Would you rebuild New Orleans

[Bureaucrat]

City sits 17 (17?) feet under sea level.
Should a major city EVER have been built here?
Should ANY city be built in the low sections?
How long till then next flood hits here?

I resoundingly say "NO". :nonono:, land that sits where N.O. does should not be rebuilt.

Let more massive taxpayer waste continue.

[JoMal]

The city has 'sat' there, in that location, with its precarious safety at stake, for over three hundred years. My guess is that it will be rebuilt, regardless of cost, because of its history, for sure, but also for its economic value for the country. The New Orleans Port is one of the largest in the country. Oil refineries use this port for its transportation hub. Late Pontchartrain provides something like 80% of the marketable seafood used by the country. The tourism outlet New Orleans provides is not replacable anywhere else in the country. The cuisine of New Orleans is hardly authentic from any other location.

Should it be rebuilt at the cost required? If any U.S. city should be, this is the one.  

[Skandery]

The city has 'sat' there, in that location, with its precarious safety at stake, for over three hundred years. My guess is that it will be rebuilt, regardless of cost, because of its history, for sure, but also for its economic value for the country. The New Orleans Port is one of the largest in the country. Oil refineries use this port for its transportation hub. Late Pontchartrain provides something like 80% of the marketable seafood used by the country. The tourism outlet New Orleans provides is not replacable anywhere else in the country. The cuisine of New Orleans is hardly authentic from any other location.

Should it be rebuilt at the cost required? If any U.S. city should be, this is the one.

Truer words were never spoken...my man.  

 

[SPURSX3]

I would rebuild New Orleans.  It's not even a question, the city is part of American gheritage, whether you like it or not, it would be a NATIONAL boost to rebuild this city - not only that to to rebuild it the right way, by that I mean INTEGRATION!  They need to mix housing in this city, the poor that ae going back ne to move out of whatever ghetto they were in and into mixed income neighborhoods - we have done that here in SA with much success, it pulls people out of old habits and helps them get along better.

As for recovery, yes it can be built, it is being reported how much money WAS assisgned by the fed to build better protection against disaster as well as study into a better evacuation plan, all that money was routed elsewhere.  the govt needs to keep watchdogs on our spending - couldnt they build another check to monitor govt funds and spending in cases like this?  

All I know is that N.O. will be rebuilt, it will NOT be same however, expect smaller city, probably more casino's to help bring in money for the economy, there may not be a mardi gras the way that it used to be, but they will still try to kep the tradition going in time.  

As for pulling people back right now - I think the mayor is an idiot.  No drinkable water, still dangerous bacteria, and even the corp of enginieers is saying that another storm will reflood the city - better hope rita doesnt pull toward N.O. after going to florida.  they should be going back  AFTER clean up.

Building the city CAN be done, regardless of the fact that it is below sea level.  I would like to see New Orleans come back.

[Reality]

The city has 'sat' there, in that location, with its precarious safety at stake, for over three hundred years.

This was the 1st flood?

Global warming and the increased chances of more future devastating hurricanes.  I've misplaced the article but its one with statistics that should satisfy both the evolution theorists and scientific minded ones.

Oil refineries?  Could we keep these scam artists out of business so they can stop ripping off the U.S. public?  Oh wait, taxes from gas.  My bad.

[Reality]

According to the World Meteorological Organization, "the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season saw the development of 16 named storms, which is well above the 1944-1996 average of 9.8, but consistent with a marked increase in the annual number of tropical systems since the mid 1990s."  The pattern continued in 2004, which saw devastating hurricanes sweep into the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, where they claimed some 2,000 lives and left a trail of destruction.
  In 2003 Sri Lanka was hit by a cyclone that caused severe flooding, resuting in at  least 250 deaths.  In 2004, a record of at least 23 typhoons brewed in the western Pacific.  Ten of them hit Japan, where they caused extensive damage and took more then 170 lives.  Floods resulting from heavy monsoon rains affected nearly 30 million people in South Asia, especially Bangladesh.

(All of this was before the 9.0 quake caused the 2005 tsunami.)

