Rebuild New Orleans?
I asked the question a few days ago, and now more people are weighing in. The question is, "Should we rebuild New Orleans?"
Left Brain Female says, " folks need to do some deep soul-searching to determine if rebuilding the dream is really worth the cost." Below the Beltway says "Hell yeah." He also asks, "Where would the 4.5 million people who live there go? What about the businesses that are based there?" Jack Chambless, Economics Professor of Valencia Community College says, "But the founding fathers never intended, Article One, section Eight of the Constitution, never intended to provide one dollar of taxpayer dollars to pay for any disaster or anything that we might call charity." Update 8:05PM: Obi-Wan of Forward Biased is unsure at the moment:4.5 million people, and their hometown may just have disappeared, and this isn't even considering the value of New Orleans as a historic and unique city.More Updates, 10:00PM EST:
Mark says, "I don't know." Jeff Jarvis thinks the city "may need to be reinvented." The Fat Guy says, "I simply can’t imagine an America without New Orleans." Confederate Yankee says, "Goodbye, Big Easy. It was fun while it lasted." Martini Republic complains about asking the question, but doesn't give an answer. Update 5:50AM (Thursday): Porkopolis weighs in with a resounding "no," and an analysis showing why not monetarily. There's also a long list of people and posts discussing alternatives to rebuilding. Update: 2PM
Right Wing Nuthouse says, "See ya in the French Quarter at Mardi Gras in five years…" in giving his support for it's rebuild. Captain Ed says:
How we take care of New Orleans will say something about our national character and whether it remains as tough and optimistic as our history, for all its flaws, amply demonstrates. Will we walk away from a tough fight? Will America shrug its shoulders and tell the city that we don't want to take on difficult tasks?I, however, don't see it as a "challenge" to "back down" from. I see it as simple economics. WHY? What will happen if we don't rebuild it? Will the hurricanes get mad as us and attack again? I don't think it's a matter of running from a tough fight -- it's just common sense to NOT want to build a city where there's water. Why not just expand Miami Beach 2 miles eastward? That makes about as much sense. Update Saturday:
...
And so New Orleans must be rebuilt, in some manner, right where it is now.
Jeff Fisher says,
New Orleans will be rebuilt. The only question is, "Where?"I'm sure it will be rebuilt. I'm just saying that it's not a good idea to use MY money (taxpayer money) to do it. Let people build whatever they want, wherever they want -- just don't force me to pay for it.
Where are the people to go? Anywhere else. The businesses? The same -- why not start again somewhere else? In TWO months, if the bowl is drained, what are you going to find there? Do you really want to? It would certainly be cheaper to start over somewhere else than to first remove all the debris and THEN start over. I know we won't, but I think we should just let it be. The billions of dollars spent could be better spent elsewhere -- and of course, the vast majority of those billions will be taxpayer money from my pockets. If you were given a choice between building a business where you had to clear out flood destruction and ANYWHERE else, which would you choose? I think it's time to move on. What say you?
Comments
1
My thoughts exactly; move on. There's already a constant battle to keep the ocean at bay - instead of spending billions on a coastal project, or risking a move back onto contaminated ground, just go someplace else.
It's not easy to pick up and relocate, but as someone who's done it a few times I can tell you it's not as bad as being hit by a Cat 4 hurricane.
It's not easy to pick up and relocate, but as someone who's done it a few times I can tell you it's not as bad as being hit by a Cat 4 hurricane.
Posted by: pam at August 31, 2005 07:36 PM (l6NIn)
2
I agree. I also feel the same about the wild fires in California, or the mudslides or earthquakes there. It just doesn't make sense to me for people to continue to rebuild on areas that are infamously unstable - and expect someone else, be it insurance or taxpayers - to pay for the constant rebuilding.
If it isn't reasonably safe to build there - don't. If you do, rebuild it yourself, out of YOUR pockets, not America's collective pocket.
If it isn't reasonably safe to build there - don't. If you do, rebuild it yourself, out of YOUR pockets, not America's collective pocket.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at August 31, 2005 07:50 PM (0Ea9a)
3
What did they say 100 years when Galveston was hit? It has never gotten as big as it was, that's for sure. I think the same fate will occur for NO.
(*)>
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at August 31, 2005 07:54 PM (Sc2Wh)
4
Wow. Thanks for all the comments -- I thought my position would be in the minority, even here!
Posted by: Ogre at August 31, 2005 08:02 PM (L0IGK)
5
Ogre, my point wasn't in support of rebuilding, just expressing my thoughts on the issue of not rebuilding. Some folks (e.g. Steel Turman) are not only adamant about this, but seem very matter-of-fact about it, and I confess I can't be quite so detached.
You, and others, make excellent points in favor of not rebuilding, and you're also probably right. That doesn't diminish my regret that New Orleans may have just ceased to exist.
Actually, the second sentence you quoted from me has nothing to do with the "rebuilding" issue, but that I think we should have a permanent registry for people willing to take in disaster victims on a temporary basis. This would save the trouble of scrambling to organize after a disaster (as Bill Hennessy has done, to his credit) as we would be ready for whatever happens next.
If you agree (just on the homes registry thing) I'd appreciate your helping me spread that meme.
And regardless, I appreciate the link muchly! Thanks.
You, and others, make excellent points in favor of not rebuilding, and you're also probably right. That doesn't diminish my regret that New Orleans may have just ceased to exist.
Actually, the second sentence you quoted from me has nothing to do with the "rebuilding" issue, but that I think we should have a permanent registry for people willing to take in disaster victims on a temporary basis. This would save the trouble of scrambling to organize after a disaster (as Bill Hennessy has done, to his credit) as we would be ready for whatever happens next.
If you agree (just on the homes registry thing) I'd appreciate your helping me spread that meme.
And regardless, I appreciate the link muchly! Thanks.
Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 31, 2005 08:22 PM (XB4NN)
6
I understand now, Obi-Wan, and I updated the post to reflect your thoughts (I hope).
And yes, I love the registry and I'll be mentioning that all day tomorrow as tomorrow, at least here, is all-day long hurricane relief blogging!
And yes, I love the registry and I'll be mentioning that all day tomorrow as tomorrow, at least here, is all-day long hurricane relief blogging!
Posted by: Ogre at August 31, 2005 08:35 PM (L0IGK)
7
I posed the same question on my blog today and after reading some things by engineers and others, I'm inclined to say, "No, at least not New Orleans as it was before the disaster hit." By all means, the people should be helped. But to rebuild in an area where disaster is inevitable seems both cavalier about the danger to people and wasteful of money.
Posted by: Mark Daniels at August 31, 2005 09:47 PM (mDSXY)
8
Most certainly, I've not heard ANYONE (even the French) suggest that we abandoned the people and the rescue efforts. But once the people are out, is it really worth it?
And we do need to ask the question now, because massive efforts are already under way to start rebuilding the city.
And we do need to ask the question now, because massive efforts are already under way to start rebuilding the city.
Posted by: Ogre at August 31, 2005 09:58 PM (L0IGK)
9
No. And if the same thing happens to Palm Beach County... where *I* live... my answer would be, 'let it return to Everglades'.
Posted by: Bou at August 31, 2005 11:06 PM (5JHEt)
10
I'm starting a blog list of responsible bloggers asking the tough questions regarding the rebuilding of New Orleans at Discussions on alternatives to rebuilding New Orleans.
I've added your post to the list.
Please point any like minded bloggers that would like to be added to the list over my way at:
http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2005/08/discussions-on-alternatives-to.html
Part of what has to be done is contact Senators and Congressman to let them know there's another way to help those in need.
Porkopolis
I've added your post to the list.
