Rebuild New Orleans?

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
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.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 71
    They can raise the city by several feet on the lakeside.



    I think that is what they should do.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 71
    Maybe they should but the mud that the city is built on is kept dry. That's why the city is sinking. As the mud dries the city sinks more. It's a catch 22.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 71
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    I have to agree with NO never again being any kind of picture of what it used to be. I understand and appreciate the historical value of the city and all that entails. You have to think, however, that because of ALL the factors involved in rebuilding on such a fragile site that maybe we should devote those resources to moving people elsewhere near, but out of harm's way.



    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 71
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    If the city is rebuild, something will have to be done, to prevent new dramas. Holland is built under sea, but they do not face this drama. Perhaps there is some teaching out there.



    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
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 71
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 71
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 71
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 71
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 71
    Quote:

    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
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 71
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    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
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 71
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    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).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 71
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    I swear to God, why is it that I NEVER, EVER hear people after an earthquake in LA say "You know, they were stupid to build a city on a major fault line! It's too expensive to rebuild it!"



    Why is that?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 71
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 71
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    1) Most scientists now agree that global warming is a probable fact.



    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."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 71
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 71
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    HOLY HELL! They'd better move NYC!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 71
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 71
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 71
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    And in 2015, while America's costal cities begin to be engulfed by the sea, a member of the Republican administration will stand before the cameras and say:



    "Of course we would have taken steps to avert this disaster, but honestly, nobody predicted that the oceans were going to rise this way."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 71
    regreg Posts: 832member
    I think it will be rebuilt but wish some of the essential services be moved out and to the northwest and on higher ground.



    reg
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.