Should they rebuild New Orleans?

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Is it a good Idea to rebuild New Orleans, it’s below sea level, its bound to flood again, wouldn’t it be better to abandon the area and let it flood and avoid another tragedy.

[Fragony]

A major part of the Netherlands is below sea level, works for us. We have centuries of knowledge on holding back the seas, just build one of these.

http://www.deltawerken.com/Deltaworks/23.html

http://www.neeltjejans.nl/img/184.jpg

[Lemur]

There's a major difference between the Netherlands and New Orleans -- N.O. is built on sediment. Nothing but sediment. So unless it's allowed to flood with the Mississippi, it will continue sinking, more or less forever.

A reasonable argument can be made for not rebuilding large parts of N.O., but no politician is going to make it. We have a newish tradition in this country: Build your house on a tornado-ravaged volcano filled with mutant alligators, and we the people will bail you out when disaster strikes. 'Cause who could have known that a tornado-filled volcano populated with mutants would be unsafe?

Yet another tax dollar sinkhole ...

[edit]

I was listening to a news podcast, and they were interviewing a gent from N.O. who was asking the rhetorical question, "Do we have a responsibility to make every American safe?" He obviously thought the answer was YES. I disagree. The gov can't make you safe if you like to play in traffic. The gov can't make you safe if you drink bleach. The gov can't make you safe if you live below sea level on a coast known for hurricanes.

We should re-evaluate our rebuilding policies, and not just for N.O. Florida's completely gotten out of hand. How many times do we have to rebuild that peninsula?

[Fragony]

There's a major difference between the Netherlands and New Orleans -- N.O. is built on sediment. Nothing but sediment. So unless it's allowed to flood with the Mississippi, it will continue sinking, more or less forever.


We are sinking as well, dutch towns in floodland are build on poles. New Orleans was flooded because the barriers were insufficiently reinforced, almost nothing can hold back water in a storm, ours are build to counter a storm that only occurs every 30.000 years and New Orleans was build to counter a type 3 storm I believe, the kind that hits the coast every year(?) it was just waiting for something to go wrong. That, and the Deltaworks are just an incredible feat of enginering that deserves to be pimped.

[Ja'chyra]

There's a major difference between the Netherlands and New Orleans -- N.O. is built on sediment. Nothing but sediment. So unless it's allowed to flood with the Mississippi, it will continue sinking, more or less forever.

A reasonable argument can be made for not rebuilding large parts of N.O., but no politician is going to make it. We have a newish tradition in this country: Build your house on a tornado-ravaged volcano filled with mutant alligators, and we the people will bail you out when disaster strikes. 'Cause who could have known that a tornado-filled volcano populated with mutants would be unsafe?

Yet another tax dollar sinkhole ...

[edit]

I was listening to a news podcast, and they were interviewing a gent from N.O. who was asking the rhetorical question, "Do we have a responsibility to make every American safe?" He obviously thought the answer was YES. I disagree. The gov can't make you safe if you like to play in traffic. The gov can't make you safe if you drink bleach. The gov can't make you safe if you live below sea level on a coast known for hurricanes.

We should re-evaluate our rebuilding policies, and not just for N.O. Florida's completely gotten out of hand. How many times do we have to rebuild that peninsula?

Pretty much covers it. :2thumbsup:

Build your house wherever you like but don't expect me to help if you build it on a flood plain and it floods. :no:

[Andres]

There's a major difference between the Netherlands and New Orleans -- N.O. is built on sediment. Nothing but sediment. So unless it's allowed to flood with the Mississippi, it will continue sinking, more or less forever.

A reasonable argument can be made for not rebuilding large parts of N.O., but no politician is going to make it. We have a newish tradition in this country: Build your house on a tornado-ravaged volcano filled with mutant alligators, and we the people will bail you out when disaster strikes. 'Cause who could have known that a tornado-filled volcano populated with mutants would be unsafe?

Yet another tax dollar sinkhole ...

[edit]

I was listening to a news podcast, and they were interviewing a gent from N.O. who was asking the rhetorical question, "Do we have a responsibility to make every American safe?" He obviously thought the answer was YES. I disagree. The gov can't make you safe if you like to play in traffic. The gov can't make you safe if you drink bleach. The gov can't make you safe if you live below sea level on a coast known for hurricanes.

We should re-evaluate our rebuilding policies, and not just for N.O. Florida's completely gotten out of hand. How many times do we have to rebuild that peninsula?

Hm, seems like Belgium isn't the only Absurdistan in the world.

I agree with Lemur here. If you're stupid enough to live below sea level, the government shouldn't help you out. On the other hand, a lot of people ARE stupid, and the government has to take care of ALL his citizens, including the stupid ones. So it should be better if the US government simply forbids people to rebuild on the N.O. area. Then it should be clear enough to those sado-maso idiots who like to see there homes getting destroyed over and over again, that they should stop that kind of behaviour.

