Ok, I understand the frustration of the people who want to move back, but consider the obstacles:
-private insurance in flood zones is almost prohibatively expensive
-the city of NOLA is sinking, due to subsiding subsoil and the weight of the levees
-the city population is about half of its number of pre-Katrina
-the forcast is more more storms to hit the gulf coast
So given all of this, does it make sense to encorage people to move back? Suppose the city could be relocated-would this make sense?
I just can’t see NOLA surviving another Katrina-style storm. What should be done?
Well, with truly MASSIVE construction of a category-five systems of levees and dikes and canals and whatnot, coupled with dumping thousands of tons of landfill offshore to make buffer islands… maybe.
It’d be easier to just write off the flooded areas, relocate everyone and in a generation, it won’t matter anyway.
I think it would only make sense if there were vast improvements made not only to the levees and pumps directly protecting the city, but also all of the surrounding infrastructure, which has effectively destroyed the Mississippi delta and sealed NOLA’s fate. If the buffering wetlands are not allowed to recover, and if the levees can’t be made to withstand at least a cat. 4 storm, another disaster of Katrina scale or worse is inevitable so long as people live there, and it may not take all that long for it to come.
As I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence the powers that be are even giving the slightest consideration to any remedy beyond restoring the pre-Katrina arrangement, I think it’s borderline insane to encourage people to move back to NOLA, especially the lowest-lying areas of the city.
I agree 100% (emphasis added). Of course we can rebuild it, but that’s not the point. Pardon me if my trust that the government will do this right (and remember, we’re talking Louisiana* here) is lower than the City of New Orleans itself.
*No offense to the people, but you gotta admit that you’re government is noted mainly for its high level of corruption.
Any and all monies - whether local, State or Federal - spent “fixing” New Orleans is wasted. Mother Nature is recovering her own and nothing man does is going to stop it. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something or a politician appeasing the unwashed masses.
Spend the money where it will do some good - on Bourbon Street for hookers and booze.
Living in New Orleans gives me a little more insight on a couple of these questions, so I’ll try to elighten you.
**So given all of this, does it make sense to encorage people to move back?
**
Yes and no. Yes, it makes sense to the politicians in power (Blanco, Nagin) because the areas that suffered the worst are where a vast majority of their voters lived, and they want more votes. The problem here is that the areas where their voters lived (their principle interest) was also the worst area in the New Orleans area (the 9th ward) in regards to both crime and income. These people that you see on the TV are primarily living off the government, both now and then. They want free handouts and the storm just made it worse. Almost none pay or payed taxes because they didn’t work; they are leeches. Now, in other parts of the city, not as much damage was done, and the businesses there do need their employees back.
Suppose the city could be relocated-would this make sense?
None whatsoever. The entire reason New Orleans is where it is, is because of the access to the Mississippi river and lake Ponchatrain. I do believe it is still the second biggest port city in the country (or was), and if it were to move, then it would no longer be what it is. Besides, how would you move what is really New Orleans: the architecture, cemeteries, statues, docks, wharves, the FRENCH QUARTER? What needs to be moved are all of the ‘refugees.’ The evacuees are mostly fine. We had insurance, we took our valuable possessions, and left. We are the ones rebuilding. I am at work right now in my office uptown. Most of the city (the parts that matter) are nearly done.
No offense to the people, but you gotta admit that you’re government is noted mainly for its high level of corruption.
I fully agree. This was a good example. And you know, people who had no insurance or anything got more money than those that did. You see these people on TV still living in hotels paid for by the government, almost none have jobs, and they are still complaining that they are owed more. They want government housing and welfare and FEMA money so they can sit at home. Granted, not everyone is like that, but 90% of those still out of town are. I only missed a week of work after the storm and my office had 4.5’ of water.
To my great surprise I’ve seen absolutely nothing to hint that any creativity is being applied other than pouring massive amounts of money into rebuilding what was drowned last year.
I’m certainly no expert on urban planning, but one thought that occurred to me was the possibility of rebuilding/retaining the business core, industrial sites, and selected tourist attractions, but relocating the majority of affected residential areas somewhere inland/uphill, and investing in cutting edge high speed transportation technology to get the workers/tourists in and out. I also would be glad to see anything done to help counter the environmental disaster that is the mouth of the Mississippi.
But rebuilding it as it was makes no sense - which means that is exactly what the gov’t will most likely do.
thatdudewes, how much of a separation is there, if any, between rebuilding what’s needed for New Orleans to function just as a seaport (particularly for oil), and to rebuild it “as it was before?” The main point that was made a year ago about the need to rebuild the town is that there’s no replacement options–we’ve got all the pipelines in place, and to redirect the oil traffic to another city would be prohibitively more expensive than just rebuilding the city.
Unfortunately, personal best plan and general best plan may not match up. Sitting here a thousand miles away, it’s easy to say “How dumb do you have to be to rebuild your house back in the same neighborhood that flooded?” Then I try to imagine myself in that situation.
Much of my net worth is tied up in some land and a house. The house has been gutted but still stands. Will someone actually buy the remains and that quarter of an acre at a price that will let me, with the addition of any insurance pay out, relocate somewhere else? Personally, without some form of government buy out, it may well make the most sense to stay where I am and fix up the house.
I would have to say…nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure…
-XT
p.s. No, I don’t think it is feasible…but I also think the government is going to go ahead and do it anyway. And probably do a half assed job of it, which will be fine for a year or a decade…until the next direct strike puts us right back where we are today.
I don’t usually listen to Fresh Air (Terry Gross’ voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me), but I did catch a bit of her interview with Ivor Van Heerden today. Most of you probably have seen him interviewed somewhere or another-- he’s the guy who did all the computer modeling of hurricanes for NOLA (his South Aftican accent is unmistakable and unusual here in the US). He made several very important points:
-
The levees, even after being repaired, are basically no better than they were a year ago.
-
Katrina was a fast-moving Cat 3 hurrincane that hit to the east of NOLA
-
Much worse will be a slowmoving Cat 3 (or higher) hurricane that hits NOLA dead on, or (even worse) slightly to the west.
And that’s just the levees. There are other factors that make NOLA more vulnerable, too (like the wasting away of the barrier islands and wetlands). No offense to you NOLA residents, but if your city were a stock, I’d be buying puts.
I think you can listen to the archived interview here.
Almost nothing else needs to be rebuilt/fixed for it to function as a seaport. The area by the river is the highest point in the city and it had no flooding whatsoever. The downtown area (Superdome, business district) and the warehouse dist. had very little. Most of the flooding was uptown, mid-city, and the garden dist., which was mainly residential and a little commercial. Housing for the people who are working is the problem. We have far too many out-of-towners right now. Pre-storm it took me about 25 minutes to get to work; now, it takes me about an hour and 15 minutes due to all these people from Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and, suprisingly, California. The came over here to ‘rebuild’ but they are part of the problem - taking jobs from local companies and housing from locals who lost theirs (and helping to drive up rent costs because of the increase in housing demands). I agree that if they were to just rebuild what was lost, without re-planning and zoning, then it will be a bigger waste of money than the welfare system.
That matter to whom, may I ask?
Given the context of the question I asked, I would assume he meant, the parts of the city that need to be rebuilt in order for it to function as a seaport and distribution center for foreign or offshore oil, which were billed as the main financial reason for rebuilding the city.
Obviously people who have a strong emotional attachment, or who wouldn’t be able to afford to rebuild elsewhere as pointed out above, would be part of a different equation.