No. And that’s relevant how?
I’m sure the initial reaction is to rebuild. Do you think it will be the same some months, or even years, from now?
Besides, simply making a decision to rebuild in the original location doesn’t mean it’s the smartest choice that could be made.
In this case, it most certainly isn’t.
I would quite literally say “Let your hearts guide you”. If the family is 10th generation Orleanian, they may decide one way. If the next family just got relocated from Boise a year ago, they may have a different plan.
What is the harm in that?
Can I advise you on where to live now that you have granted me these powers of persuasion?
Why the fuck is it up to me? Let them live where they want. If they want to live in New Orleans, fantastic. If they want to live in Montana, fantastic. You’re the one trying to dictate what these people do with the rest of their lives. If you’re so certain that no one is going to go back, why are you even bothering with this argument? No one is going to rebuild the city if there’s no one in it.
Jesus, even your hypotheticals are idiotic.
It’s relevant because you think you know what’s best for people going through what you never have. I’ve been through a devastating flood. My opinion carries more weight when talking about the actual people going through this. You aren’t even an asshat. We need to come up with a whole new epithet just for you.
Interesting link giving a nice summary of the genesis of this disaster.
“Penny wise, pound foolish” doesn’t seem to begin to describe our approach to inevitable natural disasters. I have full confidence, after reading this thread, that this country will probably never learn.
Well, Elvis, so far you have shown absolutely nothing to back up your position. I said that a storm of this magnitude, with these consequences, has happened once in 300 years. To that you respond “the flooding problem is likely to happen again, and with increasing frequency for that matter”. You still haven’t answered my question. Why? What evidence do you have to support your idiotic statement? A cyclical weather pattern that’s happened before? Global warming scare-science that has at least as many scientists that say it is bunk as there are saying that we’re doomed? The fact that New Orleans is sinking 3 feet a century? Utter bollocking wank. I have 300 years of history on my side, bitch, what have you got?
Coming from someone who actually seems to believe that he contributes to these boards instead of realizing that he’s almost universally despised and ridiculed, I’ll take that as a compliment.
And…stop right there. You’re assuming that they receive an insurance check. But renters don’t have homeowner’s insurance. Most of them don’t even carry renter’s insurance.
Found some numbers.
http://clarionherald.org/20040114/art004.htm
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/housOverview.php?locIndex=3502
46.8% renter-occupied housing units.
40.7% owner-occupied housing units.
There are more renters in NOLA than homeowners.
Found this:
So your scenario, of Mom and Dad and the kids taking their insurance check and relocating upstream, would seem to apply only to half of NOLA’s population.
Our homeowner’s insurance on our $45,000 house, for “house and contents”, includes “replacement value” on the house, which the Better Half informs me means, in Illinois at least, the cost of rebuilding the house exactly as it was, from scratch. And he informs me that if a hurricane hit Decatur, the check we would receive from State Farm would come to about $80,000. Now, $80,000 is not a lot of money to relocate an entire family to an entirely different city, because in addition to having to spend a good chunk of the money on buying a new house (or earmarking it for rent), you need money to live on while you find a new job. The Better Half is a letter carrier, but he can’t just walk in to any post office and demand a job–you have to request a transfer, and then wait for a slot to open up. We spend about $30,000 of his income on living expenses every year; so we’d have $50,000 to spend on a new house. And then we’d have a year’s worth of income to live on while he found a new job.
So for us, middle-class homeowners with job skills, yeah, your scenario would work. It wouldn’t be fun, but we’d manage. But what are the low-income renters with no insurance and no job skills supposed to do? Right now they’re living in the Astrodome–what are they supposed to do after that? A decision to abandon NOLA leaves them with no place to go back to, so they’d just stay in Houston, I suppose, as, what, permanent refugees or something.
Yada yada yada.
My premise is entirely valid. For the nonce, just confine your response to those people who receive an insurance check, be they renters or homeowners.
What do you tell them to do?
Quite simply, yes. The city will be back. It may not be the same, but in time, it will once again be a million-plus population city. Arnaud’s will proudly have flood photos on the wall (they may even keep the “flood line” mark,) and I’ll sit at Cafe Du Monde, with my beignets and cafe au lait, marveling over how much bigger the levees are now. I’ll toast to the defeatist peckerwoods in this and other threads, hoping they stay in their cold places and never pollute New Orleans with their cynicism again.