The people who were allowed by the U.S. government to build below sea level on a coast known for its hurricanes, should get a compensation though. Even if it was stupid to build a house there, the government is partially responsible for not having forbid (forbidden? Sorry for my bad English) it in the past.

Just my humble opinion...

[Fragony]

The people who were allowed by the U.S. government should get a compensation though.


LA and SF are build right on top of earthquakeland, it always goes well untill it goes wrong. Sure NO can flood again, just make the possibility of this happening a little slimmer. Can't move an entire city.

[Andres]

Can't move an entire city.

Which city? I thought N.O. was destroyed? With the compensation, they can build somewhere else, where it's safer.

Off course there will be complaints like "But I want to rebuild my home, N.O. was where I felt home. Please, I want to go back to see my house getting destroyed again within a few years and to see my children drowning in the flood", but hey, sometimes politicians must take harsh decisions, don't they?

[Fragony]

Which city? I thought N.O. was destroyed? With the compensation, they can build somewhere else, where it's safer.

Off course there will be complaints like "But I want to rebuild my home, N.O. was where I felt home. Please, I want to go back to see my house getting destroyed again within a few years and to see my children drowning in the flood", but hey, sometimes politicians must take harsh decisions, don't they?

Don't know how bad it is right now, but the french quarter and many others are supposedly pretty much intact. I say swallow it and get going again, infrastructure (rails, waterways) should be fine, you need these at least, rebuild those at well? About funds, a lot vaporised but it wasn't the water ~;)

[yesdachi]

We’ve already spent tons of money on it so I say lets finish rebuilding it and when it is destroyed again this year we can say with 100% certainty that it was a complete waste of time and money and make it a future policy to never give money to idiots who live at the ocean shore under the sea level (why do they call it sea level if it is an ocean?). If you cannot get insurance on your house why should the government give you money when your house is destroyed? MOVE! For the love of Pete just hitch-hike 30 miles north and live in an old refrigerator and you will be better off than living behind a government built dyke 10 feet below the ocean!

[doc_bean]

LA and SF are build right on top of earthquakeland, it always goes well untill it goes wrong. Sure NO can flood again, just make the possibility of this happening a little slimmer. Can't move an entire city.

I saw a tv show a few weeks ago about certain areas of Californa that were prone to major fires. The plants had adapted and many seeds would only grow after a major fire had cleared the area. There were people living there. What's even more surprising, there were people living there between two hills, guaranteed to suck the wind (and fire) right through and burn down everything, it's only a matter of time :dizzy2:

Does something like a zonal plan even exist in the US or can you just build on whatever piece of land you own ?


That, and the Deltaworks are just an incredible feat of enginering that deserves to be pimped.

Very true, but I don't see them gathering the funds to do something similar in the US. Too many people would complain that they'd have to pay taxes to ensure the safety of others, and that if it's so dangerous there, that they shouldn't live there. :oops:
I don't know how much city and state taxes could gather but I doubt it would be enough. Then again, Louisiana has oil doesn't it ? Can it use part of the income from drilling for a project like this ?

[Devastatin Dave]

Should they (they aren't going to do ###t, its my tax dollar that's being wasted on these lazy parasites) rebuild New Orleans?
Simple answer, with many meanings...
F. N.O.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Absolutely.

Entirely too many political careers and government spending projects are on the line here.

Fortunately, we can rely on government to do its typical patchwork and reactionary job, allowing us to do this all over again in 35-50 years!

Go team!!!!

[yesdachi]

allowing us to do this all over again in 35-50 years!
I was thinking is 35-50 days! ~D

[Ice]

There's a major difference between the Netherlands and New Orleans -- N.O. is built on sediment. Nothing but sediment. So unless it's allowed to flood with the Mississippi, it will continue sinking, more or less forever.

A reasonable argument can be made for not rebuilding large parts of N.O., but no politician is going to make it. We have a newish tradition in this country: Build your house on a tornado-ravaged volcano filled with mutant alligators, and we the people will bail you out when disaster strikes. 'Cause who could have known that a tornado-filled volcano populated with mutants would be unsafe?

Yet another tax dollar sinkhole ...

[edit]

I was listening to a news podcast, and they were interviewing a gent from N.O. who was asking the rhetorical question, "Do we have a responsibility to make every American safe?" He obviously thought the answer was YES. I disagree. The gov can't make you safe if you like to play in traffic. The gov can't make you safe if you drink bleach. The gov can't make you safe if you live below sea level on a coast known for hurricanes.

We should re-evaluate our rebuilding policies, and not just for N.O. Florida's completely gotten out of hand. How many times do we have to rebuild that peninsula?

Lemur pretty much summed up how I feel.

Sure they should be allowed to live there, it's there right, but they really shouldn't expected the government to bail them out when their home/city gets flatten by a hurricane.

