Should we rebuild New Orleans?

[BIG Sean]

Hi,

Should we rebuild New Orleans?

I say ‘we’ because it is us, or rather our children that will be paying for this. I honestly feel that we as Democrats are the true ‘fiscal conservatives’ and I feel that it is not worth it to rebuild another ‘soup bowl’ albeit with a better levee system.

I know that in our hearts we want to see the city come back to its once great glory, but does that mean it is worth it financially?

I am not saying that we should leave those poor people without homes and jobs, I am just saying that we need to rebuild in a different location.

[efhmc]

1. Yes.

[Beelzebud]

2. If we can flush billions down the Iraqi toilet:

We can certainly spend the cash on N.O.

Frankly I'm sick and tired of defeatists asking this question...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BIG Sean]

27. LOL.....

Ahh...I see.

You are say that I am a "defeatist" though...that's ok right?

Lets get over the name calling.

[Beelzebud]

29. I'd rather be a defeatist than a republican!

Why not just call me a baby raper or something equally as insulting?

:D

Sorry for calling you a defeatist. It just pisses me off when people seem so willing to give up on a 300 year old American city, while we are spending billions a week destroying Iraq.

[hlthe2b]

33. very provocative early post...

that you follow with accusations to those who question YOU that they must be a republican? Not particuarly wise, Big Sean. :shrug:

[BIG Sean]

35. I am new to posting here...true...

I am NOT a Republcain though and I am not a troll.

Look up my other posts.

BIG Sean Madigan

[Adelante]

3. Somewhat differently

Leave the tourist quarter where it is on high ground. Rebuild the city ten miles upstream. Let the rest return to wetlands. This is what makes sense to me.

[BIG Sean]

7. I agree completely...

That is exactly what I mean.

[DJ MEW]

12. I like that idea

I think if we rebuild the city on the higher ground side of the tourist section and keep the historic tourist areas alive.

[raccoon]

30. I think so too, WesDem.

I think it would be foolish to build it back where it was.

[KamaAina]

65. Ten miles upstream is swampier than the city itself

that's just past the airport, into St. Charles Parish, where I-10 abruptly leaves the ground and continues across the swamp on trestles.

There's no actual high ground until you get clear up to Baton Rouge. That's why we're just going to have to suck it up and find a way to get it done, like the Dutch have.

[cascadiance]

66. I say we give it more of a "Venice" canal look...

If we're starting from scratch now, perhaps build higher ground areas, and have more canals going through different parts of the cities that could make it even more of an attractive area. If one did it right, perhaps one could give more control over water levels, drainage, etc. Perhaps something like the Riverwalk areas around San Antonio.

[KamaAina]

67. The Lower Ninth Ward might be where we could try that out

particularly the section lakeside of N. Claiborne Ave. that sustained additional flooding after Rita and (unlike most of the rest of the city) has been pretty much wiped out.

That's pretty much always been a forgotten section of the city. Maybe glass-bottomed boat rides and the like would give people a reason to go down there.

[mattclearing]

4. I think everybody should re-build New Orleans.

I'm not sure that it should be entirely up to the federal government to do it, though.

Insurance companies should foot the bulk of the bill where applicable...they are supposed to charge enough to back up their policies, after all.

[ISUGRADIA]

5. The city is going on 300 years old. Why in the hell would we abandon it?

Any new city is going to cost billions. Why fuck over the people of NO? Will we abandon San Francisco if it gets a devastating 9.0 earthquake? Don't think so.

[Ediacara]

39. An earthquake and a hurricane are different natural disaster scenarios

Plus, I'm not sure if you noticed, but New Orleans has been abandoned for the most part....

[ISUGRADIA]

61. Large portions of San Francisco was burnt down after the 1906 earthquake

and was unihbitable for months. This is a first in the city's history, so one immence disaster in a few hundred years is not bad.

If the feds had not nickled and dimed the Corp of Engineers as it did we wouln't even be discussing this.

[Kashka-Kat]

6. Rebuild? Yes. By Halliburton? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OF course as much of the historical area which can be rebuilt should be rebuilt. It has been called the capital of black america due to rich cultural contributions and history -- settled by freed slaves educated blacks thruout 1700s/1800s/1900s as well as French and Spanish. Unlike anywhere else in America.

[devilgrrl]

8. Yes. Then kick all the white people out.

:hide:

[moobu2]

9. Of course New Orleans should be rebuilt.

And it will be.

[flamin lib]

10. Yes.

30% of US petroleum moves through the port of New Orleans.

Almost that much refining is done near the port of New Orleans.

60% of the agricultural exports go through the port of New Orleans.

The French Quarter, the center of the tourist trade, was largely undamaged.

Yes, we must re-build New Orleans and we must begin revitalizing the marshes that make a buffer between the city and the Gulf as well as making bigger and better levees.

[CottonBear]

11. Of course we should rebuild NO.

What if LA was destroyed in an earthquake or NYC destroyed in a hurricane? Would you propose NOT rebuilding?

Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. They have engineered massive storm gates as well as dikes and (windmill) pumps to prevent flooding.

[Greyhound]

13. How about the people that own NO and their insurance companies

covering the cost of re-building?

[Brotherjohn]

14. The cost of relocating an entire city would dwarf the cost of rebuilding..

... it right, and safe.

It would also dwarf the cost of repeated Katrinas.

There are a million people there, most of whom are already back and living there, who had relatively minor damage to their homes (compared to the 9th Ward and Lakeview and other parts of town). I'm talking about the whole residential area. Of course, large sections/neighborhoods of New Orleans proper will not be rebuilt as they were, and some neighborhoods might be largely razed (or perhaps "raised"?).

But the city's location itself is crucial, and unchangeable... strategically economically (mouth of MS River, port, oil). Not to mention the historical pricelessness of the Quarter, Uptown, etc.

The price of decent floodgates and levees, while possibly into the hundreds of billions, is still a fraction of "not rebuilding" the city (i.e. relocating most of the populace and businesses). Not to mention, also, the repercussions of doing that on the entire region, if not the nation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. I talked to a river man

He's a licensed pilot and works towboats on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. He's talked to me about the importance of the Port of New Orleans and how it is vital to farmers in the Midwest for shipping their products. To have a port,you have to have a city to house the workers. So, though I might suggest a slight adjustment (no rebuilding on land that is really low), I don't see any choice but to rebuild the city.

[pacalo]

16. Would YOUR city be worth rebuilding?

How do you feel about the $9 million spent PER MONTH in third-world Iraq?

How do you feel about the $9 million of taxpayer money that went MISSING in Iraq?

How do you feel about the fact that all the money that's been spent in "rebuilding" it (&, btw, I sure as hell don't see any progress being made), yet an AMERICAN city is getting a LOAN to rebuild, which will have to be paid back in 5 YEARS?

What's REALLY eating you about the money being spent to rebuild an American city?

[BIG Sean]

21. Iraq?...what are you talking about???

What makes you think I want to waste money in IRAQ?????

Iraq???

"What's REALLY eating you about the money being spent to rebuild an American city?"

That is going to fucking sink again after the next hurricane!!!!

Rebuild it up river from where it is, give the people THAT property.

Were you implying that I am a racist?

If you were, then you are not only wrong, you are an asshole as well.

[pacalo]

38. Part of the money requested by New Orleans will be spent on

building up land & properties. Or did you bother to even research before you asked your insensitive question? Jerk.

[BIG Sean]

41. Deleted by me..

Your not worth it.

[pacalo]

45. "Your" not, either.

[HamdenRice]

56. Why do you hate our freedom?

and those are billions, not millions!

[pacalo]

69. Damn, you're right!

I knew the difference but I was so ticked off at the moment.

[iamjoy]

18. Yes, But Differently

New Orleans is too significant as a shipping port to not rebuild. Also, the French Quarter was relatively untouched and people will want to visit it again.

But it must be rebuilt differently. I am not making light of tragedy, but in the "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade" attitude:

We have an opprtunity to plan a modern city from square one. Most cities have grown & evolved over time, so they are sprawled. They lack the infrastructure to support the population. In many, the roads are crowded and there is no good public transit.

The "lower" neighborhoods (socioeconomically and geographically) cannot be rebuilt. So, the problem is, all those hotel workers, port workers and other minimum wage people who keep the city running need a place to live. I leave it to wiser minds to find a solution to that one.

But not rebuild? If LA was destroyed by an earthquake would we consider not rebuilding it?

[Missy M]

19. I hope it isn't rebuilt into one of those sterile cities with nothing but

glass skyscrapers and no charm. We have enough of those so NO should be rebuilt to reflect its past look not a futuristic look.

[yella_dawg]

20. New Orleans isn't so much a city

as it is a huge work of 3D performance art. Until you lie in the grass on a hot summer night listening to the street musicians, this claim won't make much sense. Some cities are just cities. New Orleans is something else. Something bigger. Something much more valuable than "just" a city.

[flyingfysh]

22. we need a port there

New Orleans was the busiest port we have, and the river system reaches a huge portion of the country.

Geography dictates that we have to have a port there. Port workers need a city to live in, with schools, stores, etc, and housing for all those people.

[BIG Sean]

25. Good Point!...

Can the port still work with the city a few miles away? In a location that will not be distroyed in the next hurricane?

[Kolesar]

24. Yes. But it has to be shaped like a boat

[Igel]

26. Poorly phrased question, IMHO.

Should we rebuild the below-sea-level areas that are the hardest to protect? After all, a lot of NOLA is sitting there with only wind damage, or mild flooding.

IMHO, no, some areas should not be rebuilt.

One NYT (?) article today voiced suspicions on the part of some people that some areas would be allowed to 'revert to swamp'. The areas I have in mind wouldn't revert to swamp; they'd be lake.

The problem is that I'd probably include parts of Lakeview, not just chunks of the Lower 9th.

[BIG Sean]

31. Agreed...I worded my question poorly...

I am all for rebuilding a city for these poor people. I just don't want to build it so that it will be destroyed all over again.

However, because I asked the question I am called all sorts of names, and it is implied that I am a racist.

This place sucks sometimes.

[Igel]

63. I know, I don't

think it's worth rebuilding something that'll for sure be destroyed again. Not just damaged, but again completely swamped and wrecked.

It's a problem, though, because there's no political will for letting the actual risk of destruction count in whether or not to rebuild. Tax base, political power, and the like all outweight the economics. And that makes the not-rebuilding-NOLA POV come off as racist to some.

Sometimes it's hard to say anything at all. Many's the thread where I just write a response and instead of posting the message, just close the window. I have my say (at least I've written my say), but don't have to put up with the suspicion or insults I think would be sure to follow.

[Brotherjohn]

43. "The problem is"? Including Lakeview as well as the Lower 9th isn't ...

... really a problem, except perhaps more expensive homes would be demolished. No less important to the people who lived in the Lower 9th.

Don't worry, though. I'm not implying you're racist. I just see the two areas as equally important losses to those who lived there.

BTW, my brother lost his house in Lakeview, 4 houses from the levee breach. And I myself was carried out of the 9th Ward by boat when I was 4 (Betsy).

[Igel]

62. I agree.

The problem isn't that it's a real problem of principle; the problem is that nobody wants to let expensive houses revert to swampland, including the mayor. He has to watch his tax base.

That means whenever this is discussed, it boils down (practically) to letting just poor blacks' property revert to swampland. That's the reason I mentioned Lakeview, to point out that the idea isn't racist in principle, however it works in practice.

[jobycom]

28. The question is irrelevant, the real question is only

how the rebuilding will be accomplished and who will pay for it. New Orleans will remain where it is, and people will build on land that is below sea level (as they do in many other countries), no matter what "we" plan.

I think we should abandon all this "Master Plan" city building, and let people rebuild where they want. "Our" duty as a nation and as taxpayers is to help rebuild the levees, restore the wetlands, and revive the infrastructure. It's up to the individuals where they want to build their businesses and residences.

For the record, New Orleans was destroyed by years of neglect. The oil industry, the shipping industry, and even the seafood industry shirked their duties when it came to protecting the wetlands they exploited, and maintaining the levees and waterways they created and justified. We all benefitted from lower priced gasoline, lower priced merchandise shipped through New Orleans, etc. Our tax dollars that should have gone into paying for the basic upkeep of this area (since they all paid their fair share of taxes, too) were used for other things that we all benefitted from. It would have been cheaper to simply maintain the system, but we all lot it slide (or at least our elected Reps did) and now we have to pay the greater cost of cleaning it up. Seems perfectly fair to me. More fair than using my tax dollars to illegally invade other nations or make churches tax exempt.

[Ediacara]

32. I say No, but with a heavy heart

There are a number of reasons I say no:

1) The city is still below sea level.

2) The city will stilll sink even if the below sea level areas are filled in. In fact it may sink faster. The problem is placing a million tons of concrete on a wetland. It's going to sink, no matter what precautions are taken.

3) Sea level is still rising.

4) Almost every building in the city needs to be razed.

5) I suspect that quite a lot of the infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage, roadways) in a lot of the city is useless.

6) The 1/4 trillion rebuilding measure proposed by the Louisiana delegation is probably a very low estimate of what is actually needed to rebuild the city.

7) The character of the city will probably not be duplicated. Most of the residents probably won't come back because of economic reasons, and instead New Orleans will be just another suburbanized, mostly white, American city.

8) Hurricanes are becoming much more prevelant, and much worse.

So in my opinion, spending 1/4 trillion+ dollars rebuilding a city that won't be remotely similar in character to what was there before is not worth it, especially when the problems that doomed New Orleans in Katrina will not only still be there, but be worse. If New Orleans is rebuilt, I wouldn't expect it to last this century before being destroyed again by another hurricane.

I don't like this option, but in my opinion, it's the only remotely sane or responsible option.

ON EDIT: Ammended to add this:
Of course there should still be the Port of New Orleans, and maybe even some residential areas, and some tourist areas in the French Quarter etc. What I'm getting at is that New Orleans shouldn't ever be allowed to become a huge city again. The geomorphology of the place just screams disaster after disaster after disaster.

[Brotherjohn]

34. You problem with "rebuilding upstream 10 miles" is that there's still no..

... substantial amount of high ground. You're in the heart of the lower Miss. River delta.

You'd have to go at least 20-30 miles upstream to even get a nudge above sea level, and then only along the natural river levees, and only a few feet (same as the "safe" areas in town, Quarter and Uptown).

Most of that area is marshland at sea level, too. You have to cross several miles of elevated Interstate even after leaving Kenner, the extreme west edge of N.O. metro area, before you're back on "solid" ground.

And don't you think people own that ground? And there is nothing but a stretch of oil refineries along the river between N.O. and B.R.

So, sounds good, but completely inplausible in the real world.

(I'm from N.O., btw)

[BIG Sean]

40. Thanks for the information...Honestly...I was NOT insulting your city...

as some on here think.

I am very sorry for your loss.

I am from New York, and was in the WTC 15 minutes before the planes hit on Sept 11th. I understand loss.

[Brotherjohn]

46. Didn't think you were, or were being racist. I just think it's easy...

... and almost understandable, for people not from N.O. (or familiar w/ the area) to come to the conclusion that it shouldn't be rebuilt. Knowing the city, however, I also know that there's not even a question that it should.

However, I read your subsequent posts above about reconsidering how the O.P. was written... you're right, some areas (neighborhoods) should probably not be rebuilt. At least not as is.

And while I'm from N.O., I don't live there anymore (but thanks for the thoughts). However, my brother lost his house in Lakeview, and my parents still have yet to return to their (relatively undamaged) home on the West Bank (my Mom never will, as she will soon die from cancer in Shreveport). My uncle lost his house in Mississippi, and probably every cousin I have in St. Bernard lost theirs (though i haven't seen them in years). Sorry to bring you down... I'm sure there's a million stories worse than mine.

Interesting note, my bro's house was 4 houses from the levee breach. He went there last weekend and said the forces from the water must have been tremendous through his house. Parts of the piano were in a tree, in a pool 3 houses away... and his (new) car was on top of a neighbors sofa!

[Brotherjohn]

47. Wow, just re-read your part about the WTC! 15 min!

Not really asking the same question in the same way others have asked ("do you think New York should be rebuilt, or San Fran after an earthquake? etc.). No sarcasm at all intended, but...

...in all seriousness, do you think the WTC should be rebuilt?

It was always my feeling that a large park (a "Central Park South") should be built there. It seems to me putting up another large building or buildings is just asking for it. Especially if it's called something like "Freedom Tower" and they make a point of making it bigger. It's like saying "Bring 'em On!!" all over again.

Just my opinion, though.

[BIG Sean]

51. Hi....Yes I want our Towers back

I want our towers back. I want them built as high or higher than they were before.

I lost a lot of friends that day. I can not get that day out of my head sometimes.

I am emotionally involved when it comes to Sept 11th, and the World Trade Center. I am not the best person to make the decisions when it comes to rebuilding it.

As a side note, the week before the attacks I took my family to the towers so that my sons could see where I went every day.

[Brotherjohn]

52. Interesting, and good to have an opinion from someone who...

... actually worked there.

I guess your mindset is like someone from New Orleans. It was "home" to you. Of course you want it back.

I'm so sorry about the loss of your friends.

How old are your kids? Are they dealing with it alright? My kids (5 and 15) still have problems with Hurricanes Dennis and Ivan (each of which directly hit us) and the indirect and family effects of Katrina.

Yes, we will be moving soon.


...Oh, and welcome to DU!

[BOSSHOG]

36. WERE SAN FRAN, LA, CHARLESTON, MUCH OF FLORIDA REBUILT

after natural disasters.

To offer a counter proposal, let us all move to the part of the continental United States which is not adversely effected by Mother Nature. Would that be in your backyard?

DIFFERENT LOCATION? Different than the mouth of the Mississippi River? Do we also move the river?

Let us dump New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico and forget about the commerce that is facilitated by its port and the Mississippi River.

The question isn't can we afford to rebuild NOLA, the question

IS, CAN WE AFFORD NOT TO REBUILD THE CITY THAT CARE FORGOT.

[barb162]

55. Well let's step back a second here.

With global warming (sea level rise) and more hurricanes due, I would like to see no part of that city sitting below sea level rebuilt. The parts above sea level, let them stay there and be a core. Too many wetlands and coastal areas are being lost to greedy developers and taxing bodies. Nobody should be living below sea level or on sandbars or 20 feet from the Gulf because they like the view of the water. How about everyone moving about a few miles inland and making the gulf a national seashore and letting the wetlands and coast regenerate. Porpoises wer found flipping around 4.5 miles inland from the Mississippi coast because of the 30 foot surge. Should that be rebuilt? Yeah, as a national seashore.

Earthquakes, you want to live on or near a fault line, no, sorry, unless you want a house built to withstand an 8.0.

Mother Nature is a real teacher. I was just watching a couple this morning talk about how they lost their house on a river in NH. If they had that house a thousand feet from the river they'd still have the damned house and they still could have walked to the river.

I happen to love NOLA and that area, but damn it, that city is sinking, the wetlands and coasts around there have to be regenerated. I think it is going to end up being a smaller population city. There are parishes around there that probably never should have had population, like the area south of the city. A 25 foot surge across the entire parish tells me that should not be rebuilt. Let it go back to wetland and bayou; let it go!

These areas can generate income from tourism like the Cape Hatteras area. Just move inland on higher ground. The coast will be much more beautiful, it will generate jobs, people will be safer, etc.

[KamaAina]

68. "The city that care forgot"

not, as it must have appeared to the rest of the world that terrible week, "the city we forgot to care about"!!

[pdx_prog]

37. How could you even ask?

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. Shouldn't that be up to the people of New Orleans?

It's not up to the rest of us.

[TahitiNut]

44. Exactly!! "We" should provide relief and assistance to the victims...

... in whatever recovery goals they may have. We should not take it upon ourselves to recreate some set of assets the beneficiaries of which may not be the same as those victimized by Katrina.

[The Animator]

48. Personally, I think the federal government needs to foot the bill...

... for New Orleans reconstruction, especially for low income homeowners. Several years ago, when the Army Corps of Engineers stated that the City's levy system was insufficient, it was the federal government that dropped the ball. It was there responsibility to fix the problem then, they didn't and so, thousands of lives and billions of dollars later it's their responsability to fix the problem now.

Do I trust the current federal government to fix it, and fix it correctly? No. Can we afford it? No, but we can't afford anything that the government does because they blew all our money in Iraq, and the country is in debt way over it's head because of it.

Wanna get our country out of debt? We'll need at least 16 years worth of Democrat Presidents. Reagan & George the first racked up a huge debt over 12 years of Republican leadership. The Clenis was in office for eight and we were well on our way. George II took the huge budget surplus we had earned, and not only flushed it all away, but in less than five years, dug us into twice as much debt than the previous 12 years of Republican leadership.

So now the democrats will need at least 16 years to put this country's debt managment back on track. Eight years to get us where to we were financially when George the first left office, and another eight to regain the surpluses Clinton secured for us.

It will be a lot of hard work, but at least we can be sure that the wealthiest citizens of this country won't feel left out, they'll have a chance to contribute too! Why ask the poor to pay for everything, when you know they don't have any money? Imagine 16 years of progressive policy... and an honest media... *drools*

[Brotherjohn]

54. "It's YOUR money... so let's SPEND it all!!" (nt)

[The Animator]

57. If it were me... If my home had been destroyed...

... as a result of government neglegence, I'd expect to be properly compensated. If the forestry service is doing a control burn near my house, and the burn gets out of hand and ends up burning my house to the ground, I'm gonna want more than just an apology. Control burns are necessary to prevent fires from getting out of hand and damaging property. So if the forestry service can't protect my home from a fire they started to protect my home, well you can see why I might hold them responible. Especially if don't have an extra $200,000 handy to just up and buy a new home.

If some semi-truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and goes plowing through a suburban neighborhood, taking out a couple chunks of a few houses, the he, and the trucking company that he works for is responsible for the damage done to those homes. "You break it, you buy it."

Yes the federal government spends OUR money, that's how their Supposed to pay for everything that they do. The federal government was Supposed to spend OUR money to build a levy system for New Orleans that would prevent flooding from destroying their homes. However, the federal government instead, decided to spend OUR money on a war half the counrty didn't want. As a result of the federal government's neglegence, many, many homes were destroyed due to flooding that could have been prevented by spending OUR money on improving the New Orleans levy system like they were Supposed to.

Many homeowners in New Orleans don't have an extra $100-$200,000 dollars laying around to rebuild. If the federal government is responsible for the destruction of their homes, then the federal government needs to compensate them, with OUR money.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote "A stitch in time, saves nine." Well, improving the levy system would have been the governments one stitch, and they blew it, now it will cost US nine. The fact that we can't afford it, doesn't make it any less the right thing to do.

[-..__...]

49. I don't see anway we can afford to not rebuild NOLA.

There's way too much at stake here...

"New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize
By George Friedman
STRATFOR

Thursday 01 September 2005

The American political system was founded in Philadelphia, but the American nation was built on the vast farmlands that stretch from the Alleghenies to the Rockies. That farmland produced the wealth that funded American industrialization: It permitted the formation of a class of small landholders who, amazingly, could produce more than they could consume. They could sell their excess crops in the east and in Europe and save that money, which eventually became the founding capital of American industry.

But it was not the extraordinary land nor the farmers and ranchers who alone set the process in motion. Rather, it was geography - the extraordinary system of rivers that flowed through the Midwest and allowed them to ship their surplus to the rest of the world. All of the rivers flowed into one - the Mississippi - and the Mississippi flowed to the ports in and around one city: New Orleans. It was in New Orleans that the barges from upstream were unloaded and their cargos stored, sold and reloaded on ocean-going vessels. Until last Sunday, New Orleans was, in many ways, the pivot of the American economy"

8< ---------

" The ports of South Louisiana and New Orleans, which run north and south of the city, are as important today as at any point during the history of the republic. On its own merit, the Port of South Louisiana is the largest port in the United States by tonnage and the fifth-largest in the world. It exports more than 52 million tons a year, of which more than half are agricultural products - corn, soybeans and so on. A larger proportion of US agriculture flows out of the port. Almost as much cargo, nearly 57 million tons, comes in through the port - including not only crude oil, but chemicals and fertilizers, coal, concrete and so on.

A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the global food industry starts here, as does that of American industrialism. If these facilities are gone, more than the price of goods shifts: The very physical structure of the global economy would have to be reshaped. Consider the impact to the US auto industry if steel doesn't come up the river, or the effect on global food supplies if US corn and soybeans don't get to the markets.

The problem is that there are no good shipping alternatives. River transport is cheap, and most of the commodities we are discussing have low value-to-weight ratios. The US transport system was built on the assumption that these commodities would travel to and from New Orleans by barge, where they would be loaded on ships or offloaded. Apart from port capacity elsewhere in the United States, there aren't enough trucks or rail cars to handle the long-distance hauling of these enormous quantities - assuming for the moment that the economics could be managed, which they can't be.

The focus in the media has been on the oil industry in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is not a trivial question, but in a certain sense, it is dwarfed by the shipping issue. First, Louisiana is the source of about 15 percent of US-produced petroleum, much of it from the Gulf. The local refineries are critical to American infrastructure. Were all of these facilities to be lost, the effect on the price of oil worldwide would be extraordinarily painful. If the river itself became unnavigable or if the ports are no longer functioning, however, the impact to the wider economy would be significantly more severe. In a sense, there is more flexibility in oil than in the physical transport of these other commodities."


8< -------

" A city is a complex and ongoing process - one that requires physical infrastructure to support the people who live in it and people to operate that physical infrastructure. We don't simply mean power plants or sewage treatment facilities, although they are critical. Someone has to be able to sell a bottle of milk or a new shirt. Someone has to be able to repair a car or do surgery. And the people who do those things, along with the infrastructure that supports them, are gone - and they are not coming back anytime soon.

It is in this sense, then, that it seems almost as if a nuclear weapon went off in New Orleans. The people mostly have fled rather than died, but they are gone. Not all of the facilities are destroyed, but most are. It appears to us that New Orleans and its environs have passed the point of recoverability. The area can recover, to be sure, but only with the commitment of massive resources from outside - and those resources would always be at risk to another Katrina.

The displacement of population is the crisis that New Orleans faces. It is also a national crisis, because the largest port in the United States cannot function without a city around it. The physical and business processes of a port cannot occur in a ghost town, and right now, that is what New Orleans is. It is not about the facilities, and it is not about the oil. It is about the loss of a city's population and the paralysis of the largest port in the United States."


8< -----

Full article

[sam sarrha]

50. no, because they wont fix levees right and it will happen again

[donheld]

53. I'm tired of this question - of course we should

There is no reason we can't rebuild this city right where it is. The Netherlands has lots of places below sea level. We need to learn how to build from them. Why do people keep harping on this?

[ladjf]

58. Ironically, New Orleans sits on top of solid bed rock that is 70 ft.

below the surface. All of the large buildings and many residences are build on pilings. I'm no engineer, but, I think those who are should at least consider some sort of elevated building surface for the lowest parts of New Orleans. It might be possible to build most of the new buildings 12 ft. higher than the ground level. Crazy? Maybe so, maybe not. At least it should be considered. New Orleans is too valuable to abandon.

[Bridget Burke]

60. No, you're not crazy.

I mentioned Galveston in another post. Here are some details of how they raised (not razed) the city:

www.1900storm.com/rebuilding/index.lasso

[ladjf]

64. At Galveston, they added a couple of feet of dirt. New Orleans

is too low for that to be feasible. As I recall when I lived in New Orleans, it cost about 10,000 to build a house on pilings. To put it up say 10 or 12 ft. about ground on metal pilings might be $20,000 per house, pretty pricey. But, perhaps the Feds could contribute to that expense.

[Bridget Burke]

71. Ground level was raised from a few inches to 11 feet in Galveston.

The areas with the most damage will have fewer salvageable buildings. But at least the owners would have land safe for future building.

This is not the only answer for NOLA--but an example of ways to make cities safer. The City paid for the first section of the Seawall & for raising utilities & public buildings. The Army Corps of Engineers paid for an expansion to protect a fort. Having a city in NOLA's location is good for the whole country's economy. Federal help would be entirely suitable.

[Bridget Burke]

59. The City of Galveston was mostly destroyed by the 1900 Storm

Storm surge was the major culprit. So the city built a Seawall & raised the level of the city behind it. Buildings & utilities were jacked up & sludge was pumped in. The city survived some big storms afterwards with minor damage.

So--look for ways the City & its environment can be improved to last a few more centuries.

New Orleans is an economically valuable city BECAUSE of its location. WHERE would you rebuild it? It's surrounded by swamps, a big lake & land that is already being used.

And we don't need the French Quarter to become Branson South.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Shoudl we rebuild Chicago? What about San Francisco?

Just saying...

[McCamy Taylor]

72. The people of NOLA are rebuilding as we speak.

[Skwmom]

73. If homes are built for low income families and they are destroyed

in another flood (which is very possible), is this country going to rebuild those homes a second time? Advocating for rebuilding New Orleans may on the surface seem the best thing to do for the families whose homes were destroyed but is it?

I heard that to strengthen the levee system it would take YEARS and $$$$$$$$$$$$ and still there is no certainty that the city would not reflood. I think rebuilding what was destroyed in a different location should be strongly considered. Money is desperately needed for so many programs (e.g., heating oil for low income families). I just can't see putting money into rebuilding a soup bowl. It's not like New Orleans would cease to exist. There still is plenty of the city left undamaged.