This Slate author's thesis is that New Orleans is doomed. Do you agree?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Ivorybill]
In the recent special session of the Louisiana Legislature, a levee board reform billed passed (over the objection of many in the legislature, FWIW) largely at the demand of the business community and by a grass-roots effort begun by Uptown residents. Rather than having a handfull of local levee boards staffed by appointed minor political hacks, there will be one board for the east bank of the river, one for the west bank. These will be staffed by engineers and scientists nominated by knowledgeable interest groups. So while I understand your point, it’s now largely moot.

You are correct that the levees were not treated to the level of oversight demanded by the situation in SE Louisiana, but your claim that they weren’t maintained since the 1920s is just preposterous. “Weren’t the Local Levee Boards to blame? Since 1965, the local levee boards have been removed from levee design and construction and they clearly were not responsible for checking the engineering calculations of the Corps. The role of the local levee boards was to levy taxes and use other sources of income to pay for maintaining the levees and to pay the 30% local share of the flood protection [PDF]. Maintenance activities include cutting the grass and reporting visible problems to the Corps.”

http://www.levees.org/facts/factsheet.htm might be of interest to you.
[/QUOTE]

Well, NPR reported that a lady in NO living near the levee that failed-flooding the 9th ward, reported water in her yard for days before..she called the authorities, pointing to the huge puddle of water near her house. It was later found that this levee failed because it was built on top of a layer of unstable peat. If someboy had taken the time to check the situation out (and maybe reinforce the thing) the disaster may have been averted.

42

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Well, NPR reported that a lady in NO living near the levee that failed-flooding the 9th ward, reported water in her yard for days before..she called the authorities, pointing to the huge puddle of water near her house. It was later found that this levee failed because it was built on top of a layer of unstable peat. If someboy had taken the time to check the situation out (and maybe reinforce the thing) the disaster may have been averted.
[/QUOTE]
It may or may not have been a lady (much abused word, there), but you’re referring to the situation at the 17th Street Canal in Lakeview and to a group of 2 to 3 families whose properties abutted the canal levee and who had complained to the local water company about water in their back yards. The local water company - - our Sewerage and Water Board - - sent employees out to check the water mains. Their tests reported that it was lake water, not city water, in the yards.

Now, the S&WB doesn’t have any levee maintenance or oversight responsibility. That rests with the levee boards and with the Corps of Engineers. In hindsight, the S&WB should have raised the alarm with the levee board or with the Corps, but they didn’t. As for why the idiot homeowners who lived within yards of the levee didn’t move heaven and earth to get the Corps involved remains a mystery. Personally, I’d have taken the issue up to the highest levels. Why these people - - who lived with lake water seeping into their back yards for a year or so - - aren’t vilified for lack of diligence is beyond me.

However, even if these folks had raised the alarm and the levee was repaired, it would not have saved the city as several levee walls breached or were overtopped. Breached levees include the 17th Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, the Orleans Canal, and the Industrial Canal. Overtopped levees include both the upper and lower Mr. Go channel protection levees. Water rose across town via the storm drains. We’d still have flooded.

But, let’s point out again: the federal government decided to put the Corps of Engineers in charge of flood protection in New Orleans after Hurricane Betsy. The Corps was responsible for the design and construction of the levee flood walls. There are certainly some complicating factors - - dredging of the canal is one of them, our failure to adequately inspect the levees and hold the Corps accountable as well - - that shames some of us who are not crying for Congress to throw money at the levees to save us.

That said, abandoning the area, as you appear to suggest, based on past levee problems, is not a viable solution to me. Shrinking the footprint, turning flooded areas back to green space and flood buffer zones, armoring the levees, raising houses, and implementing smart growth programs is a better plan, and one that is gaining momentum. As an earlier poster said: there are a couple of hundred thousand people down here who didn’t flood, who don’t want to move, and who are willing to work to rebuild parts of this city. The federal government shouldn’t have to fling billions of dollars our way, but neither should we be given a cold shoulder and be told to be out by sundown.