[Xiahou]

Build your house wherever you like but don't expect me to help if you build it on a flood plain and it floods. :no:That about sums up my view as well. I'm of the view that the federal government's responsibility should extend to rebuilding major infrastructure and not much further.

I believe the last figure I've heard is that $120 billion in federal funds have been sent to the region thus far and I cringe everytime I see Bush or some other politician go there and say "we need to do more". They should be saying, "We've sent completely unprecedented amounts of money to the area- it's time to start looking to your city, county and state officials." :yes:

[lars573]

I saw a tv show a few weeks ago about certain areas of Californa that were prone to major fires. The plants had adapted and many seeds would only grow after a major fire had cleared the area. There were people living there. What's even more surprising, there were people living there between two hills, guaranteed to suck the wind (and fire) right through and burn down everything, it's only a matter of time :dizzy2:

Does something like a zonal plan even exist in the US or can you just build on whatever piece of land you own ?
Cities and towns have zoning regulations. "Plans" sometimes exist, but they are usually a joke. In rural areas you can build what you want if you own the land.

[Celtic_Guardian]

um ya, considering a lot of people are still living in 8 foot FEMA trailers, and Oprah is giving people fully furnished houses........

[Duke of Gloucester]

I am not that familar with the geography of the US, but isn't New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi and isn't the Mississipi an enormous river with a huge catchment area? Doesn't this make the Mississipi a vital part of the communcation infrastructure for a large part of the US. New Orleans must be ideally placed to benefit from sea and river traffic and become an enormous and thriving port. In other words, if New Orleans didn't exist, wouldn't someone build it.

Now whether public money should be used to build New Orleans or not is a different matter, but you could make an arguement that the benefits of a re-built NO would be felt beyond the city limit and outside Louisiana. You would have to admit, Ice and Yesdachi that Michigan might feel the pinch if Quebec was destroyed. Does this unwillingness to rebuild have an anti-south bias?

[whyidie]

How often has New Orleans needed to be rebuilt ? Has it happened more often ? Can we build something like the Deltaworks ?


Further how expensive would it be to buyout all those that would lose money as a result of the land not being rebuilt ? More than $128bn ?

If we don't rebuild New Orleans with federal money then we should apply this same standard to other areas that are hit by natural disasters.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am not that familar with the geography of the US, but isn't New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi and isn't the Mississipi an enormous river with a huge catchment area? Doesn't this make the Mississipi a vital part of the communcation infrastructure for a large part of the US. New Orleans must be ideally placed to benefit from sea and river traffic and become an enormous and thriving port. In other words, if New Orleans didn't exist, wouldn't someone build it.

Correct, the logistics of geography and commerce dictate that some form of major community in that region is inevitable.


Now whether public money should be used to build New Orleans or not is a different matter, but you could make an arguement that the benefits of a re-built NO would be felt beyond the city limit and outside Louisiana. You would have to admit, Ice and Yesdachi that Michigan might feel the pinch if Quebec was destroyed. Does this unwillingness to rebuild have an anti-south bias?

No anti-southern bias exists in government. Too many of the voters are concentrated in the "sun-belt." Some degree of anti-southern bias exists in the media and "culture" elites, as these are heavily concentrated on the two coasts: LA to SFO, Wash to Boston.

The problem for N.O. is that numerous communities exist in the region, many of which did not suffer the infrastructure damage endured in the Big Easy. Businesses are rebuilding at the expected pace -- but they will no longer be so heavily concentrated in and around N.O. itself.

Furthermore, graft and embezzlement in the public sector is arguably worse in Louisiana (at least historically) than anywhere else in the USA -- how much of the $120 billion is actually getting put to work to DO anything is a real question.

We need to either a) let them bootstrap it themselves -- in which case New Orleans will shrink from 600,000 pop to about 350k as businesses etc. spread out and rebuild with a different model with the non-returning population heavily skewed in favor of the black urban poor (who will then join other communities notably Houston, or b) pony up the needed $1trill from the public coffers to redo all the infrastructure and housing for them so that the original population can return to a close approximation of their previous lives -- $100+B for another 8-10 years should allow for full rebuilding even with the necessary "shrinkage" in actual dollars spent on the project.

[yesdachi]

I am not that familar with the geography of the US, but isn't New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi and isn't the Mississipi an enormous river with a huge catchment area? Doesn't this make the Mississipi a vital part of the communcation infrastructure for a large part of the US. New Orleans must be ideally placed to benefit from sea and river traffic and become an enormous and thriving port. In other words, if New Orleans didn't exist, wouldn't someone build it.