Are such events a foretaste of what is to come?  In regard to weather-related disasters, many scientists believe that human-induced changes in the atmosphere are altering the worlds climate and contributing to more extreme weather.  If true, this assessment does not bode well for the future.  Adding to the risk, more and more people now live in disaster-prone areas, by choice -or because they have no alternative.

other possible contributing factors:  According to an editorial in the journal Science, sea levels have risen 10 to 20 centimeters {4 to eight inches} in the past century, and more is in store for us.

that is the article in part...

[JoMal]

Global warming and the increased chances of more future devastating hurricanes.  I've misplaced the article but its one with statistics that should satisfy both the evolution theorists and scientific minded ones.

 

So we should depopulate Florida and all areas bordering the Gulf as well? How many other cities are sitting in the prime path of these hurricanes other then the Crescent City? Global warming isn't going away - the earth's ocean's are already one degree warmer then they were just twenty years ago, which is a phenomenal rate in the grand scheme of time.

Some day, without question, Mount Vesuvius will erupt once again. Unlike 79 AD, however, several thousand Romans will not be in the path of the gases and lava, but millions. The people around this volcano's base all know the danger.

Los Angeles was built in the shadow of the San Andreas Fault line. You can see it, if you know what to look for, as you drive east along I-10 into the Inland Empire. Some day, without question, a major earthquake will hit there, possibly shifting the entire Los Angeles basin under the Pacific Ocean. Ten million people live in Los Angeles County; another 3 and a half million in Orange County; 800,000 in Ventura County; and the Inland Empire Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside have around 3.5 million residents more or less living ON the fault line itself, or along the ridges formed by past earthquakes.

The earth is in constant flux, and unlike mankind, it has unlimited time to continue to evolve and reform itself to suit changes in climate, the universe - and mankind. Man has been a part of earth for a relatively short period of time. When people say mankind is destroying earth, I always have to chuckle a bit. The much more likely outcome of whatever man does here is that the earth will cure itself of the insignificant pest eventually, and regardless of what man does, will rid itself of the infection if it ever becomes truly annoying.

So rebuilding New Orleans where it is - why not? Another hurricane is not only likely, but undoubtedly coming, maybe even this year. We might as well party along as we always have in the Crescent City until our time is over here on earth and the planet reclaims itself from the blip of time it took humans to attempt any changes to it.

Oil refineries?  Could we keep these scam artists out of business so they can stop ripping off the U.S. public?  Oh wait, taxes from gas.  My bad.

One of the traditions of New Orleans has always been corruption in local politics. The Mafia in this country was first identified there in the 1890's. This city was also the only one in the pre-Civil War decades that not only had free blacks living in society with whites, but some Blacks and Quadroons actually held a very high status among the city's elite, both in education and refinement.

The traditions of New Orleans are unique,and good or bad, they need to be preserved as well. No city in this continent has the varied and fascinating history as this one, and it has to be kept where it is to honor it.

[Reality]

So we should depopulate Florida and all areas bordering the Gulf as well?

Oil refineries?  Could we keep these scam artists out of business so they can stop ripping off the U.S. public?  Oh wait, taxes from gas.  My bad.

The traditions of New Orleans are unique,and good or bad, they need to be preserved as well. [/quote]
 The Florida cities that sit 17 feet below sea level, yes I would question their building also.

As for L.A. and SoCal, it's for each individual that is able to decide if they want to stay in the quake zone.  Indeed perhaps no where on Earth is a disaster free zone.

Corruption in politics needs to be preserved and honored.  :rofl:  :rofl:
That indeed is also a choice that each individual can support -or not.

 

[rickortreat]

Who's going to pay for all of this?  If you want money spent out of your pocket to continually rebuild in NO and Florida or California when the earthquake's come, that's YOUR business.  But you can't take money out of my pocket to pay for that idiocy!

Look, if you want to build your home in an earthquake zone, don't ask me to subsidize your risk.  If you loose your home, don't expect me to pay for it.  Serves you right for living there!  Same with NO, you want to live where there's going to a flood now and again, don't come crying to me when your home is swept away!