43

Of course New Orleans isn’t going away completely. And as you say, the plan for rebuilding should be simple. Any place that didn’t flood should be allowed to rebuild, even if we know that it’s going to take some maintainence over the next couple hundred years to keep them dry. If someone’s house ended up under 20 feet of water it’s probably best to let it go back to the alligators.

44

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
New Orleans was a declining city for years, because the port operations that used to be the reason for the city’s existance are now almost completely automated due to containerized shipping. Instead of a hundred guys unloading a ship by hand, you now have one guy operating a crane unloading containers. The ships are much bigger but there are fewer sailors, and the ships turn around quickly.

Here in Seattle the waterfront is unrecognizable from 40 years ago. No more flophouses, no more sleazy waterfront bars, no more prostitutes, no more pawn shops, no more anything except cranes and stacks of containers.

New Orleans is the same way. All those poor people from New Orleans used to have jobs in the shipping industry, or jobs supporting people who had jobs in the shipping industry, or jobs supporting people supporting people who had jobs in the shipping industry.
[/QUOTE]

In just about any industry you name, there’s been a shift from manual labor to automated systems during the last fifty years. Tens of millions of manual labor jobs have simply disappeared, some due to automation, some because it can be done chepaer in Taiwan. What distinguishes a good city (one with a dynamic economy that keeps growing) from a bad city (one where stagnation sets in) is whether they get serious about attracting new industries. Some cities, such as Seattle and Minneapolis-St. Paul, have made the effort to bring in high-tech firms that produce high-paying jobs, to replace the jobs they lost. Other cities, such Detroit and Gary, totally failed to do so. New Orleans never attracted new industry. At this point, no one’s going to build a new branch office for their software company in New Orleans; that would be stupid.

So in short, I agree with the article cited in the OP.

45

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
You are absolutely right! the proof of this has been evident for years-nobody was putting up new buildings in NOLA..and the generally decrepit condition of the sidewalks, streets, etc., gave me a clue about the place. Face it, when 26% of the city population is on some form of public assistance, things are NOT going well.
[/QUOTE]

I think part of this (the part I underlined), is because of a city ordinance - in certain areas of the city, you can not make any changes or do any maintenance on buildings EXCEPT in a strictly described manner. I have no idea what the exact ordinance is. You have to use the same or similar materials as the original materials, you have to make it look the same etc. All in the name of preserving some historical something or other. So, I imagine, many people look at the cost and all the rules and say “aw fuck this, I’ll just leave it broken”. So, instead of having mice looking, in repair historical stuff, you end up with old broken historical shit. Nice stuff vs. broke shit.

46

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
New Orleans never attracted new industry. At this point, no one’s going to build a new branch office for their software company in New Orleans; that would be stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Part of the peculiarity of New Orleans is that it’s situation as a port city meant that it didn’t need the rest of Louisiana or the South, really, as a hinterland. Stuff came from upriver or from Latin America. As such, New Orleans was content to stand aloof from the changes made in Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Houston, and even Nashville to some extent - - it was content to stay set in it’s Old South ways.

There are some other reasons why New Orleans didn’t attract new industry or fortune 500 companies. Regressive tax policies is one, lack of skilled workers another, and, curiously enough, Mardi Gras is a third. It’s not the parades and idiots in the French Quarter, but rather in the way that old New Orleans society is stratified by which Krewe you belong (and don’t belong) to. Business leaders from “away” would not be granted entry into the old-line krewes, and were treated like second-class citizens by the local gentry. These powerful people didn’t stay long and moved their companies elsewhere.

That said, change is happening. Or, change was happening before the storm. Now everything is in flux. I disagree with the author’s opinion in the article cited by the OP, in only that the old affluent parts of New Orleans have survived worse than Katrina in the past two hundred years and that the greater metropolitan area is largely intact. The city will be smaller but more focused, and it will take about a decade to sort itself out.

47

Man, I don’t know how I missed this the first go through. I guess ralph124c missed the construction in the past decade of the New Orleans Arena, the Aquarium/IMAX, several new hotels, additions to the Mall of the Americas, the Cruise Ship Terminal, the Port, Harrah’s Casino, and the additions to the Morial Convention Center (yes, that one). True, there hasn’t been much in the way of new office towers, and some of that is due to the lack of available land in the Central Business District.

As for the streets and sidewalks, again, the soil here has a habit of swelling and shrinking as it wets and dries, and even well-constructed infrastructure is affected rather quickly.

You do have a point, already addressed, about the poverty here and the inability of city leaders to do much about it. Shame on us for allowing it; shame on them for not working on it.

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
I think part of this (the part I underlined), is because of a city ordinance - in certain areas of the city, you can not make any changes or do any maintenance on buildings EXCEPT in a strictly described manner. I have no idea what the exact ordinance is. You have to use the same or similar materials as the original materials, you have to make it look the same etc. All in the name of preserving some historical something or other. So, I imagine, many people look at the cost and all the rules and say “aw fuck this, I’ll just leave it broken”. So, instead of having mice looking, in repair historical stuff, you end up with old broken historical shit. Nice stuff vs. broke shit.
[/QUOTE]
With all due respect SteveG1, there’s not a design standard that requires broke shit. The French Quarter, Garden District, Commerce District, and certain other neighborhoods have historic preservation ordinances, and that does affect how people build, what materials they can use, etc. Architects refer to construction that blends with the rest of such areas as “organic”. Our House of Blues venue is one example - - they left the facade of the building largely untouched so as to keep it looking like a 150 year old structure that has sweltered through humid summers and hurricanes. The inside is a very nicely put together restaurant, bar, and performance space. There are few cities in America that kept, let alone still use their 100, 150, 175, and 200 year old buildings (and older, in New Orleans). It doesn’t look neat, new, and trim if you’re used to new stucco construction, glass office towers, and other modern amenities. Just because it looks old, however, doesn’t mean it’s broke.

And on preview - - it’s amazing to me that I keep using it’s for a possessive today.

48

Related question: those parishes south of NO; the very low marshland/bayou country that is just a few feet above high tide: WHY on earth do people live there? I mean, those Cajuns have a way of life (fishing trapping, etc),but to live in such a place strikes me as extremely dangerous (in hurrican season). In any case, will local banks make mortgage loans in these places?
Finally, the (Mysterious) Chandeleur Islands-they seem to be building up as the delta washes away-does anybod live there?

49

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Related question: those parishes south of NO; the very low marshland/bayou country that is just a few feet above high tide: WHY on earth do people live there? I mean, those Cajuns have a way of life (fishing trapping, etc),but to live in such a place strikes me as extremely dangerous (in hurrican season). In any case, will local banks make mortgage loans in these places?
Finally, the (Mysterious) Chandeleur Islands-they seem to be building up as the delta washes away-does anybod live there?
[/QUOTE]
To answer your first question, I don’t know why some people choose to live out at the edge of, and occasionally in, the marsh. Every structure I’ve seen in the marsh is basically a pontoon shack that’s fairly cheap construction and meant to be replaced. As for more permanent settlements like Port Sulphur, Delacroix, and the like, these are on parts of old river levees that are normally high ground. People do seem to be able to get mortgages and insurance (or at least were able to get insurance).

The Chandeleur Islands are part of a Wildlife Refuge. Nobody lives there permanently. They are not building up - -

50

[QUOTE=Ivorybill]
Man, I don’t know how I missed this the first go through. I guess ralph124c missed the construction in the past decade of the New Orleans Arena, the Aquarium/IMAX, several new hotels, additions to the Mall of the Americas, the Cruise Ship Terminal, the Port, Harrah’s Casino, and the additions to the Morial Convention Center (yes, that one). True, there hasn’t been much in the way of new office towers, and some of that is due to the lack of available land in the Central Business District.

As for the streets and sidewalks, again, the soil here has a habit of swelling and shrinking as it wets and dries, and even well-constructed infrastructure is affected rather quickly.

You do have a point, already addressed, about the poverty here and the inability of city leaders to do much about it. Shame on us for allowing it; shame on them for not working on it.

With all due respect SteveG1, there’s not a design standard that requires broke shit. The French Quarter, Garden District, Commerce District, and certain other neighborhoods have historic preservation ordinances, and that does affect how people build, what materials they can use, etc. Architects refer to construction that blends with the rest of such areas as “organic”. Our House of Blues venue is one example - - they left the facade of the building largely untouched so as to keep it looking like a 150 year old structure that has sweltered through humid summers and hurricanes. The inside is a very nicely put together restaurant, bar, and performance space. There are few cities in America that kept, let alone still use their 100, 150, 175, and 200 year old buildings (and older, in New Orleans). It doesn’t look neat, new, and trim if you’re used to new stucco construction, glass office towers, and other modern amenities. Just because it looks old, however, doesn’t mean it’s broke.

And on preview - - it’s amazing to me that I keep using it’s for a possessive today.
[/QUOTE]

I defer to you, since you live there. I stand corrected. Such are the dangers of getting second hand info from other people’s second hand info.

51

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
I defer to you, since you live there.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not often that folks defer to me, but I guess some thanks are in order. Not everyone is thrilled about the protection ordinances - - a friend had to shell out an extra $12k for a roofing job for ersatz slate - - but in general they help keep the city unique.

52

So, in light of what we know now regarding the unlikely return of the displaced populace, the inability of New Orleans to support itself with its current workforce and loss of its tax base, the unliklihood of future businesses moving there, the real possibility of another natural disaster erasing whatever repairs have been made since the two most recent hurricanes, the extent of the political corruption, the fact that the city itself is sinking thereby deepening the ‘bathtub’, the encroachment of the Gulf of Mexico due to loss of wetlands, the not uncommon perception that it would be somewhat foolish to throw good money after bad to rebuild it, the fact that they mayor himself threw up racial barriers, the fact that the best hope for rebuilt levees would be to handle a Cat 3 storm, that the murder rate (although lower than in years past) is increasing at a rate higher than most other cities, (not to mention the termites and roaches)…

…what do you think, is New Orleans doomed?

(Note: Each of these assertions is easily verifiable with a quick Google search.)

I think Ivorybill is right in saying that a decade or so will determine what New Orleans will be like as a city. It certainly won’t be like the New Orleans of old. There were too many mistakes made in too many areas for the city to come back as it was–a concept I doubt that many would wish for anyway.

Personally, I don’t think much of anything will be accomplished unless and until the political environment changes. The cronyism and corruption must be remedied first before anything of value will get done.

53

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
So, in light of what we know now regarding the unlikely return of the displaced populace, the inability of New Orleans to support itself with its current workforce and loss of its tax base, the unliklihood of future businesses moving there, the real possibility of another natural disaster erasing whatever repairs have been made since the two most recent hurricanes, the extent of the political corruption, the fact that the city itself is sinking thereby deepening the ‘bathtub’, the encroachment of the Gulf of Mexico due to loss of wetlands, the not uncommon perception that it would be somewhat foolish to throw good money after bad to rebuild it, the fact that they mayor himself threw up racial barriers, the fact that the best hope for rebuilt levees would be to handle a Cat 3 storm, that the murder rate (although lower than in years past) is increasing at a rate higher than most other cities, (not to mention the termites and roaches)…
[/quote]
Rysdad, I thought you had vented your considerable spleen about New Orleans in this page of this thread, but I can see I am mistaken. Some of what you’ve just posted in this thread has some truth in it, but once again you’re painting with a very broad brush. You’re rather quick to jump to a conclusion, and you’re drawing a much bleaker picture of our area than is justified by reality.

The main misperception that people make about the New Orleans area is that it’s an all or nothing place. Not all of the city is sinking. Not all of the city is below sea level. Not all of the city flooded. Not all of the residents are displaced. Not all of the business and tax base is gone. Not all of the politians are corrupt. Crime doesn’t affect everyone. Not everyone in NOLA thinks that we have to have a big federal bail out.

Yes, we had a lot to work on before the storm (and progress was being made on most fronts) and we have more to do now. I don’t think that I’m a pollyanna, but I am optimistic about the future here. If I weren’t, I would be looking to move.

New Orleans is not the only city in America with the potential to take major damage from natural events. Seattle is particularly vulnerable to mud slides from Mount Rainier. San Francisco and Los Angeles to earthquake. Houston to hurricanes. Sacramento to flooding. There are many others - - the list is long. If the consensus among our countrymen is that New Orleans does not deserve any assistance with rebuilding, then let us set a precedent. Abolish FEMA, eliminate the flood insurance program, and get the federal government out of role of disaster relief. Everyone should sink or swim (pardon the pun) on his own abilities.

54

Well, I think two factors will tell the tale:
-this summer’s hurricane season; if there is another major levee breech, I’d say forget rebuilding.
-most (if not all) property insurance companies have STOPPED writing policies in all coastal locations. My SIL cannot get her’s renewed-and shee lives about a half mile from the coast!
So, ultimately, the reinsurance market (which took a huge hit from Katrina), will determine what (if any) rebuilding goes on in NOLA.
Incidentally, the Dutch were hit by a massive flood in 1954? It killed thousands, and destroyed $$ in property. How did the Dutch government handle the insurance claims? anyway, I think the decisions to rebuild will come from insurance analysts, not politicians.

55

[QUOTE=Ivorybill]
Rysdad, I thought you had vented your considerable spleen about New Orleans in this page of this thread, but I can see I am mistaken. Some of what you’ve just posted in this thread has some truth in it, but once again you’re painting with a very broad brush. You’re rather quick to jump to a conclusion, and you’re drawing a much bleaker picture of our area than is justified by reality.
[/quote]

You may have been mistaken, but I wasn’t. Can you refute any of what I said?

What percentage of the city flooded? What percentage of the city is below the level of the Mississippi? What percentage of the people left–probably for good? How much had the basic tax base (tourism) have you lost? Why was NO widely known as one of, if not the, most corrupt city–from the politicians down through the police force? How else would NO continue to exist without a HUGE federal bail out?

Well, that’s been suggested…

Nope. Non-starter. The risk is proportionately greater in NO. You’re aware of the risk. You assume the liability.

Maybe, but with a slight modification: Rebuild only where it makes sense to rebuild–not in a ground zero target area. I would even support flood insurance for people that live in a 100-year flood plain, but not in an every day flood plain. One levee breach and it’s back into the toxic soup.

As far as FEMA goes…would we even notice if it didn’t exist? It hasn’t had an outstanding track record so far.

56

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
As far as FEMA goes…would we even notice if it didn’t exist? It hasn’t had an outstanding track record so far.
[/QUOTE]
Until Congress went nuts and stuck FEMA in Homeland Security I think the general opinion is that the agency had a good record.

57

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Until Congress went nuts and stuck FEMA in Homeland Security I think the general opinion is that the agency had a good record.
[/QUOTE]

Could very well be. I guess, as an agency, it didn’t even cross my radar until the Katrina debacle. I may have heard something about it following the Florida hurricane(s), but I don’t recall as much displeasure with it at that time.

58

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Nowhere near?
[/QUOTE]

It is almost 100 miles from the SW Pass.

59

[QUOTE=Ivorybill]
Seattle is particularly vulnerable to mud slides from Mount Rainier.
[/QUOTE]

Excuse me? Mt. Rainier is over 50 miles from Seattle. Mudslides aren’t really a problem. Puyallup, yes. But only if Mt. Rainier blows. Hardly the situation that exists in New Orleans.Rainier is an “fi.” Hurricnaes are a “when.”

60

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
BTW, has all the water been pumped out of the flooded areas of NO yet? I haven’t heard that mentioned in the news recently.
[/QUOTE]

The last of the flood water was pumped out of N.O. several months ago. The entire city is open and has been for some time.

N.O. has the potential to be a reasonably good city, in all probability it will boom in the next couple of years. The question of whether it will be rebuilt was never really a question. The slow pace has the not unintended effect of forcing the people who really shouldn’t be there (I live in the suburbs-traveling into N.O. only a few times a year. But many of my neighbors either work there or grew up there and I hear lots of discussion on this) to move on.