Now whether public money should be used to build New Orleans or not is a different matter, but you could make an arguement that the benefits of a re-built NO would be felt beyond the city limit and outside Louisiana. You would have to admit, Ice and Yesdachi that Michigan might feel the pinch if Quebec was destroyed. Does this unwillingness to rebuild have an anti-south bias?
From what I can tell, the portion of NO that was flooded is lower than the Mississippi River and for the most part the river (and commerce) was unaffected by the flooding.

I’ll bet there are negative economic effects to loosing a portion of a near by city but rebuilding them just to see them destroyed again would be even worse on the economy.

I don’t think they should spend the time and money rebuilding the parts of the city that were destroyed and under sea level, its just silly to me to build where you know something bad will happen, why would you even want the insecurity of being 10+ feet under the ocean when you could take the thousands of dollars you are getting from insurance and aid and move across town (or almost anywhere in the country) and be so much safer from having your possessions destroyed by the storm you are almost guaranteed will be coming again. My opposition to the rebuilding has nothing to do with the fact NO is in the south but everything to do with it being in a flood zone, an undeniably bad building location.

Last winter in West Michigan we had weird freezing and thawing that created ice jams on the Grand River causing massive flooding in many counties (Macomb especially) up-river from Grand Rapids and thousands of houses were flooded (and then frozen), many were in flood zones and I would not encourage them to be rebuilt either. Some of the region was designated a disaster area but of course they didn’t receive billions of dollars to rebuild like NO did.

Nature is a harsh mistress and it is best to stay out of her way.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Maybe I have the geography of your part of the USA wrong, but I thought that the Great Lakes/St Lawrence Seaway provided an important route for imports and exports and that Quebec was at the end of this route. I think for this to work efficiently you need a thriving Quebec. A natural disaster there could be serious for you. Similarly Katrina devastating NO will have caused problems for (I'm struggling to name a city on the Mississippi now) Memphis (a guess).

You have given some reasons why NO is a bad place to build and I have put forward arguments about why it is a good place. The truth is the things that make NO attractive ecconomically (being in the coast at the end of a large river) also cause the problems you describe. The point I am making is that a properly functioning NO helps the hinterland in the same way (I think) that Quebec contributes to Michigan's ecconomy. I suppose the question is: "Would your view be different if you lived in Memphis (assuming I have remembered correctly where Memphis is)?"

I think this is a time where you can't stay out of nature's way because the way she has designed the Mississippi means you need something at NO to make proper use of the opportunities she has provided.

[yesdachi]

If we don't rebuild New Orleans with federal money then we should apply this same standard to other areas that are hit by natural disasters.
I don’t think in the history of America has the federal government given so much money to an area for disaster relief as to NO. not even the Chicago fires or the big earthquake in CA, maybe Florida over the years combined but it is typically not the gov that rebuilds, NO has been a drastic exception to this rule for reasons I cannot figure out.

[yesdachi]

Maybe I have the geography of your part of the USA wrong, but I thought that the Great Lakes/St Lawrence Seaway provided an important route for imports and exports and that Quebec was at the end of this route. I think for this to work efficiently you need a thriving Quebec. A natural disaster there could be serious for you. Similarly Katrina devastating NO will have caused problems for (I'm struggling to name a city on the Mississippi now) Memphis (a guess).

You have given some reasons why NO is a bad place to build and I have put forward arguments about why it is a good place. The truth is the things that make NO attractive ecconomically (being in the coast at the end of a large river) also cause the problems you describe. The point I am making is that a properly functioning NO helps the hinterland in the same way (I think) that Quebec contributes to Michigan's ecconomy. I suppose the question is: "Would your view be different if you lived in Memphis (assuming I have remembered correctly where Memphis is)?"

I think this is a time where you can't stay out of nature's way because the way she has designed the Mississippi means you need something at NO to make proper use of the opportunities she has provided.
The St. Lawrence Seaway (http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/home.html) is pretty amazing but I don’t see how any one city’s existence or inexistence along its path would change positively or negatively the affect of commerce from other cities along the way as long as the seaway was functioning.

How exactly does a thriving NO or Quebec affect other cities up-river as long as the waterway functions? They are just places the big ships wave at as they pass by, right? Perhaps in the “old days” when there was a need to re-supply or something prior to heading out or in but I don’t think there is much dependence anymore.

What could be affected is the ability to move cargo thru the ports in NO along the Mississippi River. Looking into it a little, it seems like around 20% of the US’s import/exports travel thru NO via the Mississippi River.As long as the ports are functioning I don’t see how rebuilding all the homes and infrastructure in the flood zone areas matters (economically to the rest of the country I mean). :bow:

[whyidie]

I don’t think in the history of America has the federal government given so much money to an area for disaster relief as to NO. not even the Chicago fires or the big earthquake in CA, maybe Florida over the years combined but it is typically not the gov that rebuilds, NO has been a drastic exception to this rule for reasons I cannot figure out.

I wonder if its related to the relative devestation. California was hit hard, but none of the cities were completely toppled.


In other words, I have no idea either.