I’m dictating nothing. But you still didn’t have the guts to answer the question.
You’re not allowed to duck the question by saying, “Do whatever you want to.” They can’t decide. They’re left it up to you. Knowing what you now know about NO, what do you tell them to do?
This is your most cogent response so far.
No, it won’t.
Right now, 80% of the city is under 20 feet of water. Unless the breaks in the levees are plugged, immediately, the water is predicted to rise another nine feet.
The residential areas are gone. Face it. Even if the water is somehow drained, what remains will be unsalvageable and unbuildable.
Here’s my prediction: If anything is to be saved, it’ll be the French Quarter and the hotel area. The rest of it, no.
You might be able to get a drink at the bar sometime down the road, but NO itself is irretrievably changed. And significantly smaller.
I defy anyone who says that it’s going to be rebuilt lock, stock and barrel. Even the federal government isn’t that stupid.
I hope to join you. But remember where that is - if the levees are made any bigger, they’ll cover the Cafe’s site, and maybe some of Jackson Square, too.
Yes, the city will be back, but it will never be the same. It seemed to me that part of the festive atmosphere was laughing in the face of fate, always with an undertone that it’ll all be gone someday, suddenly, so laissez les bons temps rouler while we can. I don’t see how that can ever come back. I expect a harder, bitter, survivors’ edge among those who come back, more of a Disney-imitation style than the genuine article. The Big Easy of “A Streetcar Named Desire” is history now, and maybe had been before. But the people who’ve been flooded out aren’t the only ones who’ve lost something; we all have, and something that was so much a part of us that we may never have known it.
There, that last one finally gets close. Got a question for you, kid: How much below sea level do you think something has to be to become chronically flood-prone? If that’s a toughie, you might want to ask your teacher about itduring your next recess period. The time you spend might keep the big kids from giving you yet another swirlie.
I think you’ve double-counted here. You have the house located 50 yards away, then a 50 yard roadway, then another 30 yard easement. Alternately you could have the road next to the levee, and get rid of 50 yards. Nevertheless, I never said it would not be a massive structure; on the contrary, it would be a massive structure. It would have to be.
I can also come up with similar assumptions and plans that get me back to my 210 meters, or even less than that too - a deep-pier concrete wall and 20-30-degree angle of repose rock buttress system could cut it down to 100. But I’m not going to argue assumptions over this any further as we’ve reached the point where to do more speculation on this, without doing an actual engineering study, is to be foolish. We can agree on a couple of things - the city is underwater and there is untold suffering going on. I feel it can be rebuilt and that it can protected for a not impossible cost and not impossible task. You feel that the complexities and problems of a large levee are such that it is not worth it, and that other options should be taken. That’s where it should end.
I gues my department of Labor link was too much information for you. I never denied a large tourism industry but pointed out that the transportation industry was much larger. About 50% higher.
So a bunch of sites pop up when you do a Google search? That is your idea of overwhelming evidence that your stupid theories are correct?
Your link providing a list of 'Cities that have jobs and lower crime" doens’t hold water. That is a stupid puff piece list of the ten ‘most stressful’ cities and the ten ‘least stressful’ cities. Now the article did state that high unemployment caused stress and that New Orleans has high unemployment. But it didn’t say that the least stressful cities are looking for workers.
Y’know Rysdad, you keep repeating your idea of relocating NOLA upstream, and on at least two occasions I have asked you “where?” upstream you think you are going to do this relocating. Pointedly, I have mentioned that “upstream” real estate is spoken for. The Mississippi is a main artery and there are towns and cities up and down it’s length. Do you intend to demolish Metairie, Slidell, Baton Rouge or somewhere else in order to replace it with your new NOLA? If you do, where do you inted to relocate those cities?
The idea of relocating, not rebuilding, or otherwise replacing NOLA is an amazingly childish idea that demonstrates a profound ignorance on multiple levels. At first, I figured that the multiple reasons are inherently obvious, but apparently inherently obvious just isn’t enough for you or Loopy.
So, let us list the inherently obvious reasons why it is a stupid and ignorant idea.
Availability of real estate along the Mississippi River. It’s already taken. You can’t move NOLA somewhere else without displacing that area.
Cost. To abandon a whole city and build a whole new one from scratch is an immensely larger undertaking than to repair a damaged one. The infrastructure of the city is largely intact. You have roads, sewage lines, water lines, electrical lines all placed. You have foundations all placed. You have structurally sound buildings in place. If you abandon these things you have to replace them, and that will be immensely more expensive that to repair or utilize them.
Location. NOLA does not exist in a vaccum. It is strategically placed and it exists in a symbiotic relationship with neighboring towns and cities. Those towns and cities have industries and infrastructure that serves NOLA and Vice Versa. If you abandon NOLA you destroy those industries that serve NOLA and you deprive those communities of what they get from NOLA.
Location again. NOLA is a hub in many ways. It is a hub for roads and trains and shipping which all depend on NOLA as both a waystation and a destination. Rysdad seems to recognize this necessity. What he fails to recognize is that that transportation infrastructure cannot exist in a vaccum. NOLA is an oil and shipping based city. If you are going to have the infrastructure, you need to have the people to work it and the people to serve those that work it. In other words, you need to have a city there, or else you need to give up and replace that infrastructure.
Location a third time. Contrary to what Rysdad says about it being “cheating” to alter a lake or the course of a river, that is exactly what has been done in NOLA and for very good reasons. The Mississippi is notoriously difficult to navigate. It is navigable by tankers and container ships specifically because we have altered and contained its course, dredged channels, shored up levies, and built canals to ensure its navigability. It is for all intents and purposes an artificial river that runs through the delta. In order to maintain that shipping we need the infrastructure in place, the levies and canals and we need the workers and machinery to service it. We need a community to service the needs of those workers and machinery. In short, if we wish to ship goods in large vessels up the Mississippi, we need a large city right where NOLA is.
Land inevitably goes to the highest use. If you move NOLA somewhere else and displace some other city (let’s assume for the sake of your mind-numbingly stupid argument that there happens to be a vacant NOLA sized spot available “upstream”) that place is inevitably uninhabited because it does not viably serve the purpose. There is no need for a city there. If there were, there would tend to be one. If this hypothetically vacant stretch of land were useful it would be being used.
You would need to alter vast stretches of of transportation infrastructure for thousands of miles to make it connect to your new city. Then, you would need to build another city where NOLA is now to maintain channels, levies, and dredge the Mississippi to keep it navigable.
The existing infrastructure of NOLA is useful and it will be used, so there will be a city there anyway. That city will contain citizens who have an equal right to protection as those that inhabit Florida or the Keys, or the gulf coast, or the Texas Panhandle.
If NOLA were totally destroyed and unsalvageable it would be far more cheaper and practical to raze the remains and build a new system of impregnable levies and drainage, and build a new city on that site than it would be to relocate.
Contrary to your opinion NOLA is not particularly dangerous. It receives less damage than Galveston, the Keys, much of Florida, The Barrier Islands in the Carolina, or a host of any other places you could care to name. The last two times NOLA was destroyed were by fire in the 1700s. Since then, it’s only been occasionally fucked up by acts of God.
The “below sea level” argument is basically a load of shit. “Sea level” isn’t the problem in NOLA any more than it is in Death Valley and for the same reasons. There is a fair amount of land in between NOLA and the ocean. This land, while below sea level, will in fact drain into a Marsh. NOLA, or more accurately Old NOLA meaning the French and Latin Quarters is founded on a relatively dry hill on this Marsh. That’s why these areas aren’t flooded as bad as the rest. The reason NOLA is currently underwater isn’t because of the ocean, it’s because of the levies which are holding back Ponchartrain and Mississippi.
If you give up NOLA you give up the levies and canals. If you give up the levies and canals you give up shipping goods up the Mississippi. If you want to ship goods up the Mississippi you need a city there. That’s why it grew there in the first place.
