What are the options for New Orleans

davefoc

Philosopher
davefoc
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Messages
9,434
Location
orange country, california
Four months after the destruction of New Orleans there doesn't seem to be a plan as to what to do about it and there doesn't seem to be anybody working on a plan.

If I was a displaced person from New Orleans I would feel like I was living through a second disaster, this time caused by government indecision. The mayor seems to have only one plan: spend massive amounts of federal money on a levee system designed to withstand category 5 hurricanes. OK, but the city is sinking and the natural hurricane barriers are deteriorating. How long is the plan good for and would the people it is designed to help be better off if somebody just gave them the money and they could start over.

The president seems willing to throw money at the problem. That is often this president's strategy when he can see political gain from the tactic. But is he willing to throw enough money to actually fix something or just enough money to look like we're fixing something?

USA editorial editorial on the topic:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20...tr6B2YD;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
I think we coddle all these people who live in danger zones. Whether they live in flood plains, on beaches, or in mudslide/wildfire zones.

How about we get them out of the way of danger. Instead of this macho "we shall rebuild" bullsnot.
 
Tmy said:
I think we coddle all these people who live in danger zones. Whether they live in flood plains, on beaches, or in mudslide/wildfire zones.

How about we get them out of the way of danger. Instead of this macho "we shall rebuild" bullsnot.
Click to expand...

Where exactly is "Out of the way of danger"? How many places do not occasionally get socked by fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards or killer heatwaves on a regular basis, not to mention the rare earthquake, volcano or tsunami.

Where exactly is this mythical land of safety?
 
davefoc said:
Four months after the destruction of New Orleans there doesn't seem to be a plan as to what to do about it and there doesn't seem to be anybody working on a plan.

If I was a displaced person from New Orleans I would feel like I was living through a second disaster, this time caused by government indecision. The mayor seems to have only one plan: spend massive amounts of federal money on a levee system designed to withstand category 5 hurricanes. OK, but the city is sinking and the natural hurricane barriers are deteriorating. How long is the plan good for and would the people it is designed to help be better off if somebody just gave them the money and they could start over.

The president seems willing to throw money at the problem. That is often this president's strategy when he can see political gain from the tactic. But is he willing to throw enough money to actually fix something or just enough money to look like we're fixing something?
Click to expand...
Well, it's hard to tell right now which model Bush is going to adopt, Iraq or New York.

In the Iraq model, they figure out how much it will cost to fix things and spend twice that amount of money, but nothing actually seems to get fixed. Money still gets spent though, and somehow personal freinds of the president end up richer.

Under the New York model, Bush promises large amounts of funds to help rebuild, then quietly slinks away when people are not paying attention.
 
Hutch said:
Indeed, Tmy, where do you live (a state or large city is sufficient). No threat of Earthquake, tornado, hurricane, et.al.?

Must be a wonderful place--or North Dakota...
Click to expand...


I live on the eastern seaboard. My city has a 20 foot hurrican barrier to protect it.

As for the Dakotas. What was that river that overflowed a few years back? I forget.

Anyhoo we are all in natures way. But there ARE areas that get hit on a near annual basis. Why rebuild? There are lots of towns now that are buying out land along rivers cause they are tired of the same houses getting flooded every couple of rainy seasons.

I saw this report on New Orleans. Supposably the whole place will be an isalnd in 80 years anyway.
 
It is true that earthquakes and some other types of disasters are tough to predict (although many people have 'quake insurance out here in California). However, some people build, or even rebuild, on land that has already proven to be unstable or otherwise dangerous.

If someone wants to build their beach house on the edge of a sandy cliff that is known to be eroding and has perhaps even slid before, it should be at the owners risk and expense.

I think it is foolish to rebuild a city that is 14 feet or so below sea level, is next to the sea, and has flooded previously. I agree with the linked article in the OP in that at the least, building should be limited to areas that were least affected by the floods.
 
I am glad there was some response to this topic. I think I was a little lazy when I initiated it in that I should have looked at the local newspaper for articles about what kind of planning is going on for rebuilding New Orleans.

