N'Awlins

[trinacriabob]

Five months ago this time, all we saw was Katrina aftermath footage. It was pretty grim. Most sickening was the dead guy in his lawn chair near the Superdome as well as the things that reportedly took place inside the Superdome. Now, we don't see much about it. In about a month, Mardi Gras will be around.

People ask the question as to whether they should rebuild. I say "absolutely." I've been to some places but I have never been to N.O. because every time I was driving through on 10 back to LA, I had too much stuff in the car and did not want to invite "curiosity."

New Orleans is an important city. At the mouth of the Mississippi, its harbor handles more cargo than that of any other US port (at least that's what one almanac said). Not only that, it is home to a unique history (Cajun / Creole / Acadian), architecture, culture and food. It is also the home of Tulane University and other schools.

Where they messed up was in the levees. I couldn't believe they were so rickety. I would assume that any place under sea level would have an incredibly monolithic concrete seawall holding back "Mother Nature." Galveston learned from their 1900s hurricane and put up a huge concrete seawall embankment.

[MyerShift]

I suppose so just because of what it is.

Sure, they live in nature's soup bowl.

That's not my immediate problem.

But I wouldn't mind visiting.

[CSpec]

New Orleans is screwed; it will never recover its former glory. French Quarter, shipping ports will survive, but not much else.

[MyerShift]

That was something I had thought about. It seems inevitable, yes?

[Bimmer325]

Katrina wasn't just a freak of nature. It was an inevitable disaster that human action greatly influenced. The destruction of Louisiana's coastal marshlands coupled with increased development and an already geographically dangerous location for such a large city make it much more likely for similar occurances to strike again in the future. It was only a matter of time before the disaster that is Katrina occured, and it will happen again. I'm not sure rebuilding New Orleans in it's footprint would be a good idea with all of this in mind.

[Sixty8panther]

Voted "Not Enough 411"

Should there be another New Orleans? yes

Should it be rebuilt as it was? NO!

Would a new city with all the necessary precautions & old flair make sense? YES!

[Guest Josh]

Rebuild it. I plan to take a road trip down there to visit some people. No city in the United States should be voted to not rebuild especially since we are spending BILLIONS on a "country" the size smaller than Texas overseas.

If we can't take care of our own, we shouldn't be taking care of others.

Rebuild New Orleans and...while we're at it.....let's make it a "mixed city" mmmmmkay Mr. Ray Nagen?

[bobo]

There should be a serious discussion of whether to do it or not. However, in these politically charged times, even the thought of it is shouted down with epithets.

[Flybrian]

If its rebuilt in the exact same location with the exact same 'safe'guards, then I've lost hope for this country's intelligence. Bobo is right; there needs to be a serious, well-thought-out apolitical discussion about whether rebuilding New Orleans is worth it.

[MyerShift]

Katrina wasn't just a freak of nature.  It was an inevitable disaster that human action greatly influenced.  The destruction of Louisiana's coastal marshlands coupled with increased development and an already geographically dangerous location for such a large city make it much more likely for similar occurances to strike again in the future.  It was only a matter of time before the disaster that is Katrina occured, and it will happen again.  I'm not sure rebuilding New Orleans in it's footprint would be a good idea with all of this in mind.

Excellent insight on that. It's like the forest fire problem out west. There were always fires, but when people keep puting them out, the detritus builds up, and then when there is a fire later on, whoosh! Everything goes, and it goes big time!

[Croc]

The biggest problem with NOLA was the lack of maintenance of the flood control measures. If DONE RIGHT, as in the levees built REALLY well, and an annual maintenance fund is established so it is less of a financial shock when the levees need rehabilitation...I don't see why NOLA cannot be rebuilt for the most part.

Again, it wasn't the hurricane that destroyed it, but the apathy toward the levees. I bet you the Dutch maintain their levees...

[ocnblu]

Yeah, they circumvent child labor laws to force some kid to poke his finger in it.

Well, Nawlins has to be rebuilt, or it will become a lawless, post-apocalyptic hell hole. Time has to be taken to properly engineer the seawalls though.

[XP715]

Why on Earth should we rebuild a city that's twenty feet below sea level, so another hurricane can f@#k it up or just the worthless pieces of $h! that live there can? They piss and moan about there being a slow response time down there, but why should we be so ready to jump up and help the people when they act like animals? I'm sorry, but when we see news footage day after day of all the idiot junglebunnies (Yes, I know what I said) pelting ambulances and National Guard trucks with bricks and hear reports of construction workers trying to patch up levees being shot at, that says to me it's time to cut your losses and move on.

[CSpec]

Everybody who lived there left anyway; it will take forever to rebuild, and the people won't come back. It's just a hopeless situation.

[Sixty8panther]

Well, Nawlins has to be rebuilt, or it will become a lawless, post-apocalyptic hell hole....

Wow, that sounds like a really cool Reality Show... Send Ammo, ex-military gun surplus, WWII era flack jackets, tons of live feed cameras and a few fan boats down there and let the fun begin.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[XP715]

Wow, that sounds like a really cool Reality Show... Send Ammo, ex-military gun surplus, WWII era flack jackets, tons of live feed cameras and a few fan boats down there and let the fun begin.

Not quite a reality show, but still fun!

Edited February 6, 2006 by XP715

[Lance Truthhammer]

I think people who have never been through abject poverty combined with a disaster of epic proportions, and a loss of property and loved ones should withhole any criticism of the emotional conditions and actions of those who have. Furthermore, I think someone who has not lived in the inner city, seen the daily struggle and heartache, whether they asked for it or not, should eliminate the phrases "junglebunnies" and "worthless pieces of ____" from their vocabulary.

I think we all have a hard time understanding anyone's actions in the aftermath of Katrina, but there is some virtue in trying to understand. Ultimately, anyone in their situation probably would have reacted the same way. Your are lying to yourself if you say otherwise, or to say that the actions we witnessed reflected in any way on color, race or ethicity.

On the question of the topic though: My belief is that New Orleans should be rebuilt, but rebuilt better. Clearly this is not the current policy. At most, it appears, New Orleans will achieve half of its previous size. To me, this is a great tragedy in and of itself. Part of what it means to be human is the ability to shape our world to allow for ever increased human thriving. New Orleans was a fine example of what it means to be human. Had human innovation not taken place, New Orleans would have never become a booming metropolis.

It would take a grim view of human potential to say that Katrina (that is, the damage of Katrina) was inevitable. The fact is, the whole thing was avoidable. That would have been like early settlers in the New Orleans area saying the flooding of the Mississippi was inevitable. While these things do happen, they can be battled as history has proven quite plainly for all to see. We could have built levees that would have withstood a catagory 5 storm. Indeed such action had been advised for a long time. Instead, the opposite happened. Instead of upgrading the strength of the pumps and levees, funding was cut for the maintainence of what was already there (in the face of changing world conditions that should have told policy makers that was manifestly stupid).

We should rebuild New Orleans, not just to make sure the people who lost property and loved ones find new homes in the city they loved, which is, ultimately, a matter of justice, but also so we can all learn how to thrive in an ever changing world - to overcome. We will all be better for it.

- E.S. Mail

[Cory Wolfe]

I don't see why not... If it happens again, but worse... then I say no.

[Sixty8panther]

Lance:

You make a few good points in your post but here's the hard facts:

Looting for food?

Understandable. Survival instincts kicking in, you do what you have to in order to eat and stay alive.

Looting for electronics, "bling" or just for the sake of destruction?

C'mon now. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Shooting at Rescue Workers who are trying to save you?

Dispicable

[Croc]

Lance:

You make a few good points in your post but here's the hard facts:

Looting for food?

Understandable. Survival instincts kicking in, you do what you have to in order to eat and stay alive.

Looting for electronics, "bling" or just for the sake of destruction?

C'mon now. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

Shooting at Rescue Workers who are trying to save you?

Dispicable

You don't know the whole story and you should withold judgment. You have no idea what they'd been through. Why do you think they looted the electronics? Obviously they weren't intending to set them in their living rooms and turn on CNN like the rest of America...chances are they looted to SELL IT and get money, most of which they either never had, or what little they had had was lost in the storm. Did you not see the incredible police brutality in NOLA? Obviously not...if you heard the cops were coming around and beating innocent people to death, you'd prolly shoot at them too if you saw one approaching you.

You seem to have a disturbing lack of compassion for these people...and I really don't know why. I guess they're just fine as long as they are flashing you and giving you beads at Mardi Gras, but heaven forbid they ever suffer any hardship of their own...

[Croc]

I think people who have never been through abject poverty combined with a disaster of epic proportions, and a loss of property and loved ones should withhole any criticism of the emotional conditions and actions of those who have.  Furthermore, I think someone who has not lived in the inner city, seen the daily struggle and heartache, whether they asked for it or not, should eliminate the phrases "junglebunnies" and "worthless pieces of ____" from their vocabulary. 

I think we all have a hard time understanding anyone's actions in the aftermath of Katrina, but there is some virtue in trying to understand.  Ultimately, anyone in their situation probably would have reacted the same way.  Your are lying to yourself if you say otherwise, or to say that the actions we witnessed reflected in any way on color, race or ethicity. 

On the question of the topic though:  My belief is that New Orleans should be rebuilt, but rebuilt better.  Clearly this is not the current policy.  At most, it appears, New Orleans will achieve half of its previous size.  To me, this is a great tragedy in and of itself.  Part of what it means to be human is the ability to shape our world to allow for ever increased human thriving.  New Orleans was a fine example of what it means to be human.  Had human innovation not taken place, New Orleans would have never become a booming metropolis. 

It would take a grim view of human potential to say that Katrina (that is, the damage of Katrina) was inevitable.  The fact is, the whole thing was avoidable.  That would have been like early settlers in the New Orleans area saying the flooding of the Mississippi was inevitable.  While these things do happen, they can be battled as history has proven quite plainly for all to see.  We could have built levees that would have withstood a catagory 5 storm.  Indeed such action had been advised for a long time.  Instead, the opposite happened.  Instead of upgrading the strength of the pumps and levees, funding was cut for the maintainence of what was already there (in the face of changing world conditions that should have told policy makers that was manifestly stupid).

We should rebuild New Orleans, not just to make sure the people who lost property and loved ones find new homes in the city they loved, which is, ultimately, a matter of justice, but also so we can all learn how to thrive in an ever changing world - to overcome.  We will all be better for it.

- E.S. Mail

Quoted for truth.

[Enzora]

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for quotation of truth.

[trinacriabob]

I started the topic and voted "yes." There is so much infrastructure already in place...did you see the footage of all those tall buildings, streets, bridges, universities and the like. Some will have to be torn down, but most will be able to remain. Again, there is an important port and, of course, the French Quarter.

The problem was the shoddiness behind what kept New Orleans safe. Many other cities in the world (particularly in the Netherlands) have this problem taken care of. That NO's infrastructure be substandard is a governmental misallocation.

There are people that have to stay. They have homes that survived, they work at Tulane, they own a pub in the Quarter. Rebuild it. Do it right. In time, others will return.

[CSpec]

A bit old, but still good:

Hurricane Relief? Or a $200,000 Check?

I'd take the check, and so would most of Katrina's victims.

By Steven E. Landsburg

Posted Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005, at 4:17 AM ET

Before we spend $200 billion on New Orleans disaster relief, can we just pause for about three seconds, please? That should be long enough to divide one number by another. The numbers I have in mind are, on the one hand, $200 billion, and, on the other hand, 1 million people—the prestorm population of the New Orleans area, broadly defined.

Two-hundred billion divided by 1 million is 200,000. For the cost of reconstructing New Orleans, the government could simply give $200,000 to every resident of the region—that's $800,000 for a family of four. Given a choice, which do you think the people down there would prefer?

I'm guessing most of them would take the cash. I can't prove that, but I think I can make it plausible: If your city were demolished, would you prefer to have it rebuilt—with someone else making all the decisions about how it gets rebuilt—or would you prefer to collect $800,000 in cash and move your family elsewhere? I've asked a lot of people this question during the last week, and, according to my informal unscientific survey, pretty much everyone would take the money and run.

One reason my survey is unscientific is that most of the people I've asked are middle-class. I'm guessing that for the very poor, a big cash handout would be even more tempting.

Even after paying out all that cash, there would still be some tidying up to do, like rebuilding the interstates—but that accounts for a small fraction of the projected $200 billion. A lot of the other funds are earmarked for rebuilding infrastructure that's local to New Orleans. But if you hand out big buckets of cash, most of that rebuilding is no longer necessary—some families will leave the area, and the ones that remain can, if they wish, tax themselves to re-create urban amenities—just as people do anywhere else.

It's expensive to rebuild the levees. If enough newly enriched people choose to remain, there's enough of a tax base to do the job—and if too few remain, then rebuilding the levees would be a bad investment anyway. Yes, New Orleans is a critical port, and yes, there has to be a local population to maintain that port. But it doesn't follow that there has to be an urban area of 1 million people.

At any rate, it's not clear that any form of disaster relief is such a great deal for the people who live in places like New Orleans. I explained why in this space a couple of weeks ago: The prospect of relief from future disasters raises housing prices in disaster-prone areas. That's bad for people who prefer more risk in exchange for cheaper housing.

Many readers wrote to ask: "What about the poor, who have no choice about where to live?" Apparently none of these readers has noticed that the images we've seen on television for the last two weeks are mostly of poor people. It is precisely the poor who benefit most from the opportunity to live cheaply in high-risk areas. Even within New Orleans, it was mostly the rich who opted for the high ground and the poor who lived below sea level. Why? Because it's cheaper below sea level. But not as cheap as it would be in a world without federal disaster assistance.

If your concern is that people shouldn't be so poor in the first place, my response is that you don't have to wait for a flood to raise that issue. The specific flood-related policy question is this: Given the population of poor people, do we make them, on net, better or worse off when we give them disaster relief (which is good) and simultaneously raise their housing costs (which is bad)? The refusal to engage that question is, it seems to me, nothing short of a declaration of indifference to what actually benefits the poor.

You might say that what we really owe the poor is disaster assistance and affordable housing. You might as well say that we owe them all magical pink unicorns that produce an unlimited supply of milk. It is quite simply impossible to guarantee assistance to people living on a flood plain without affecting their housing costs. And it is quite simply unserious to declare your commitment to poor people without pausing to ask whether your pet program does poor people more harm than good.

We probably shouldn't spend this kind of money on New Orleans. But given that we will, it at least makes sense to target it in a way that does the most good for the most afflicted—and that, I suspect, is to hand out cash. The current policy seems to be more along the lines of "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

http://www.slate.com/id/2126715/

[Sixty8panther]

You seem to have a disturbing lack of compassion for these people...and I really don't know why.  I guess they're just fine as long as they are flashing you and giving you beads at Mardi Gras, but heaven forbid they ever suffer any hardship of their own...

Never been to Mardi Gras and probably never will... but what gives you the right to assume that I have indulged in it?

You argument does not hold water IMHO, but that aside you're assuming I'm somehow a particiapant in the cities festival based on what? I wish I had had a chance to see the historic city before the flood dstroyed it. And if I lived there and the flood had destroyed my home I'd get the F out. Not with a DVD player under my arm but with a backpack full of food. Sell the electroinics? to whom? The large-mouth Bass swiming between their ankles? C-mon, let's get real.

And shoting at news helicopters was out of self defense? WTF?

one more thing: I'd be willing to bet my life that most of the peoeple flashing their (boobs) durring Mardi Gras are outsiders NOT locals. Maybe I'll buy some Girls Gone Wild DVDs and do some research and get back to you on that one.

[76ChevyTrucker]

I really can't answer this one easily. Would I like New Orleans to be rebuilt as a thriving metropolis, port and historical landmark to this country, undoubtedly yes. Would I like to see it rebuilt and squandered away the way it was up to the point of Hurricane Katrina, undoubtedly HELL NO. If you're going to build a city that's below sea level, there are two choices: either build a significant (keep in mind, I said significant, which means build it to EXCEED the known dangers) infrastructure to support the city and its below sea level style, or level the damned place, use the rubble as filler and bring the city as a whole up above sea level, too bad that would destroy the French Quarter and the other historical areas of the city, however; in my mind, those are the two choices.

As for the issue of people there are a great number of people who aren't going to be coming back into New Orleans, too many bad memories and too much fear associated with moving back. I agree with Sixty8, I can most certainly understand going into a grocery store and raiding the food off the shelf until the area can be restored to a "civilized" picture, but those who were stealing electronics and the like were stealing those things because they could, not because it would provide a way for them to live through the next day. And I know that if I were a soldier in the National Guard or Reserves that was sent into the New Orleans area and I were shot at, I'd return fire. It might be wrong, but I'm not going to allow someone to wontonly fire at me just because they have the rounds to cook off. Although this is my opinion and last time I checked, I'm entitled to it.

Edited February 7, 2006 by 76ChevyTrucker

[Flybrian]

Why do you think they looted the electronics?  Obviously they weren't intending to set them in their living rooms and turn on CNN like the rest of America...chances are they looted to SELL IT and get money, most of which they either never had, or what little they had had was lost in the storm. 

Tough. I have no sympathy for actions like that. Most people have been though hard times of varying degrees. Too bad. You deal with it like most real Americans do.

[trinacriabob]

There were a lot of courageous people and a lot of skanky people in the N.O. disaster.

Most of us knew how painful that could be - I know that my mom and I each donated a nice check to "Catholic Charities" earmarked for Katrina relief. (And, no, I am far from being a "holy roller.") I calculated that if each American, per capita, donated $ 50 to $ 150 dollars, the money raised would be astronomical. I am actually shocked at how little was collected. Rich Beverly Hills entertainment moguls and Westchester County NY execs could certainly afford a lot more, yet I doubt they sent in $h!.

On another note, a lot of crass e-mails circulated with names "N.O. survival checklist" and the like, making fun of some of the foibles that went on (the looting and all else). They were sometimes funny and sometimes sad in that they made fun of people who were dealt a $h!ty hand.

[Sixty8panther]

There were a lot of courageous people and a lot of skanky people in the N.O. disaster.

You bring up a great point. One problem wiht the US media is they (all-too-often) blow the bad/negative out of proportion but only mention the positive as an afterthought. I read an interesting article on this phonomenon one time.

[Flybrian]

What grabs your attenton more - murders or volunteer work?

Its the media, sure, but its also us.

[MyerShift]

Well, (this is cruel, but sarcastic, bear with me) Katrina technically solved the original homeless problem, didn't it?

Now we just need another one to take care of the idiots that wanted to stay when the first storm went through.

Also, levees, though capable of holding flood waters back, eventually cause more harm than good, notably along rivers. When a river floods, it deposits sediment. This raises the land within the levee. One day, there will be a flood. All of that deposited sediment that built up will cause the river to overflow not only its own banks, but also over the levee walls. This results in a flood that is much worse than if nature had tended itself.

So, in my humble opinion, if one live in a river valley, a swamp, or in New Orleans's case, nature's soup bowl, one had better expect whatever problems that come with being situated in a low elevation- notably excess water. These people have no right to complain when floods happen. None at all. This is known as common sense and intelligence. Deal with it people. No one can ultimately control natural events any more than they can live forever.