I think one has to consider multiple factors.
History and known threats, for example. If you live in a floodplain you should be required to carry flood insurance. If your residence was grandfathered in (having been built by your literal grandfather before that was a requirement, for example) then perhaps it is reasonable to receive assistance in relocating rather than rebuilding. There is precedent for towns being rebuilt in a slightly different (and higher) location after flooding events. Rather than rebuilding in an area that will likely re-flood repeatedly requiring relocation could be a fair condition for receiving funds. In other instance perhaps requiring buildings to be on stilts or otherwise elevated could be a requirement of rebuilding funds. Ideally, this would involve examining historical records, changing conditions, and local needs and options.
In some instances it is not practical to relocate. Example: most of Florida. The whole place is subject to hurricanes. But, outside of those events, a lot of people want to live there. After the rescues and the clearing of rubble I think (in my ideal-but-does-not-exist-world) there should be some deep thinking about what to rebuild and what now to, and how. You can build for storm resistance. Concrete structures, for example, fair better than “manufactured housing”. The problem there is that building for storm resistance costs money, and not all residents are flush with cash. (Also, not everyone likes the look of hurricane-resistant architecture. Too bad. I rank them with folks who move out into the Nevada desert but want to maintain the same lawn they had in Ohio - kind of stupid. If a lawn is that important maybe you should stay in Ohio.) Rather than having the less well off living in tents (which are even less storm resistant than manufactured housing) some sort of grant or subsidy for lower income people to have safe housing would make the most sense. Alternatively, one could take the option that some mobile home parks in my area have for storm/tornado shelters - a central and nearby bunker sort of building in which to take refuge for a grouping of less strongly built housing. Not ideal, but it would save lives. You want it close by so people can get to it easily/quickly and without need for motorized transportation. That might be an option for fragile housing that survived this time in repairable condition, but not for housing wiped off the map where relocation or storm-resistant building should be required (with, one would hope, some sort of subsidy/help for less than wealthy residents. Generating masses of homeless people through poor or overly austere planning is not in the interest of society in my opinion).
Some beachfront areas, and barrier islands, should NOT be rebuilt with human residences. I’m sorry, but between storms and rising sea levels that is just not viable in the long term. Businesses for tourists, sure - people should be able to enjoy these places. Perhaps rental vacation cabins for short term tourist stays WITH the understand that in the event of a storm evacuations are strictly mandatory well in advance and even when the risk not that high, simply because such places are simply unsafe regardless of construction in a hurricane. Instead of giving rebuilding loans that money would be better used to help people relocate to safer housing.
While I am rambling on, this is not meant to be a comprehensive, all-inclusive document on managing threats to human settlements. Which will always be a problem because there really isn’t anywhere free of local hazards. Consider the mountainous west, which does not experience hurricanes but does have wildfires. We know better ways to build - different materials (stone and concrete rather than wood), buffer zones around buildings (which causes some issues with tree lovers), and so on. Make such techniques mandatory in order to receive insurance or compensation. For structures grandfathered in make it a sliding scale - a log cabin in an area known for wildfires is problematic, but perhaps if there is a minimum size buffer of cleared ground around it some insurance could be provided, even if not the full value of the property.
A big problem with all this, however, is that Americans love their freedom, even when it should be spelled “freedumb”. A lot of people will howl about government interference and tyranny… but still expect to be rescued by the government they despise when disaster occurs.
New Orleans is a problem because
- it was never that high above sea level anyway
- it is sinking, and has been for a long time
- the little bit of higher ground is the historic district (the first settlers weren’t stupid - they chose the “high” ground in the area) no one wants to raze and rebuild
- commerce pretty much requires a port in the mouth of the Mississippi
- rivers change over time, with man-made ports silting up, sinking, or otherwise becoming unusable.
Given the above, we need New Orleans or something like it where it is located due to industrial, business, and geographical reasons. Correction - we need a port where New Orleans is. We do not necessarily need a city in the sense of residences close to the work areas. We have a city there because in the past people didn’t have mechanized transport like we do now, enabling them to live miles and miles away from where they work.
We need to realize we can’t fix New Orleans. It WILL re-flood again. The ground level continues to sink AND ocean levels are anticipated to rise. Logically we should be trying to relocate the residences to higher ground but people aren’t logical and there’s enough hostility between class levels in this country that the wealthy would balk at any hit that the public assist the poor in that relocation, even though it won’t occur without that help. People get irrationally attached to location. In some instances the only wealth a family has is tied up in a house, even if it’s a dilapidated house in a flood zone, and it’s not just to ask they abandon what few assets they have without compensation. In addition, at some point in the future the mighty Mississippi is going to change and we’ll probably need to relocate the industrial parts of the port.