Please point any like minded bloggers that would like to be added to the list over my way at:
http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2005/08/discussions-on-alternatives-to.html
Part of what has to be done is contact Senators and Congressman to let them know there's another way to help those in need.
Porkopolis
Posted by: Porkopolis at August 31, 2005 11:11 PM (mI6CS)
11
I'd really like to see this NOT happen, but I really don't think it will. There are too many in government that cannot even consider the option of leaving it alone. Why am I picturing Sisyphus now?
Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2005 05:55 AM (L0IGK)
12
Well, I don't think the gov't will forcibly re-build. I think they'll just offer incentives, like tax-exemptions, grants, and low-interest loans.
But I don't think there'll be a lot of interest.
If the population of New Orleans ever rises above 100,000 again, I'd be shocked.
I think the lesson "don't live in a bowl below sea level" has pretty well been learned.
But I don't think there'll be a lot of interest.
If the population of New Orleans ever rises above 100,000 again, I'd be shocked.
I think the lesson "don't live in a bowl below sea level" has pretty well been learned.
Posted by: Harvey at September 01, 2005 11:12 AM (ubhj8)
13
I think they will rebuild the infrastructure for 500,000 -- that will just be silly. I hope the lesson has been learned!
Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2005 12:03 PM (/k+l4)
14
Some sort of port facility will have to remain in place. There's too much traffic down the Mississippi that has to be transfered from river-going barge to ocean-going ship. The "not in my back yard" mentality would preclude moving the super tanker port and the refineries. The super tanker thing would require being near the water somehow, somewhere. If not there, where? It would have to be near refineries. Galveston?? Who said 1900 couldn't happen again?
Posted by: David R. Block at September 01, 2005 04:41 PM (HPQz7)
15
I can see a port facility -- but even that can be moved to the new end of the river instead of draining all of New Orleans.
Posted by: Ogre at September 01, 2005 05:35 PM (L0IGK)
16
New Orleans will be rebuilt. The only question is what parts will be built where?
I think that if the whole quaint French Quarter etc. is going to be rebuilt, then it may as well recreate itself on higher ground a ways upstream or across Lake Pontchartrain, and most of the rest of the city can follow. Move the name of the city with it, and later generations will find the move to be a quaint historic fact -- while they continue to flock to the attractions as if they'd always been there. See: http://jeffryfisher.net/Statesman/Misc/NewOrleans.htm
I think that if the whole quaint French Quarter etc. is going to be rebuilt, then it may as well recreate itself on higher ground a ways upstream or across Lake Pontchartrain, and most of the rest of the city can follow. Move the name of the city with it, and later generations will find the move to be a quaint historic fact -- while they continue to flock to the attractions as if they'd always been there. See: http://jeffryfisher.net/Statesman/Misc/NewOrleans.htm
Posted by: Aspiring Statesman at September 03, 2005 01:26 PM (GIEE0)
17
I have no problem with people building wherever they want to. I just don't want to pay for draining land that's underwater just so people can build there. That just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Ogre at September 03, 2005 03:17 PM (L0IGK)
18
im with u guys new orleans was a nice city but it doesn't make sence to wast 100 billion dollers to rebuild something that will just get destroyed again. the reason it has never happened befor for thous of you who don't know is the steady rise of polution in the atmosphear. the united stares is the heaviest poluter in the world and bush pulling out of the keyoto accord has only made it worse. the huricanes will only get worse and the death tole will only rise till the burning of fossle fuels is cut back. but all that aside bush is a bourn and raised southerner i think that he will do all that he can to rebuild the city right where it was right down to the last building. then this will all repeat and the econemy will crash and the united states will loose its position as a superpower in the world
Posted by: Unicron at September 23, 2005 01:09 PM (KEJ4O)
19
At last count, Unicron, that total was over $200 billion now! Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Ogre at September 23, 2005 01:56 PM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0124 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0087 seconds, 27 records returned.
Page size 18 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.