Rebuild New Orleans?
I am of the opinion that New Orleans should not be rebuilt to anything like it was before.
1) It will cost too much money.
Why should federal tax money subsidized a major city to be where it should not be? We shouldn't be spending money to allow cities to grow where nature never meant them to be. Like deserts and floodplains. If people move back in there, the property tax should be jacked up high enough to pay for the levees and an over built evacuation plan. This would price everyone out of the city which is exactly what market forces should do.
2) It puts too many people in danger.
Why were 1.2 million people in a bowl surrounded by water? Why weren't the hospitals ready for a total failure? In the calculation of potential loss of life the city of New Orleans should have come out as too costly long ago. Now we have a chance to manage the city and not allow so many people to put in danger again.
After they drain the city and clean up the bodies they need to demolish most of the damaged housing and not rebuild it. It's a big country. People can live somewhere else. Then they need to remodel the hospitals, fire/police departments and other vital sites to make them flood proof. Make it so every needed system in the building is above the flood line for the next 100 years. This should be paid for by the city or state. If they think it's worth it they should pay for it. If there is vital industry that contributes to the GDP then the federal government should help in the cost of rebuilding that.
I'm sure my opinion will be very unpopular.
1) It will cost too much money.
Why should federal tax money subsidized a major city to be where it should not be? We shouldn't be spending money to allow cities to grow where nature never meant them to be. Like deserts and floodplains. If people move back in there, the property tax should be jacked up high enough to pay for the levees and an over built evacuation plan. This would price everyone out of the city which is exactly what market forces should do.
2) It puts too many people in danger.
Why were 1.2 million people in a bowl surrounded by water? Why weren't the hospitals ready for a total failure? In the calculation of potential loss of life the city of New Orleans should have come out as too costly long ago. Now we have a chance to manage the city and not allow so many people to put in danger again.
After they drain the city and clean up the bodies they need to demolish most of the damaged housing and not rebuild it. It's a big country. People can live somewhere else. Then they need to remodel the hospitals, fire/police departments and other vital sites to make them flood proof. Make it so every needed system in the building is above the flood line for the next 100 years. This should be paid for by the city or state. If they think it's worth it they should pay for it. If there is vital industry that contributes to the GDP then the federal government should help in the cost of rebuilding that.
I'm sure my opinion will be very unpopular.
Comments
I think that is what they should do.
The feds have done it before. I know of a couple of towns here in the midwest that FEMA has bought out because everytime there was flooding the town was underwater. It's a safety issue first, and a practicality issue closely after that. My sister-in-law and I went round and round about this the other day, but to me it just makes sense to thank New Orleans, as it existed, for all it gave us and move on.
Now I am quite surprised, that some people are ready to give up New Orleans so easily. After the Twin Towers where hit badly, US people all agree that they shoud be rebuild. No one said that we should not build skycrapers anymore, because basket cases could strike it again.
New Orleans is belonging to the heritage and history of United States.
BTW that's just my opinion
Originally posted by PBook12
I know a little bit about the Netherlands but not a lot. Is it a river delta like New Orleans? The geologic history of the Mississippi is flooding, mud, water and mud.
It's not delta, it's lands taken to the sea to expand the territory.
Originally posted by PBook12
Then that's a different situation than New Orleans. Plus the Dutch do it because they need the land. We have plenty here. There's no need to live in a dry mud pit surrounded by water with no means of escape.
Yes, but it would be a pity to erase New Orleans. This is a mythic town, one I would love to visit.
Originally posted by PBook12
I am of the opinion that New Orleans should not be rebuilt to anything like it was before.
1) It will cost too much money.
Why should federal tax money subsidized a major city to be where it should not be? We shouldn't be spending money to allow cities to grow where nature never meant them to be. Like deserts and floodplains. If people move back in there, the property tax should be jacked up high enough to pay for the levees and an over built evacuation plan. This would price everyone out of the city which is exactly what market forces should do..
every city has its own risk.
Las Vegas is in the middle of nowhere in the desert
the fact is, its going to be rebuilt whether you like it or not. people are not going to give up on it when it is still a viable and attractive location...and most importantly...their home.
earthquakes have devastated cities, especially San Francisco, they rebuilt. You rebuild smarter and with more planning. Strengthen the city. Also, while the majority of the city is pretty devastated there is a good portion that isn't. You can't ignore that
Originally posted by Bronxite
every city has its own risk.
Las Vegas is in the middle of nowhere in the desert
the fact is, its going to be rebuilt whether you like it or not. people are not going to give up on it when it is still a viable and attractive location...and most importantly...their home.
earthquakes have devastated cities, especially San Francisco, they rebuilt. You rebuild smarter and with more planning. Strengthen the city. Also, while the majority of the city is pretty devastated there is a good portion that isn't. You can't ignore that
I second that
Originally posted by PBook12
I am of the opinion that New Orleans should not be rebuilt to anything like it was before.
Well, I dunno...
By the same token, Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York would have to be relocated because they are endangered by earthquakes, floods or both. Together with Napels (Italy) and Tokyo (Japan).
Why is that?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Holland is built under sea, but they do not face this drama. Perhaps there is some teaching out there.
With all due respect Powerdoc, Holland's not exactly in a hurricane zone.
With the way storms in the Caribbean have been acting up lately, the chance of this happening again could be quite high.
2) Following that thought, sea levels are predicted to rise more quickly in the future, placing the city in even greater danger.
3) Due to flood control projects on the Mississippi River, the Delta is rapidly shrinking at the rate of 28,000 acres per year. This will ultimately leave the city with no protection from storm surges.
4) The existing levees are only engineered to protect the city from a Category 3 hurricane, improving them would costs billions of dollars.
5) The Red Cross decided several years ago to not set up hurricane shelters in New Orleans because of the danger even with improved levees.
6) We are facing the beginning of a 30 year upswing in the hurricane cycle.
Looks like an obvious decision to me.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Originally posted by iPoster
6) We are facing the beginning of a 30 year upswing in the hurricane cycle.
26 year cycle, started in 1995 ends in 2021, we have 15 years left to go.
I remember because they talked about it alot when we got hit with Hurricane Fran in 1996.
Originally posted by midwinter
HOLY HELL! They'd better move NYC!
They will. Of course, NYC is still standing and NO is not, and NO is a good 40 feet lower than NYC.
If NYC was torn to the ground, and if it was 40 feet lower protected by levees, and if it was in a active hurricane zone, then yes, we would be talking about the same stuff.
Originally posted by midwinter
HOLY HELL! They'd better move NYC!
Trust me - nothing at all will be done till the floodwaters are in the streets. Relief will take 5 days to get organized, and there will be plenty of fingerpointing from all sides at all levels.
"Of course we would have taken steps to avert this disaster, but honestly, nobody predicted that the oceans were going to rise this way."
reg