Based on the national news coverage it appears that there is almost none. Frankly, I have formed such a negative view of Bush that I am afraid I have a tendency to see every story as another sign of his incompetence.

Still, I think his simple promises of just making everything all better do more harm than good. If I'm a New Orleans resident, I want to see that either that there is a plan or somebody is working to formulate a plan. Maybe the lowest lying areas should just be written off. They might make good parks or maybe ponds for recharging the ground water as a means of combatting the sinking of the city.

Can the mid level areas be raised? Can the stuctures be put on stilts? How much mitigation is possible by ecological changes that might reduce the destruction of the delta? Are any of these ecological changes likely to be accomplished in the future? This discussion must be going on, but if the federal government isn't playing a significant role than its probably pretty useless since without the federal funds and without the federal rule changes to affect ecological changes not much of substance is going to happen.
 
Tmy said:
I think we coddle all these people who live in danger zones. Whether they live in flood plains, on beaches, or in mudslide/wildfire zones.

How about we get them out of the way of danger. Instead of this macho "we shall rebuild" bullsnot.
Click to expand...
One problem: a lot of the more obviously dangerous locations (flood zones and so forth) are much cheaper, because no person in their right mind who had a choice would live there. The result is that lots of people who don't have enough money to have a choice live there.

If you move the people out of the flood zones, where are they going to go? Many of them can't afford housing elsewhere.
 
Hutch said:
Indeed, Tmy, where do you live (a state or large city is sufficient). No threat of Earthquake, tornado, hurricane, et.al.?

Must be a wonderful place--or North Dakota...
Click to expand...
Or Cardiff. Rugby aside, it's remarkably free from extreme natural forces. (The All-Blacks are an extreme natural force.:o) It's much the same for the whole British Isles.

I did feel an earthquake in Cardiff once. The epicentre was in Wrexham (half-way up Wales on the extreme right, practically in England) where it toppled a chimney or two. Nobody else in the office noticed it. I was in London for the Great Hurricane of '87, and it was pretty wild but not to the point of ducking into the cupboard under the stairs. We persuaded the girls in the upstairs apartment that they were under threat and safer in our gaff, but not that they needed to take to such huddling-type, close-quarters measures. Brits have a well-founded assumption that nature doesn't do extreme where they live. Natural extremes happen to foreigners, bless 'em.

Cardiff welcomes New Orleaners. It has a thriving music scene, but is not averse to even more thrive. It's as multi-cultural as all get-out, and has been since before the First American Civil War. Guns are frowned upon and religion is widely ridiculed, but if that don't sink your boat, come on over.
 
Melendwyr said:
One problem: a lot of the more obviously dangerous locations (flood zones and so forth) are much cheaper, because no person in their right mind who had a choice would live there. The result is that lots of people who don't have enough money to have a choice live there.
Click to expand...
Not everybody knows that an area is liable to flooding, catastrophic or not, and it's not generally in anybody's interests to point it out to them. If there's a 1-in-10 years flooding risk a developer can raise finance, build, sell to aspirationals and be long gone before the furniture gets ruined. I've lived in rural UK and heard locals wax lyrical on the idiocy of developments because of flood-certainty (it's not a risk) but the locals aren't picketing sales-offices preventing outsiders from confirming their opinon of townies.
 
davefoc said:
I am glad there was some response to this topic. I think I was a little lazy when I initiated it in that I should have looked at the local newspaper for articles about what kind of planning is going on for rebuilding New Orleans.
Click to expand...
I've been wondering about a New Orleans diaspora. I recall comments from Texan politicians, months ago, about not wanting the welfare-dependant/minimum-wage civic handicaps of Louisiana permanently dumped on them. I also recall evacuees saying they didn't want to go back. I haven't followed the story (we live in very interesting times, and there are past interesting times that still demand attention) but you've reminded me of it.

In the 20's the Dust Bowl gave us the Okies. Will Katrina produce an equivalent? If so, there's a Great American Novel a few years down the line.
 
CapelDodger said:
Or Cardiff. Rugby aside, it's remarkably free from extreme natural forces. (The All-Blacks are an extreme natural force.:o) It's much the same for the whole British Isles.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, if we were to relocate all the people who live in tornado prone areas (the entire mid-west), hurricane prone areas (the Gulf states and much of the Eastern Seaboard), Earthquake prone areas (California & Alaska) and wildfire prone areas (Much of the West) to Cardiff, I think Wales would begin to feel a bit.....crowded.
 
I think they should use the area for a more suitable purpose. Like a giant rice paddie.:D
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Be that as it may, if we were to relocate all the people who live in tornado prone areas (the entire mid-west), hurricane prone areas (the Gulf states and much of the Eastern Seaboard), Earthquake prone areas (California & Alaska) and wildfire prone areas (Much of the West) to Cardiff, I think Wales would begin to feel a bit.....crowded.
Click to expand...

So like the rest of the uk then? the center of Wales is pretty empty at the moment.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Be that as it may, if we were to relocate all the people who live in tornado prone areas (the entire mid-west), hurricane prone areas (the Gulf states and much of the Eastern Seaboard), Earthquake prone areas (California & Alaska) and wildfire prone areas (Much of the West) to Cardiff, I think Wales would begin to feel a bit.....crowded.
Click to expand...

Theres unaviodable danger. Like being in a hurricane prone area. Then theres just asking for trouble........like building a city BELOW sealevel.
 
Tmy said:
I live on the eastern seaboard. My city has a 20 foot hurrican barrier to protect it.

As for the Dakotas. What was that river that overflowed a few years back? I forget.

Anyhoo we are all in natures way. But there ARE areas that get hit on a near annual basis. Why rebuild? There are lots of towns now that are buying out land along rivers cause they are tired of the same houses getting flooded every couple of rainy seasons.

I saw this report on New Orleans. Supposably the whole place will be an isalnd in 80 years anyway.
Click to expand...

I am in full agreement with your posts.

IMO, people who live in these places must be made to realize that it is a risk that they alone should bear the consequences of.

And in Eau Claire, WI., they did that very thing. Bought up all the houses along the river after the flood of 1992. That was their last straw, after it had flooded numerous times before that. They made park out of it.
 
Last edited:
But one also had tpo consider the poingt raised by others, that disasters occur elsewhere. And THIS thought just crossed my mind:

If an area is not hit bad by the most feared disasters, but is instead, nickled and dimed every year by snowplowing/salting/sanding/overrtime pay for workers, and associated accidents/insurance claims...one must consider that over say a 20 year period, that can be like some disaster in terms of money and time lost, too.

I think the thing about New Orleans though (excellent thread BTW) is the fact that with talk of the probable frequency now of category 3 or higher hurricanes (do you know they are thinking about creating a category 6 now because of that Cancun hurricane?), that New Orleans could receive say $200,000,000,000, only to have catastrophe strike again, in the same spot, again, next year. And if not then, one could think it could do it for SURE between then and 20 years from now, almost for certain. We aren't ready to just keep forking over $200b, like we are shelling out pennies, you know.
 
Tmy said:
Theres unaviodable danger. Like being in a hurricane prone area. Then theres just asking for trouble........like building a city BELOW sealevel.
Click to expand...

And it's for stuff like this that I have considered I must have come from some other planet, instead. I just can't believe the logic sometimes that goes on in this world. (And to think that radical Muslims actually think they are going to get 72 virgins? Ha. Beam me back, Scotty!)
 
Tmy said:
Theres unaviodable danger. Like being in a hurricane prone area. Then theres just asking for trouble........like building a city BELOW sealevel.
Click to expand...

When New Orleans was initially built, it was not below sea level. It was a city of convience, because having a port at the mouth of the Mississippi river was simply too useful for it not to arrise. It's easy to dismiss the people who live in a dangerous place as foolish without realizing why there's a city there in the first place. The silt the city was built on has settled some, and more silt is constatnly being deposited around it by the Mississippi. Rivers roll and turn over their banks fairly quickly, geologically speaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom