New Orleans

Um, huge riots and protests from every beach community in the country?

Don’t forget the shores of the Great Lakes, and their tributaries, too.

That was covered in this thread concerning the wisdom of living in SoCal. I’ll repeat my post from that thread:

Every area is subject to disaster, but some areas are at greater risk than others.

For example, according to FEMA:

What that means is, if your home is located within a 100-year floodplain, then over the span of 30-years you have a 26% chance of experiencing a flood of that magnitude.

This page has some statistics about it.

$62,000,000,000.00 in Federal Appropriations thus far seems like an awful lot of ‘giving’ - damn.

I have re-read your posts and I had to go back three posts from the one I replied to to see that you might have been talking about Mississippi.

I am not trying to be an ass, but it’s not clear at all from your post that you are referring to Mississippi. This is the post I was replying to

emphasis mine

The Long Road has made the choice to leave New Orleans (in fact he started a pit thread about it entitled “New Orleans”), which is in a hurricane zone and which (I think we all can agree) sustained considerable hurricane-related flood damage. Your 1 mile park wouldn’t require any New Orleans residents to leave New Orleans since New Orleans is farther than one mile in-land. In fact, on reread, your proposal leaves no one with any choices – if it’s a no-build zone, you can’t build, no choice about it.

Again, not picking a fight, but you seemed mighty upset that I commented about New Orleans’ position vis a vis the Gulf, and that’s why I’ve replied. You would be surprised how many folks think New Orleans is right on the damn Gulf.

Green Bean, please excuse me if I seemed “mighty upset”. And no, I wouldn’t be surprised at the number of people who think NO is right on the Gulf; I agree with you; people really are ignorant of a lot of things. I didn’t mean to be snippy.

JohnBckWLD It’s a good thing, and I’m appreciative. But that’s not what I was bitching about when I said no one gives a damn; I’m bitching about the slowness of that trickling down - I’m bitching 'cause of the painfully slow progress. I’m just frustrated and bitching.

I don’t have much to add here beyond what I’ve posted in previous threads about New Orleans (linked earlier in this thread), but The Long Road is correct that we’re now seeing a slow but steady second evacuation of the area. Many people with the means to go and little to hold them here (and even those like The Long Road who have the means to stay and plenty of reasons to stay) are voting with their feet their confidence in the long term future of this area. This second evacuation is taking away a lot of talent.

I keep reminding myself that we’re only 9 months or so into this. Personally, I think it will be at least a decade before we know what the new New Orleans will look and act like. Perhaps longer, if we get that long. There are good days and bad days.

it’s cool. BTW, I’m whole bean, green bean is another poster. we’re not related, that I know of. :wink:

:eek:

Hit by Gaudere’s Law!

whole bean whole bean whole bean

I think I’ve got it. Sorry about that. And now, I think I will try to be less hijack-y.

When considering how close New Orleans is to the Gulf, the question gets tricky because it depends on which area you are speaking of, downtown or all of Orleans Parish. If you are only speaking of downtown, then yes there is a decent distance to the Gulf. New Orleans East(subdivision) is mighty close when you consider that Lake Borgne is open to the Gulf. Lake Pontchartrain is also open to the Gulf and has a tendency to get might high along the South shore when a storm comes anywhere close. Many nights when attending UNO I saw Lakeshore drive flooded and water at the levee when a storm was in the Gulf but not threatening New Orleans directly.

The Westbank has less of a chance to flood but still has to worry about Bayou Barataria and a Rita type storm going in West of the city somewhere around Morgan City. Next storm I figure the government will probably start buying out homeowners instead of paying to rebuild.

I was thinking “the land becomes very cheap and the area immediately becomes populated by poor people who can’t afford to live many other places. Because they’re in a no-build zone, protecting the area from storms and taking proper precautions on the federal or state level becomes a low priority. Eventually a storm comes, and their homes, business and propety are destroyed. They get no help from the government, which ‘told them so,’ and maybe they wouldn’t get too much from charities either.”

In other words, this would change little or nothing. Except that the outcome might be worse, and I guess people would be encouraged to blame the victims.

More in the spirit of the OP, I’m posting a couple of e-mails which I recieved from my sister. She’s employed at Tulane, and was not able to go back to N.O. until January. Here’s one she wrote on March 19th:

Wait, Marley - if it is a “no-build” zone then there would not be any homes or businesses in it. The community has the authority to implement zoning. If you attempted to build there, you would not be able to get a building permit, hook up to any utilities, and the structure could possibly be torn down at your expense.

If I understand it correctly, hazard zones (such as floodway zones) are not considered a “taking” of property (yet :stuck_out_tongue: ).

Ditto. But you forgot blizzards and droughts and locusts and tsunamis. Let’s just shut down the whole planet. It’s always easy to write off someone else.

I will just politely leave this thread with a quote from my baby sister:

:slight_smile:

Of course it will survive. It’s the condition of the city which will be in question.