Refining. NOLA and surrounding areas is a prime location for refining. It is the sole port for providing a flow of petroleum into the heartland, and is the most efficient spot to unload tankers. When those tankers are unloaded they unload oil. The oil needs to be refined before it is useful. We haven’t built a new refinery in this country in 20 years. They take years to build. We need to keep those refineries active unless you wish to live without oil for the next five years or so. In order to keep those refineries active we need people to work them and machinery. We need people to service those machines, and support for the people working them. We need support for the supporters. We need transportation and infrastructure. We need hospitals. We need housing and schools. In short, we need to have a city there if you wish to have oil
Practical purposes aside. People live there. They are fond of it. It has a culture. It’s a part of this country. We don’t give up so easily or so lightly.
Hopefully, by now, if you have a thought in your head, or a brain to reason with, you can see why abandoning and replacing NOLA somewhere else is laughably ridiculous. Such an undertaking effects more than just NOLA and requires a sustained effort decades long to replace the natural evolution and usefullness of the city. There is no other location for a NOLA other than NOLA, no free real estate “upstream.” In the meantime, you give up the oil and refining industry, a large part of the transportation industry and decimate outlying communities that are interdependant on NOLA for a thousand miles. It costs you many orders of magniture more money than to simply rebuild better in a proven spot.
Your complaints against doing this are simply stupid. Trucks have trouble going uphill, so we can’t have a town with levies? Have you ever seen an overpass you moron? Maybe you live in the plains or something where they don’t have them. Maybe you’ve never seen a road in the Mountains of West Virginia. Maybe you assume Denver is unreachable by road.
Trust me, they’ve figure out how to grade.
I did answer the question. I just gave an answer you don’t like. But, because I’m absolutely fascinated to see what sort of rhetorical trap you’re trying to set up here, I’ll play along:
I’d tell them to go back to New Orleans and rebuild.
I assume there’s going to be a point to this question coming along some time?
Your entire argument is invalid because of your flawed assumption contained in these two words, specifically your choice of adjectives. There is no such thing as an impregnable levee. No matter how strong you build it, another hurricane will wipe it out eventually. This is the reason why a city in NO’s current location is not feasible, expecially since much of the historic value has been destroyed. Yes, building a new city would be expensive. But not as expensive as continuing to fund rebuilding after this and future disasters.
Well, yes, I suppose you are correct. Technically there is no such thing as an “impregable levy.”
But, I think in all fairness you should slap yourself with the technicality skunk because you know what I meant.
The current levy system did it’s job. It was designed to take a hit from a class III hurricane. It got hit by a class IV Hurricane that was slower moving and with a bigger eye wall than was expected.
What I meant (and what I hope you knew I meant) was that we should build a levy system that is rated to handle a storm greater in power than any we can reasonably expect to hit the city. If we build a levy system rated to handle the largest hurricane that can reasonably be expected to hit the area with a generous safety margin than we have engaged in sound and prudent planning, and NOLA will be as safe if not safer than any other coastal city. Of course, there are no guarrantees, but there are none anywhere, are there?
Where will you put this new city? What will you do about shipping up the Mississippi. You do realize I listed more than one reason and made a strong case why a city in that location is absolutely necessary.
I made a complex argument with multiple interconnected reasons. It’s a complex topic. You can’t just latch onto a single adjective which was meant to be descriptive more than literal, ignore everything else and pretend you’ve addressed my reasoning.
When it’s pointed out that your premise is valid only with respect to a minority of the population, you respond with “my premise is entirely valid”? Yup, that makes sense.
Look, a good bit of the city is still standing. Lots of infrastructure is still around. There’s still an airport, the Superdome, hotels, all the stores that are getting looted, just as examples of things I know for sure are still there. As far as I can tell, the office towers are salvageable for the most part. 20% of the city isn’t under water, and much of the 80% is under far less than 20 feet worth. There are still highways and roads.
To move the city, all that would have to be eliminated, then rebuilt somewhere new. This is an undertaking that would take several years. During which, people will have to live elsewhere, find new jobs, then start moving into this new city.
Rebuilding the city in place would be far easier, allowing you to not waste every single piece of infrastructure supporting the current city. There is still a lot there that’s useable. Sure, no doubt many people will choose to flee to higher suburbs, and New Orleans may never again see its population return to levels from before the hurricane, but it will carry on as the hub of a metro area of similar size as it currently is.
Exactly. Thanks for pointing it out. Levees are worthless and should never be built since they can’t be counted on. They will fail eventually. It’s a waste of money since whatever city it protects will give way. Excellent point. Kudos. :rolleyes: