At what point do you write off NOLA?

[shecky]

I have no special insight into the damage sustained by New Orleans. Certainly looks really bad. But it got me thinking, at what point do we decide that New Orleans is not worth rebuilding? I say "we" because I figure the taxpayers will probably pick up the tab for a significant portion of the reconstruction. And insurance companies will be hurting, possibly needing a federal bailout. If damage is so bad thet the city is "totaled", should it be rebuilt? Should it be abandoned?

 

[Dan Beaird]

I have no special insight into the damage sustained by New Orleans. Certainly looks really bad. But it got me thinking, at what point do we decide that New Orleans is not worth rebuilding? I say "we" because I figure the taxpayers will probably pick up the tab for a significant portion of the reconstruction. And insurance companies will be hurting, possibly needing a federal bailout. If damage is so bad thet the city is "totaled", should it be rebuilt? Should it be abandoned?

You're talking about abandoning a city at the mouth of a major navigable river? Sure thing, go right ahead....tell you what, I'll make it easy for you...just give all that old used land to me and I'll get rid of it for you ok?

Look at a map and think about why cities tend to be built where rivers meet oceans.

 

[Rob Lister]

I have no special insight into the damage sustained by New Orleans. Certainly looks really bad. But it got me thinking, at what point do we decide that New Orleans is not worth rebuilding? I say "we" because I figure the taxpayers will probably pick up the tab for a significant portion of the reconstruction. And insurance companies will be hurting, possibly needing a federal bailout. If damage is so bad thet the city is "totaled", should it be rebuilt? Should it be abandoned?

It will be decades of fine weather before NOLA recovers. When it does, it will be with better, higher levies. Perhaps they'll even raise it above see level.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: At what point do you write off NOLA?

It will be decades of fine weather before NOLA recovers. When it does, it will be with better, higher levies. Perhaps they'll even raise it above see level.

It was above sea level when they built it in the first place... but diverting the river and dredging the mouth for river traffic kept silt from replacing the soil eroded by the sea. The delta now fills marshland south of the city instead of on the east. Once, it was quite near the gulf.

Anyway, I agree that the silver lining will be a chance for a fresh start. It worked in Chicago in 1871, after all, and gave birth to the skyscraper as a result. N.O. is too big of an import/export center to leave alone; that's where half of America's harvest goes for distribution.

 

[shecky]

Re: Re: At what point do you write off NOLA?

You're talking about abandoning a city at the mouth of a major navigable river? Sure thing, go right ahead....tell you what, I'll make it easy for you...just give all that old used land to me and I'll get rid of it for you ok?

What land?

Seems NOLA would have to be completely remade. A clean slate. But will it still be New Orleans in the end?

And who picks up the tab?

 

[casebro]

Water damage coverage in a flood plain?

Is everybody in NO self insured? How could they have afforded flood coverage in a city below sea level? Are the insurance companies institutional morons?

I know some town in Ohio er somewhere far north of NO took a federal payout and rebuilt the town on higher ground. I won't be surprised if the ins co's push for the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge up enough fill to bury the city 20 feet deep, on our ticket, just to avoid a future payout.

The people on their roof aren't stupid for needing evacuation, they are stupid for living there in the first place. They don't need boats now so much as U-hauls before.

 

[Rob Lister]

 

[rudar]

Re: Water damage coverage in a flood plain?

The people on their roof aren't stupid for needing evacuation, they are stupid for living there in the first place. They don't need boats now so much as U-hauls before.

Well, granted. But by that reasoning, where exactly should they move to? As has been pointed out before, most cities are on rivers and shores, and there are good reasons for that. Add semi-predictable hazards from volcanic and tectonic activity, and somewhat frequently visited tornado paths, and where exactly do you propose to put the globe's seething masses of humanity where they'll be perfectly safe from natural disaster?

 

[DavoMan]

Re: Re: Water damage coverage in a flood plain?

Well, granted. But by that reasoning, where exactly should they move to? As has been pointed out before, most cities are on rivers and shores, and there are good reasons for that. Add semi-predictable hazards from volcanic and tectonic activity, and somewhat frequently visited tornado paths, and where exactly do you propose to put the globe's seething masses of humanity where they'll be perfectly safe from natural disaster?

Iraq! Ya more likely to die there from being shot/blown up than in a natural disaster.

 

[casebro]

Re: Re: Water damage coverage in a flood plain?

Well, granted. But by that reasoning, where exactly should they move to? As has been pointed out before, most cities are on rivers and shores, and there are good reasons for that. Add semi-predictable hazards from volcanic and tectonic activity, and somewhat frequently visited tornado paths, and where exactly do you propose to put the globe's seething masses of humanity where they'll be perfectly safe from natural disaster?

Up stream?

Most coastal cities don't feel the need to build below sea level, why has NOLA? Can their planning department spell "flood plain"? How about "sub-oceanic"?

And, for a change of subject, the biggest loser will be....Big Insuranse! Will federal disaster relief reimburse their losses? Should they?

 

[jay gw]

But it got me thinking, at what point do we decide that New Orleans is not worth rebuilding?

Very good question.

 

[Darat]

I have no special insight into the damage sustained by New Orleans. Certainly looks really bad. But it got me thinking, at what point do we decide that New Orleans is not worth rebuilding? I say "we" because I figure the taxpayers will probably pick up the tab for a significant portion of the reconstruction. And insurance companies will be hurting, possibly needing a federal bailout. If damage is so bad thet the city is "totaled", should it be rebuilt? Should it be abandoned?

Won't the insurance companies just assign it as an "act of god" and not have to pay out?

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: At what point do you write off NOLA?

Won't the insurance companies just assign it as an "act of god" and not have to pay out?

the policies are a little more complex than that.

For example, I'm covered for water damage so long as the water does come up. If it's falling down or sideways and damages any part of my house, I'm covered. If it rises, I'm not. I could get flood insurance but it's not worth it.

Wind: I'm covered.
Fire: I'm covered.

 

[Darat]

the policies are a little more complex than that.

For example, I'm covered for water damage so long as the water does come up. If it's falling down or sideways and damages any part of my house, I'm covered. If it rises, I'm not. I could get flood insurance but it's not worth it.

Wind: I'm covered.
Fire: I'm covered.

That's slightly different isn't it? Many insurance policies have an "act of god" clause that generally means that damage and destruction caused by exceptional and “non foreseeable” events are considered "acts of God" and the insurance company doesn't insure you for damage arising from that.

Certainly in English law “act of God” can be and is a defence used by insurers against claims of liability.

 

[Rob Lister]

That's slightly different isn't it? Many insurance policies have an "act of god" clause that generally means that damage and destruction caused by exceptional and “non foreseeable” events are considered "acts of God" and the insurance company doesn't insure you for damage arising from that.

Certainly in English law “act of God” can be and is a defence used by insurers against claims of liability.

But damage from wind and rain is specifically covered, so they can't opt out with an act of god clause.

I know there is an 'act of war' clause in mine. There may be an act of god clause but it wouldn't apply.

 

[Darat]

But damage from wind and rain is specifically covered, so they can't opt out with an act of god clause.

I know there is an 'act of war' clause in mine. There may be an act of god clause but it wouldn't apply.

Perhaps it is different in the USA then? With an "act of god" clause the insurers wouldn't have to pay out even if the damage was caused by rain or wind. (Or so they would hope.)

http://www.jwgroup.co.uk/insurance_glossary.html#n4

Act of God
An accident or event which happens independently of human intervention and due to natural causes such as storm earthquake etc which no human foresight can provide against. Suggesting that an event was an "act of God" may be a defence in English law against a claim for liability since it may be held that it could not have been foreseen or safeguarded against.

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: Re: Re: At what point do you write off NOLA?

What land?

New Orleans has flooded before. There's no reason to think that it won't be pumped out and rebuilt this time.

Seems NOLA would have to be completely remade. A clean slate. But will it still be New Orleans in the end?

What do you want to call it then? New New Orleans...The City Where Redundancy Never Sleeps City.

And who picks up the tab?

It's a fine point of etiquette I'm sure, but it might be best to wait till they've stopped counting bodies before you start counting dollars.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: At what point do you write off NOLA?

Won't the insurance companies just assign it as an "act of god" and not have to pay out?

Insurance policies generally don't cover flooding. You need Federal flood insurance for that.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: At what point do you write off NOLA?

Insurance policies generally don't cover flooding. You need Federal flood insurance for that.

Thanks for that piece of info. How come the government is involved in insurance?

And not to make light of it but I did see one building on fire in the middle of a flooded area - I can imagine the insurance claim for that one:

Type of damage: Fire
Cause of damage: Flood

 

[BPSCG]

I'm going to be a hard-ass here, but that shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone.

• If you didn't have flood insurance, you're on your own. The excuse that "We couldn't afford flood insurance" (it is very expensive) won't wash; if you couldn't afford flood insurance, then you couldn't afford to live in New Orleans in the first place. Why should I have to buy you a new house in the same place you had your old one, just because you bought a house you couldn't afford?
• If you didn't have other standard homeowner's insurance against damage by wind/fire/riot/etc., again, you're on your own. The excuse that "We couldn't afford homeowner's insurance" won't wash; if you couldn't afford homeowner's insurance, then you couldn't afford a house in the first place. Why should I have to buy you a new house, just because you bought a house you couldn't afford?

Will this happen? No. The taxpayers will end up building new houses for people who didn't have their old ones adequately covered. Were those people inexcusably stupid, or inexcusably cunning?

I'm thinking maybe I should buy beachfront property on the DelMarVa peninsula.

Insurance? Bah!

As far as rebuilding the city in general goes: My initial instinct is to reflect that New Orleans is in better shape now than Dresden and Hiroshima were 60 years ago this month. But of course, the problem was a little simpler for those cities, where the destruction was total: just bulldoze everything and start from square one.