I say do not rebuild NO.  If you have to have a city there, fill in the bowl and raise the level to 20-30 ft above sea level and build on that.  And forget about public money to rebuild, the only thing the public should be respnsible for is infrastructure, roads, water, sewers and storm drains and that's it.  Everything else should be left to private investment.

Otherwise your subsidizing stupid human behavior, which is not somthing the founding fathers ever intended!  Your tax dollars should be spent on your behalf, not on the behalf of people living in a hurricane zone.  If they can't afford to take those losses, they shouldn't live there either!

Forget about the culture and the food and the history, it's not my problem, and it's not yours either.  If your money is going to be spent, let it be something worthwhile for you.  Protecting against a foreign power, fine.  Protecting against a decline in our standard of living, yes, that's something I want. Rebuilding a city below sea level in a river delta!?  What are you, a MORON!?

 :eek2:  

[Joe Vancil]

And I thought I was heartless.

You *HAVE* to rebuild the infrastructure.  You have to build back the public services.

Where I draw the line at is rebuilding the BUSINESSES.  There are some developers out there with $$ in their eyes, who are going to be willing to take the risks and pocket the rewards.  LET THEM.

I don't like the idea of government subsidizing individual businesses, or, the lame Supreme Court decision where land can be taken via Eminent Domain and given to BUSINESSES, because it provides tax revenue!  (How in the world Souter, Kennedy, Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stevens could vote for this is insane!  I'd have expected this kind of vote from the OTHER four!)  The government needs a courthouse - or a road - or a jail - FINE.  But Domino's needs a store?  The heck with that.  Let them negotiate for the land.

And that's the way I look at New Orleans.  SOMEONE will want the land - that's a given.  Let them pay for it, and develop it, according to the city's zoning ordinances.  But the infrastructure - which should include improvements in communication and transportation - should be supplied by public funds.
 

[SPURSX3]

Who's going to pay for all of this?  If you want money spent out of your pocket to continually rebuild in NO and Florida or California when the earthquake's come, that's YOUR business.  But you can't take money out of my pocket to pay for that idiocy!

Look, if you want to build your home in an earthquake zone, don't ask me to subsidize your risk.  If you loose your home, don't expect me to pay for it.  Serves you right for living there!  Same with NO, you want to live where there's going to a flood now and again, don't come crying to me when your home is swept away!

I say do not rebuild NO.  If you have to have a city there, fill in the bowl and raise the level to 20-30 ft above sea level and build on that.  And forget about public money to rebuild, the only thing the public should be respnsible for is infrastructure, roads, water, sewers and storm drains and that's it.  Everything else should be left to private investment.

Otherwise your subsidizing stupid human behavior, which is not somthing the founding fathers ever intended!  Your tax dollars should be spent on your behalf, not on the behalf of people living in a hurricane zone.  If they can't afford to take those losses, they shouldn't live there either!

Forget about the culture and the food and the history, it's not my problem, and it's not yours either.  If your money is going to be spent, let it be something worthwhile for you.  Protecting against a foreign power, fine.  Protecting against a decline in our standard of living, yes, that's something I want. Rebuilding a city below sea level in a river delta!?  What are you, a MORON!?

 :eek2:

Mother Nature is about as fickle as human nature Rick.  To say that people are morons for living in a city that could at some point be flooded is about the same as saying people in and around New York are morons for living in one of the first cities to possibly be bombed should nukes ever be launched at the U.S.  There is no telling when or if another Huricane will come along of the same magnitude in the same direction to do as much damage to the city.  Hey it snows up north, ae people morons for living where they could possibly freeze to death?  heaven forbid the temp gets above 95 degrees up there or else morons would be dropping like flies from heat stroke.  morons in california happen to live near trees that catch forrest fire each year, guess they dont need help rebuilding either...


I agree with joe, the Gov needs to be particular with WHO or HOW MUCH money goes to who, some people are insured and are covered for all of this, why give them DOUBLE the money just because they ae victims, we should help those that NEED help, not donate money to those that have the money in their pockets already.

[JoMal]

Who's going to pay for all of this?  If you want money spent out of your pocket to continually rebuild in NO and Florida or California when the earthquake's come, that's YOUR business.  But you can't take money out of my pocket to pay for that idiocy!

Look, if you want to build your home in an earthquake zone, don't ask me to subsidize your risk.  If you loose your home, don't expect me to pay for it.  Serves you right for living there!  Same with NO, you want to live where there's going to a flood now and again, don't come crying to me when your home is swept away!

I say do not rebuild NO.  If you have to have a city there, fill in the bowl and raise the level to 20-30 ft above sea level and build on that.  And forget about public money to rebuild, the only thing the public should be respnsible for is infrastructure, roads, water, sewers and storm drains and that's it.  Everything else should be left to private investment.

Otherwise your subsidizing stupid human behavior, which is not somthing the founding fathers ever intended!  Your tax dollars should be spent on your behalf, not on the behalf of people living in a hurricane zone.  If they can't afford to take those losses, they shouldn't live there either!

Forget about the culture and the food and the history, it's not my problem, and it's not yours either.  If your money is going to be spent, let it be something worthwhile for you.  Protecting against a foreign power, fine.  Protecting against a decline in our standard of living, yes, that's something I want. Rebuilding a city below sea level in a river delta!?  What are you, a MORON!?

 :eek2:

Who's going to pay for all of this? Who paid for rebuilding the Twin Towers? Who rebuilt both San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake and most of Florida after the last several hurricane hits it incurred? There is no line in the sand on these things where, after a set number of disasters, you say these latest victims are out of luck.

What criteria do you base people's decisions on where they want to live? That if a good job offer comes in for Los Angeles, you decline it because some day an earthquake may wipe out the area? People chose these areas to live in for the quality of life they seek, or economic reasons, or ambiance or perhaps as simple as they were born there and have connections.

Normally, what happens is the government provides low interest loans for people to rebuild, for businesses to restock and refurbish. Essentially, they provide hope, and let's include in your list of where public money should be spent on rebuilding better levees around New Orleans. River deltas certainly are risky to live in, but landfill is not an unreasonable idea for this area. There are cities worldwide that exist and have existed for centuries behind a levee system and/or canal system, including my own city of Sacramento, Amsterdam, Strasbourg, Venice, and Prague. Seattle was raised a full building floor over the original city site because of tidal flooding. The point is, all of these places have long lasting human connections that needed care to support a viable city, and they have all faced nature's fury at one time or another, some for centuries, yet they survive because the people who live there could not consider any alternative. New Orleans needs to survive as well, and one hurricane should not deter that.      

And how costly, exactly, do you think it would be for a million people to relocate elsewhere? The likelihood of creating a welfare burden on other areas would overwhelm those communities and who do you think will be paying to maintain all those people relocating?  There are costs incurred no matter which direction is taken. Who has jobs to hire hundreds of thousands of workers in the next three months? But put them to work rebuilding their lives and homes in New Orleans and I guarantee they would jump at that chance, because I know many people with ties to New Orleans are willing to do whatever it takes to rebuild their homes and businesses back there.

Is it a hazard? Of course. It's a hazard living in Philadelphia during a freezing winter that shuts down the entire region. We live in the grips of Mother Nature everywhere, so let's move the people out of Kansas and Oklahoma to avoid deaths and infrastructure damage from tornados, the people out of the south to avoid those hurricanes, the people all along the California coasts living in earthquake zones, and the people in the northeast who suffer from blizzards that leave hundreds frozen who can't afford heating oil.  

Just saying "it is not your problem" is truly the stupidest thing anyone could say about this.  Saying you would rather fight a useless war in Iraq, is that "protecting against a foreign power" that you apparently are more ecstatic about having your government pay for then helping the people of New Orleans start up their economy again? Paying into a huge jump in the welfare state in order to, "protect against a decline in our standard of living" for the deplaced you want to keep away from New Orleans by putting them all on welfare until jobs magically appear in San Antonio, Houston, Kansas City and elsewhere to accommodate all these workers?

We all have an interest in putting New Orleans back on track.  Reclaiming the area has been an issue in New Orleans since 1690, as it will be for the next three hundred years, but bear in mind the location of New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi and near the Gulf, with the resources of the area nearby, makes this city way too important to magically "relocate" somewhere else.

So if we need to spend money on helping the people there reestablish this economy, it clearly is in the interest of the rest of America to do so. Moreso, I might add, then if Philadelphia burned down due to an Eagle tailgate party.

What kind of a chickenshit would even suggest such a thing?  
 

[Guest_Randy]

You guys aren't even considering the political reasons for rebuilding the city -- it was much of the same reason that the twin towers are going to be rebuilt -- it's far more than just a couple of buildings or a city -- it's encompasses so many reasons:

1)  Political agendas (every politician wants to jump on this bandwagon [kind of like the way that NBA fans jump on the bandwagon of top teams] because they feel it makes them look good.  And politicians are VERY willing to spend our money if it makes them look good.

2)  People WANT the city rebuilt -- it's why people have sent in so much money through so many organizations since Katrina.  They want to help the people -- the want to rebuild America (and NO).  Whether you liked NO or not, it was a part of our history and part of our country -- like it or not, our country will sacrifice to rebuild this city.

3)  History -- this city has a LONG history in our country -- it's history is valid and has played an important role in the development of our country.

4)  Significance -- perhaps part of the history but it's location at the mouth of the Mississippi had TREMENDOUS significance in the life of our country and still has a great deal of significance today.

I understand that many are looking at the amount of money required to rebuild this city and trying to be practical -- but this is not a matter of a balance sheet -- you simply can't be practical in a situation like this.  The city has to be rebuilt.

[rickortreat]

Who's going to pay for all of this? Who paid for rebuilding the Twin Towers? Who rebuilt both San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake and most of Florida after the last several hurricane hits it incurred? There is no line in the sand on these things where, after a set number of disasters, you say these latest victims are out of luck.

What criteria do you base people's decisions on where they want to live? That if a good job offer comes in for Los Angeles, you decline it because some day an earthquake may wipe out the area? People chose these areas to live in for the quality of life they seek, or economic reasons, or ambiance or perhaps as simple as they were born there and have connections.

Normally, what happens is the government provides low interest loans for people to rebuild, for businesses to restock and refurbish. Essentially, they provide hope, and let's include in your list of where public money should be spent on rebuilding better levees around New Orleans. River deltas certainly are risky to live in, but landfill is not an unreasonable idea for this area. There are cities worldwide that exist and have existed for centuries behind a levee system and/or canal system, including my own city of Sacramento, Amsterdam, Strasbourg, Venice, and Prague. Seattle was raised a full building floor over the original city site because of tidal flooding. The point is, all of these places have long lasting human connections that needed care to support a viable city, and they have all faced nature's fury at one time or another, some for centuries, yet they survive because the people who live there could not consider any alternative. New Orleans needs to survive as well, and one hurricane should not deter that.

And how costly, exactly, do you think it would be for a million people to relocate elsewhere? The likelihood of creating a welfare burden on other areas would overwhelm those communities and who do you think will be paying to maintain all those people relocating? There are costs incurred no matter which direction is taken. Who has jobs to hire hundreds of thousands of workers in the next three months? But put them to work rebuilding their lives and homes in New Orleans and I guarantee they would jump at that chance, because I know many people with ties to New Orleans are willing to do whatever it takes to rebuild their homes and businesses back there.

Is it a hazard? Of course. It's a hazard living in Philadelphia during a freezing winter that shuts down the entire region. We live in the grips of Mother Nature everywhere, so let's move the people out of Kansas and Oklahoma to avoid deaths and infrastructure damage from tornados, the people out of the south to avoid those hurricanes, the people all along the California coasts living in earthquake zones, and the people in the northeast who suffer from blizzards that leave hundreds frozen who can't afford heating oil.

Just saying "it is not your problem" is truly the stupidest thing anyone could say about this. Saying you would rather fight a useless war in Iraq, is that "protecting against a foreign power" that you apparently are more ecstatic about having your government pay for then helping the people of New Orleans start up their economy again? Paying into a huge jump in the welfare state in order to, "protect against a decline in our standard of living" for the deplaced you want to keep away from New Orleans by putting them all on welfare until jobs magically appear in San Antonio, Houston, Kansas City and elsewhere to accommodate all these workers?

We all have an interest in putting New Orleans back on track. Reclaiming the area has been an issue in New Orleans since 1690, as it will be for the next three hundred years, but bear in mind the location of New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi and near the Gulf, with the resources of the area nearby, makes this city way too important to magically "relocate" somewhere else.

So if we need to spend money on helping the people there reestablish this economy, it clearly is in the interest of the rest of America to do so. Moreso, I might add, then if Philadelphia burned down due to an Eagle tailgate party.

What kind of a chickenshit would even suggest such a thing?

No one's paid to rebuild the Twin Towers.  They will NOT be rebuilt.  SF was rebuilt by the residents.  Florida is being rebuilt by the insurance companies, who won't be writing any new policies down there, instead the state will have to underwrite insurance.

Anyone can live anywhere they damn well want to, as long as they're willing to accept the consequences.  Some places are more dangerous than others, and some represent an unjustifiable risk.  That risk should not be subsidized by other taxpayers.  If people want to live in places that risky, that should be on their dime.  I don't know how to make this any clearer.

The ties you refer to are emotional.  So what? No one rebuilt Pompei, they weren't crazy enough to build near a Volcano after that!

The cost of absorbing the people from NO into other areas, virtually nil.  These people will support the local economies they move to, provide support for rents, labor for jobs, etc.  Cajun food in Seattle, why not!  As long as they're distributed evenly accross the country, it would be a net gain for every community they move to.

I'm not for the war in Iraq, I see no reason to subsidize the stealing of oil from the Iraqui people in order to make Exxon-Mobil and Haliburton wealthy!  I am against any government expenditures which should be paid for by the local population.  And that includes building in a flood plain.

It isn't my problem and it isn't yours either.  It is your choice to make it one, but I'm not impressed by your arguments at all.  The standard of living I was refering to was that of the people NOT directly impacted by the hurricane. Like you and me.  The issue of employment and price stability is everyone's problem and is primarilly effected by the policies put in place by your government.   But your government isn't interested in these things, or they wouldn't allow our manufactuiring base to be closed down.  

By the way, the Philadelphia area contributes a good deal more to the national economy than NO ever did.  But Philly will never be destroyed so thoroughly by a natural disaster.  And if it was, I wouldn't expect or want help from all over the country,  I'm sure we could handle it.

 

[Guest_Randy]

No one's paid to rebuild the Twin Towers. They will NOT be rebuilt. SF was rebuilt by the residents. Florida is being rebuilt by the insurance companies, who won't be writing any new policies down there, instead the state will have to underwrite insurance.

It's way to early to say that the Twin Towers won't be rebuilt.  As for SF and Florida, go back and check out and see how much federal money were given to these areas -- federal money is ALWAYS given to major catastrophes, NO is only an exception with the AMOUNT of money that is being given.  

The ties you refer to are emotional.

Why is that such a bad thing?  Do emotions cause us to sacrifice at times?  For country?  For love?  I fail to see how emotions are a detriment in desiring to build back a community for those who lost it.  We don't stand separately as a country -- we stand together.  And it's times like these that prove this is true.  I'm not saying that you don't have a right to disagree -- you have a right to your opinion, I just think you are in the minority.  The majority of Americans WANT NO to be rebuilt -- and that's why it will happen (because that makes it in the politicians best interests to beat the bandwagon drums of public sentiment).  I don't think emotion is such a bad thing (obviously, I'd like to see it tempered with reason and thought) but in this case, I believe emotion and reason causes us to say "REBUILD."