up! Alas, it doesn’t fit the framework of this discussion because it doesn’t sit in a bowl, and it’s unlikely that flood waters would simply stand there.
Thirdly, and for the last fucking time, to the morons that say, “But disasters happen everywhere!”
Of course they do, but the statistical probability of one happening to New Orleans is orders or magnitude greater than many other places. We’re talking about the reasonable expectation of catastophe.
Here’s the kicker: If you have been made aware of the risks of living where you do, and you choose to ignore or deny those risks, then you assume all responsibility what happens to you.
Next, I want to address Una’s higher levee hypothesis.
As we’ve stated, and I believe agreed, the Three Gorges comparison doesn’t apply. It is exceeding difficult to begin berming a city when the water is already there.
Then, when I offered the assumtion that it would be illogical to think that you could change the course of the Mississippi, Una stated that it’s done all the time.
Well, not really. The problem is that you either have to build in from the existing levees, or you have to build out *on both the inside and outside * to accommodate the slope.
If you build out, you have to reaqlize that you might just be building into the navigation channel. Those things don’t just run down the middle of the river–they meander. You might think that a barge could just 'move over a little" to accommodate that, but remember, there are bridges involved. You can’t move bridge supports. Never mind that you’d have to mover all of the existing dockage, piers, jettys, etc. out to meet the ships, but what’s a few million in additional construction when we’re already talking billions?
Furthermore, if you “levee up” NO, you have to do the same across the river–unless you’re willing to sacrifice those unlucky few (thousand) people who live there since, if the water can’t come into NO, then it has to go somewhere. That somewhere is where the levee is lower.
Then, regarding the are I said would probably be needed…
Lets say that the new levee is built on top of the old one, and that it is going to be built so as the existing out wall remains, then it slopes up toward the cityto its height of 20 meters, and then down to the current street level.
How far did you estimate that would be? I think you said 210 meters. Lets just call that 210 yards–just because the calculations will become obvious in a minute. Now that means anything within 210 yards of the current levee has to go. What does that imply?
This is a map of the NO river down to the 100 meter level. Imagine that everything 200 yards (or meters if you prefer) has to go. Also remember that you can’t demolish half a building. It’s all or nothing.
Ok, then, we’ll sacrifice the wharves and shops that are too close. Problem solved.
Nope. Remember that you have to actually build the levee. That means that the construction equipment needs space to move, doze, grade, dump and shape the new levee. More building too close have to go. Conservatively, lets say that’s another 50 yards.
No problem? Yep problem. The levee is now 60 feet high. Unless you’re in a 7-story building, you can’t see the lovely sights.
All right then, we’ll flatten out the top and created a charming promenade aound the entire city on top of the new levee for walking, biking, and generally taking in the view. Let’s make it 50 yards wide.
So far, we’re at 310 yards back from the original levee. There’s more to come.
Since it’s structurally unwise to have a house or any other kind of building butt right up against a drainage wall, we;re going to have to allow some distance from the new levee so that, each time it rains (which it does a lot), water doesn’t flow right through the kitchen. How far away from the levee is safe? 50 yards? Ok.
We’re at 360 yards.
How about a nice beltway to get around the city, since we’ve closed off a whole lot of streets and installed flood gates? Another 50 yards.
Finally, since nobody wants their bedroom window immediately adjacent to the road, let’s back them off another, say, 30 yards.
Grand total: 440 yards. One quarter mile.
You just ripped out one quarter mile from around the entire ring you’ve created. You’ve removed the stores along the levee, many of the hotels, and the existing infrastructure in those areas (yep, that goes, too).
What’s more, I have to correct my earlier estimation of 2 1/2 square miles. I was figuring a 10-mile circumference rather than a 40-mile circumference (a 10 x 10 mile square). That means rather than 2 1/2 sq miles, you’ve sacrificed 10 square miles. Of the very land you’re trying to preserve.
If, Una you want to fudge with these numbers, feel free. In any event, building a new, higher levee is going to result in a significant loss.
Now, let’s answer the burning question: “Just exactly where do you think they’re going to go?!”
Upstream. Here’s why:
The US of A needs additional refining capacity. I propose to start building a new refinery upstream on the Mississippi where at least the elevation is about the highest reasonably expected storm surge. I’m going to let the Corps of Engineers, the geologists and the engineers pick the site. Note: It probably won’t be too far from New Orleans. Probably 25 - 50 miles. I won’t quibble mileage here.
That new site will need shipping facilities. It will need trucking and pipeline facilities.
Cost: Substantial, yet probably less that rebuilding NO. In fact, I’d bet on thagt.
The jobs in construction will come first. Those workers will need the things that all workers need, and the domino effect begins there.
Hospitals and schools. Housing Grocery stores. Movie theaters. Starbucks. They begin to appear.
Net cost of those: Zip. Private financing.
Where does the workforce come from?
Guess.
Take into account that I’d bet there are thousands of NO residents that would leap at the chance of leaving in order to go someplace safer, and, well, better.
Where there are jobs, and maybe they can get ahold of the crime rate before it’s permanently ingrained.
That’s it. To all of you that cry “Waaaah! I want my NO back because it’s so pretty and I like it so much!,” I say, fuck you, you selfish bastards. You don’t give a damn about the people there. You feel free to let them live in harm’s way just so you can go someplace once in a while to get drunk and look at boobies. Or peckers.
And don’t even begin to chirp about “ambiance” or “architecture.” You’ve never been there for that unless you were studying architecture or honeymooning. If you claim otherwise, then I’m calling you a damn liar right now.
Have you even begun to estimate the cost? Have you?
There’s been a figure bandied about that Katrina caused $26,000,000,000 in damage. How much of that was to NO? Pick a figure, I don’t care. Then divide your figure by the number of working taxpayers. Let’s say ten per cent, and that there are 150,000,000 taxpayers (that’s a WAG).
That’s only $17.33 each. Cheap, huh? But remember, that’s just to get it back the way it was, at best. It doesn’t offer any future protection, as Una suggested is necessary, costing additional billions, and won’t work anyway.
It also doesn’t consider the fact that NO alone will get the lion’s share of the–cash, thereby shortchanging Mississippi and Alabama cities who deserve the money just as much—maybe more since they don’t exist in a ditch.
There it is. Begin the nitpick.
Oh, and Scylla…how does it feel to be my bitch?
Great. Glad I can also bring something resembling real information for the opposition when they won’t.
It turns out I was wrong to underestimate the risk to San Francisco. According to this, San Francisco is between roughly 3-15% likely to be pretty well devastated some time in the next 30 years, depending on where the epicenter is.
Given that the low estimates for loss-of-life are in the thousands, and the damage probably upwards of $10 billion, there’s a place that rivals New Orleans in doomsday nuttyness. Gotta wonder about that, I do. Maybe they should be doing more while they can to avert disaster, if it’s possible and cost-effective, in light of that risk-assessment. I imagine that’s why people draft reports like this, to give a heads-up.
Loopy: 9.0 or larger in the next 100 years, which is the equivalent of a 32 gigaton bomb. The 1906 quake is estimated to have only been around 7.8. Remember, the Richter scale is logarithmic, so the “Big One” would be upwards of 10,000 times as powerful as the one that flattened S.F. a century ago.
Should we commence the evacuation?
Hey, jackass - they want to live there too, you patronizing bastard. If the entire population of New Orleans decides to head elsewhere, fine. No one wants to make them stay there. But assuming they’ve got more sack than you do, which is not at all hard, they’re going to want to rebuild their homes. I, for one, do not mind my tax dollars being used for this purpose. I don’t mind your tax dollars being used for this purpose, either, and that’s what’s going to happen, wether you like it or not.
So suck it up, bitch.
Huge problem in one part of that post Rysdad. From what I understand The US has known for years that we need more refining capability. (No cite, just what I seem to remember hearing for years. If anyone can cite it or debunk it, thanks in advance.)
The problem is whenever someone proposes a new refinery, you have not only the additional cost of the environmental surcharges, but you have to get it past the environmentalists in the first place. You know, the Oil Bad[sup]TM[/sup] crowd. If it’s so easy to rebuild a refinery upstream, why wasn’t it built 20 yearsw ago when we knew we were going to need it?
Correct any of the above as needed. Frankly, I don’t know why we don’t have at least triple the refineries we have now. Think of the staggering amount of fuel processed in this country in such a concentrated area. When something like this happens, we start to see the need for plants spread out across the unbeleivable amount of open space. That way if one area of the country gets nailed, there are plenty more in unaffected areas to pick up the slack. Alas, this makes so much sense to me that it must be somehow fundamentaly wrong.
Also, neither Biloxi nor Mobile, that I know of, are below sea level. Do we just let them rot as well?
Even though I despise you and your arguments, I can’t let your boneheaded math error stand.
26,000,000,000/150,000,000 = $173.33 instead of $17.33
That number alone is a small argument in your favor, but then again, I wouldn’t trust somebody’s word on an engineering problem that doesn’t know how to divide.
Wanna bet? Wanna bet that all of them want to stay? And rebuild–on toxic land–where their kids will (eventually) play–especially now that they fully comprehend what a hurricane can do–and they have insurance checks in their pockets–and even if they want to come back, they won’t have a house to live in for what might, literally, be years?
Wanna bet?
Sure. Some will say. But no matter how much they’re bound to tradition and sentimentality, they can’t nullify Darwin’s Law.
I can’t bring myself to go through every post again. Rysdad, I want to ask a few simple yes/no questions to clarify where you’re coming from. Have you ever survived a flood? Have you ever gone back to your home after the water had her way with all you own? Are you speaking from experience when you want to challenge my testimony on what survivors do and the mindset they’re in when trying to recover?
I await your response.
What is the likelihood over that 100 years? 100%? Care to provide some sort of link for that? I am curious about these things, after all, or I wouldn’t be here.
No matter: I’d say we sure as Hell ought to commence something. Jeezus, we launch a war erroneously connected to 9/11 that costs hundreds of billions of dollars, and the entire thing turns out to be a load of shite. Meanwhile, on the home front, we pretty much know one of our biggest, most prosperous cities has some really frightening likelihood of being obliterated, and apparently we sit around a wait for it. Insane.
I think I can settle this most easily by letting you, yourselves, decide.
Here is the premise:
There is a familly–mom, dad, two kids. They just received their insurance check. They just can’t make up their mind if they want to go back and live in NO after their house is resurrected from the muck in a year or so, or they can buy a place safer and better someplace, anyplace, else. So they ask you what they should do. You are the final arbiter.
Do you advise them to go back to where they were, or do you say, “Use the money and move somewhere safer, cleaner, and better?”
Your answer will determine their fate. What do you say?