Was Hurricane Katrina a tragedy? Yes. (Come to think of it, every Katrina I've known has been a tragedy, or caused one.) But I'm kind of fascinated by the reaction that the swamping of New Orleans has generated. What is with all this talk about rebuilding? Decades of levee and pump construction accomplished what, besides lulling several thousand suckers into a false sense of security? The fact is that isn't necessarily a once-every-forty years storm. The same thing could happen next year, or three hundred years from now. We can't predict when, so trying to plan on any assumption other than "it could happen any time" seems foolish.

And yet here we are, talking about rebuilding, spending years restoring New Orleans to the crime-ridden, ghost-haunted city it once was. I can't help but ask myself, what are those Americans thinking? The events of this week make it pretty clear that New Orleans is not a good place for a city. Maybe if the delta is restored, PROPER drainage and protection is installed, and the Mississipi returns to it's proper function as a meandering drainage basin, talk about rebuilding should take place.

But I should parse what I'm saying. If someone wants to invest billions of dollars in a reconstruction effort, more power to them, but I don't understand what business the U.S. government has in this endeavour. You could argue that they are responsible for helping the citizens of this disaster start putting their lives back together, but sentimentality and arrogance have no significance as far as I can tell.

Ok, ranting aside, I want to talk about WHY rebuilding is important, and who should be doing it. What purpose does an expensive, dangerous and potentially futile public reconstruction serve? To me it seems like a case of hubris more than anything. But I suppose you guys want to chime in. Two simple questions:

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?
I had a long, drawn out IM conversation with Titus yesterday about this, and he made some valid points as to why New Orleans should be rebuilt. I disagreed and I think he eventually came around, but it was an uphill battle (sorry Titus).

There are a lot of reasons to rebuild New Orleans, most focusing around the economic benefits to Louisiana as a state. New Orleans was a very large economy, and provided considerable revenue for the state. It served as a port, and brought goods and fuel into the country.

Another is the sentimental value. New Orleans was, as I have been told, a wonderful city to visit. Nobody wants to take the morale hit that comes with giving up on an entire city to the ocean.

And since I am talking about New Orleans mostly in the past tense, I imagine that you know my answer to...

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

Please review the following image:

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4609/008d3b027gj.gif

If the image is accurate, and I have no idea if it is, we should all be able to see why rebuilding New Orleans is a bad idea.

The analogy I used with Titus (and subsequently you, Joe) is this:

If your car gets towed every time you park it in front of your house, how many times do you allow it to get towed before you start parking it somewhere else?

Put simply, New Orleans will get hit again. It will cost billions upon billions of dollars to re-re-rebuild it.

The federal government is the only entity that is stupid enough to keep parking their car where they know that it will eventually get towed.

Like you said, the next hurricane might not come today, and it might not come tomorrow, and it might not come for another three centuries, but one thing is for sure-- it will come. If (when) we rebuild New Orleans, we must realize that this will not be the last time we will be rebuilding New Orleans.

It will get hit again, and the unimaginable forces of the ocean will again try to overtake the city.

I would like to see the federal government spend my money more wisely.

So what about the people? What do we do with them? Well, I don't know. I would propose that we offer people whatever funds they would be getting if the feds help rebuild it, but they would only be eligible to receive the funds if they agree to pay the money back, and only if they agree to relocate to higher ground.

So there you go, Joe. Are you happy now?

Mike

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?
Politically speaking, public reconstruction of New Orleans would be the correct thing for any politician who wants to keep his job. But New Orleans is also a very important cultural symbol in the United States, in the same way that New York City and San Francisco are. This is not your typical suburban sprawl neighborhood. New Orleans is well known for its MartiGras celebrations, Jazz music, and French sections.


Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?
Rebuilding New Orleans itself in the same area would be a very bad idea. I took a look at the map provided by Mike. New Orleans is surrounded by on 3 bodies of water (hence the name crescent city), and is below sea level. Had the big flood broken out in 1906 before the weather prediction computers were invented, the death toll from Katrina would have surpassed the San Francisco earthquake.

For the victims, the Federal Government should give them relocation aid so that they can assimilate into other neighborhoods and find new jobs. Given the cultural importance of New Orleans, permanent relocation is not an idea that I take lightly. But we have to look at the long term costs and risks of putting a city in a vulnerable area. Eventually, New Orleans will get rebuilt. But it's going to have to be on a smaller scale.

I doubt that this is the best time to broach this subject but then this the time when people are paying attention. I would argue that the federal government is obligated to help provide protection to its citizens who have historically located in vulnerable areas or to provide incentives for them to relocate. Now that New Orleans has flooded so disastrously, the question regarding how much of it to rebuild has to be discussed. I would argue that at least the historical areas like the French Quarter should be restored and probably the port facilities. However, as much of the population as possible should be relocated to safer areas and provided with transportation corridors to the historic city.

There are several reasons to think that the threat to New Orleans is only going to get worse. For one thing, the city is subsiding about 3 ft. per century because of a number of factors including the levees themselves. For another the barrier islands and wet lands, that helped protect it, have been severely reduced also partially related to the levees and to oil and gas drilling. See this Article for a simple discussion of this complex subject or this National Geographic Article for a more detaialed view.

The other factor is global warming. Sea levels are likely to rise and hurricanes are likely to intensify. See this Topic and the associated links for a discussion of hurricane intensification.

The one thing we need to keep in mind, however, is that we will need to apply the same logic to many other areas subject to periodic destruction including much of Gulf and Southeast Atlantic coast, areas adjacent the San Andreas fault in Southern and Northern California and much of the coastal Northwest. Are we ready to resist the rebuilding of a large chunk of the Los Angeles area or San Francisco?

I hate to use the word "DITTO', but there...I've already done it. People all over the world are occasionally exposed to the random acts of nature, but some places just scream out- "DON"T LIVE HERE!" New Orleans is one of these places. Below sea level on one side. Below lake level on another side. And below river level on a third side. Combine that with a historical knowledge of numerous past and juxtapositional hurricanes and an undisputed forcast of likely future "events", and the word "DUH' comes to mind. I'm just waiting for the "caring" "progressives" here on AD to demand that the Federal Government (read Taxpayers) purchase SCUBA diving equipment and underwater storage shelters for the "oppressed downtrodden" to facillitate their looting of the "Big Easy"

Before you label me as an unsympathetic ogre, let me state that I feel the same way about the neverending brushfires and subsequent mudslides that plague the Hollywood elite who build their multi-million dollar estates on the hills surrounding Los Angeles in California. History shows two things about those hills. They burn...and then they slide. Let Sean Penn and Susan Sarrandon pay those fire fighting bills!

Now you might say, what about the Earthquakes? Earthquakes, despite all the hype, are extremely rare and have been relatively cheap as far as disasters go. For comparison, the damage resulting from riots following a single court verdict in L.A.("can't we all just get along") dwarfed the most recent Eathquake damage.....

Ahhhh, now here's an excellent opportunity for social study...Some here might have called it "Hurricane Rodney"...An unfavorable verdict in a case involving a handful of individual human beings justifies billions of dollars worth of murder, assualt, rape, arson, vandalism, and "thereapeutic LOOTING".

Fast forward to New Orleans 2005 and you get "George W. Bush forced me into stealing this TV, and Ghetto Blaster, and vacuum cleaner..." Particularly amusing was the videotape showing female black uniformed New Orleans police officers filling up shopping carts while their "bruthas and sistas" gleefully rode their "new" bicycles up and down the looted aisles.

Having said all that, I think that we need to help everybody who was damaged by this tragedy...This one last time!!!! Let's make this a societal/civilian changing event!

Live wherever you want...from now on, it's all on you!

If you steal stuff that is not yours (and no, I'm not talking about food and water), we can kill you! It's really quite simple! That thing does not belong to you. You have no right to even touch it! If you do, we can blow your head off! Or chop your arms off! Or anything else we choose to do to stop you from STEALING OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF!

And on another note, something that really struck me was "family" nature of the looting I witnessed. Mothers and Fathers leading their young children up and down the aisles...Grabbing video games and toy trucks and such with gleeful abandon...Never mind your truly damged neighbors with lost loved ones. I believe these parents (and they are identified clearly live and on tape) should be prosecuted not only for theft, but for flagrant child abuse due to actively encouraging immoral and unlawful behavior in their offspring. This damage to society is irreparable. We must now be forever vigilante against the anti-social behavior that these "innocent offspring" feel they are entitled to engage in... "Stealing from other people is wrong...unless the wind starts blowing"..."If it's dry and there's no cops around...that stuff is mine. If it's wet and there's no cops around...that stuff is mine."

The level of this tragedy continues to escalate!

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

I don't have an answer for this, but for some reason, FEMA rules dictate that the recipients build on the same land where the destruction happened. That was the deal after wildfire took out homes up here. Some people took the deal, others just left.

This question has to go to the people of New Orleans. I can't answer it for them.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

Or anything else for that matter? How about other states, should other states offer the aid that's been offered? We in Colorado are giving FEMA teams and blood. I suppose money will be coming too. Why should we care?

I can answer that one: It is the human thing to do.

As for the fed government, we elect those people. Apparently, most of us are okay with the deal, else we'd be demanding change -- right?

On the bigger question of whether we should build where obvious disasters can occur, that's an old debate subject. One related question:

When was the last time New Orleans was wiped out? I don't recall this ever happening before. In fact, this was a pretty big surprise that the hurricane picked up so much energy in the Gulf, and even that it decided to go west, young storm.

I detect 20-20 hindsight and quite a bit of unwarrented judgement. The east and south get big ocean storms; the middle and north get floods, tornadoes, drought. The west gets drought and wildfire, plus some volcanoes and earthquakes. We are all subject to meteor falls, ice ages and alien invasions which I'll consider a natural disaster due to life being a part of nature.

Whatever happens in the wake of Katrina is fine by me. Personally, I'd not want to live or rebuild there. It's too dang hot.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?
Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

There is no question that New Orleans should be rebuild. The Louisiana economy depends on a large part on this harbor city, and culturally and historically New Orleans is a one of a kind. Yes it costs a lot of money and energy (thats why I think the Federal government should be involved), but it has to be done and it will be done.

Of course there are arguments against rebuilding this unique city. Some posters have pointed out on the fact that it is pointless to rebuild the city because of its unfavorable situation. They point out to the fact that a disaster can and will happen again in the future.







To answer all these arguments I have two words: the Netherlands.

Look at this strange little country, thats for most part underneath the sealevel. (our most important airport Schiphol is almost 15 feet beneath sealevel, the lowest point is 20 feet beneath sealevel) Apart from that our whole country is sliced in pieces by various big rivers, making the west of Holland one big marshland. We know the dangers of living underneath the sea, floodings occurred frequently in the past (the recorded one occurred in 838 and devastated the northwest of Holland, the last one in 1953, killed 1800 people and set the whole south-west of the Netherlands under water) Following the above mentionted arguments, the Dutch should have ran away, leaving this dangerous land. Why re-, re-, re-, re-, rebuilding our society, our cities? The Dutch rejected this idea and began their struggle against the water, discovering new ways of protecting themselves with waterlocks, dikes, dunes etc. Some of their inventions were revolutionary.
The most important thing that we, as a people, have learned is that one should always be on guard when threatened by nature. We have build huge dunes and dikes that are way higher than required, just in case of an emergency. We took numerous precautions just in case: better safe than sorry.

If one takes the right precautions there is nothing wrong with living in a city like New Orleans.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

What purpose? Would this question be asked if your/my hometown was the city affected?

To start with: restore people’s homes, restore the numerous businesses that make up the economic lifeblood of the city (which contributes to the rest of the country), restores their important rail, highway, air and river shipping hub…for starters. New Orleans is more than a bunch of drunkards partying in the French Quarter. It plays an important role in the US economy.

The question could be applied to many other sites of natural disasters; should San Francisco have been rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake and fire, or the 1989 quake? Should Anchorage have rebuilt after the 1964 quake? Should [insert just about any Southern California city name here] have been rebuilt after quakes? Should the Florida cities damaged by Camille, Georges, Ivan, Andrew, Charley, Frances and Jeanne have been rebuilt? Should all the cities along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers devastated by the flood of 1993 been rebuilt?

What about Galveston; why should people live in that city after the great hurricane and flood of 1900? I mean, sheesh, it’s a freakin’ island. It doesn’t have nearly the economic significance of New Orleans. The citizens of Galveston had to dredge like crazy and raise the level of their city 17 feet to make it inhabitable again. But they DID it, and whaddya know, Galveston’s still around and doing fine.

I agree with Renger:

One of the best things about America is that we don't accept defeat when Mother Nature smacks us upside the head. We dust ourselves off, and get started immediately putting things back in order and rebuilding. I say rebuild New Orleans. Take a lesson from Galveston and make it better than before.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

Yes. As with any other disaster of this magnitude.

I think I read somewhere the River is changing course away from New Orleans. This has been happening for years, but eventually the river will be too far away for New Orleans to be the port that it is now. Has anyone else heard about this?

It is this sort of hubris that piques me. The last time I checked, humanity (or America) isn't at war with Nature, nor should it be. There is no winning or losing: the city was dry, now it's underwater. All these metaphors of battle and pride are incredibly arrogant if you ask me. If I'm swimming at a beach and a riptide pulls me out, nearly to my death, do I go back to where I was and say "that riptide isn't getting the best of me!" Of course not, it's ludicrous.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

All of the responses I have seen here ignore the fact that rebuilding somewhere else would have huge additional costs. Even if ALL the homes had to be rebuilt, much of the infrastructure, not to mention the entire downtown area, would remain. It would be hugely more expensive to build somewhere else. Now, given that, it still might make economic sense, if not emotional sense, to build elsewhere. But that costs needs to be considered. Just think about downtown. If the plan is to reuse that, then the rest of the infrastructure necessary to maintain the levees, etc, will need to remain also, as well as enough support system to keep downtown functioning (shops, offices, police, fire, etc). So, if you're going to move the town...you have to move the whole town. How many billions more do you think it would take to completely rebuild downtown New Orleans somewhere else? Then, you'd need to rebuild all the roads and transportation system, probably the airport, etc. The cost would just be astronomical.


Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

Again, I look to economics. The Federal Government should be involved up to the point where it would be beneficial for it to do so. If it doesn't participate, then it has to spend money on various support systems because those people have no where to live. This would also then lead to increased expenditures on law enforcement, unemployment, etc. There would also be costs associated with the impact on insurance companies, and how that would affect everyone else. There is already a cost associated with the rest of the country not having the services that New Orleans provided (already out of gas at some stations here in Dallas), which has a financial impact. Finally, those people would not be contributing back to the government in the form of taxes. Also, if the government doesn't provided assistance, then people will have to make up for that lack elsewhere, through enhanced insurance, or by putting away additional money instead of spending it...both of which would have a detrimental impact on the economy....thereby costing the government money. So, to me, it's a business decision. The government should help because doing so helps the government...which in turn helps all the rest of us.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

* * * * * * * my answer:

I have to agree with the poster above who pointed out the responsibility people have not to make their homes in an area that is on a flood plain or something similar. However, I also must admit that even though I've visited New Orleans (saw my first drag queen there at the tender age of 17 ... lol ... my first thought was "wow, she has big hands" before I figured out that she was a he) -- it's never occurred to me that New Orleans would be in any special danger of something like this, probably because previous hurricanes have mostly hit the East Coast. That could be because I am plain dumb, but like someone else pointed out, N.O. has been spared up until now.

Has anyone read John Stossel's book, 'Give Me a Break?' He used to own an oceanfront cabin -- I think it was in New Jersey -- and he got FEMA aid to rebuild it after a hurricane blew it away. He knew when he bought the place that it was too close to the water, but he bought it anyway. When another hurricane blew it away a second time, he sold the land, but reported that the new owner built an even grander house, closer to the water than before.

Although I agree that the costs would be exorbitant, I would suggest that any rebuilding incorporate the same types of dikes and other precautions that the Low Countries (Netherlands) adopted for their shores. I'd also suggest building WAY inland as compared to the way things were, but that runs us up against the argument that part of N.O.'s glamor is connected to its being a harbor town.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

* * * * * * * my answer:

To an extent, yes. I say 'to an extent' because I think the responsibility for keeping adequate insurance rests with property owners. However, since New Orleans hasn't seen damage of this magnitude before, I'm sure a lot of insureds will be holding the bag now.

Why do you consider it hubris if an entire city doesn't tuck its tail between its legs and admit defeat? Good grief, you'd think this is the first time any city ever suffered a disaster of this magnitude! And I don't think I used any battle metaphors in my post, and I never insinuated we were "at war" with nature. Nature does what she does, and we puny humans just have to deal with it. Why is that hubris?

And I don't equate swimming in dangerous waters with hurricanes.

You raise an interesting, but nonetheless merely academic question regarding the city of New Orleans. This isn't about hubris, as you would expect. If New Orleans had been destroyed 10 years ago by a hurricane I could see some point. But according to your logic cities like Miami, Savannah, Charleston, Galveston, Orlando, Tampa, Biloxi, Mobile and the like should all be gotten rid of.

Yes, New Orleans has some unique challenges in this regard. Prior to Katrina they had addressed them somewhat with the levee system. Unfortunately our government (at all levels) failed to appreciate the impending risk or decided to carelessly gamble with people's lives by not finishing their work that was started in 1995 when SELA was enacted. Had they done so, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. The levee breaks were what created this disaster, not the hurricane specifically.

New Orleans has faced hurricanes before and survived. But by your logic any port city in the Gulf of Mexico or the eastern seaboard stands some degree of hubris by daring to be in the line of a hurricane. That's just silly.

Besides, if we don't rebuild New Orleans, the bead industry would likely suffer greatly.

Doc

if we are not a war with nature, i'd like you to tell how we are "benefiting" it? that's rhetorical.

food for thought:

"The Historical Nature of our Ecological Crisis"
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/lwhite.htm

the concept at play is "christian teleology" - or how do our beliefs guide/influence our actions in terms of a world view.


...

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

giving the finger to the forces that oppose us by using our collective power.

if we "win," we consider we have "improved" or that we have "won." its also a mnifestation of will, there are reasons for doing something that are not determined by economic logic.

this can work to save nature as much as work against it.


Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?


not really, and certainly not as much as it will be. i find it amusing that market happy privatizers are not called to task. i imagine wal-mart and home depot could do a lot for these people, and for long term benefit and loyalty.

its the age old maxim of greedy self-interested capitalist politics...

"privatize the gains, socialize the losses"

perhaps we just have short term memories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille



i suggest you click the link and notice the path of the storm. notice the timely update.

how many billions does it take to "serve a purpose"?

something to think about.

Well it appears that the Speaker of the House has weighed in on this topic - link:

Gee, that must be that compassionate conservatism we hear so much about

The article goes on to say:

Rebuild New Orleans? Someone mentioned something about if there had been no warning, then the death toll would have exceeded that of S.F. as a result of the "great" quake. Probably so, and that's why we shouldn't rebuild. We'll indeed have adequate warning, and who knows, maybe it is possible to hurricane-proof the city [in terms of flooding]. But didn't Katrina just tell any and all who might wish to do us harm that if you want to take out America's 35th largest city, all one need do is blow a few select holes in the levees? And if that happens there won't be much, if any, warning. And knowing our heartless enemy, they'll pick some occasion, Mardi Gras, when the city is filled with drunken tourists. So I would suggest that if rebuilding does occur, that some monies be allocated in the budget for a 24 hour, 7 day a week, anti-terrorism patrol for the levees.

But I should parse what I'm saying. If someone wants to invest billions of dollars in a reconstruction effort, more power to them, but I don't understand what business the U.S. government has in this endeavour. You could argue that they are responsible for helping the citizens of this disaster start putting their lives back together, but sentimentality and arrogance have no significance as far as I can tell.

Ok, ranting aside, I want to talk about WHY rebuilding is important, and who should be doing it. What purpose does an expensive, dangerous and potentially futile public reconstruction serve? To me it seems like a case of hubris more than anything. But I suppose you guys want to chime in. Two simple questions:

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

The government will come to the aid of any City in these circumstances but I agree it will be a wast of money given the incompetance of the City and State governments there. Both the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor KNEW the levies could not handle a category 4-5 storm yet they allowed thousands to stay in the city as a monster storm headed straight at them. Now all of us will pay to put the city back togeather and it will still be run by the same fools that run it today.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

If we accept the premise that it will be a loooooooooooong time before another hurricane destroys New Orleans, and that there will be no sabotage of the levees in that time, the argument can be made that re-building where it's at is cheaper than starting over from scratch further up the Mississippi River. This may be true. I don't, however, believe that we should be taking the risk that it won't be hit again. We, as in, the taxpayers. Private developers can do as they please, for all I care.

One theme I've read here several times is that when nature knocks us down, we should get back up, and this is true to a point. Of course, humans haven't thrived by merely standing back up when we get knocked down. We've thrived by 1) learning why we got knocked down, and 2) learning how to not get knocked down again. To me, rebuilding New Orleans just to demonstrate that we're not down for the count is foolish.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

If the Federal Government wants to help, that's fine, but their help should be directed towards rebuilding the lives of those who were displaced. Rebuilding the city makes sense only if that's the most economical and effective means of rebuilding their lives. If dividing up the expected relief funds amongst the various refugees will be more effective, then by all means do that.

I have very little time for such concepts as sentimentality and standing-up-to-nature when it comes to catastrophe's like this.

The comparisons I've heard to such places as Los Angeles and San Francisco seem to me to be comparing apples-to-oranges. Even with the San Francisco earthquakes, most of the city was still inhabitable and usable. Abandoning what was left would have been much more costly and wasteful than rebuilding what was destroyed. From what I can tell, there's not much left of New Orleans that won't have to be cleared away in order to allow reconstruction.

As for Galveston, some have made the argument that because it's a disaster waiting to happen (repeatedly) and that we re-built it anyway, that we have an obligation to rebuild New Orleans, too. Hello? I can't say I know the full story behind Galveston, but I have to say that just because we make one stupid judgment call doesn't mean that all our judgment calls should be equally stupid.

I agree with Hobbes' thinking on is it cheaper to rebuild or to start over being a key factor. Is it really cheaper to rebuild though? When I'm working on houses, I always find that it is just as hard, if not harder, to take down what is messed up than to put up the proper thing to begin with. I don't think that we can say with any certainty that we would spend a lot more money just rebuilding the city a couple miles north on the river. Especially if we are just talking about the infastructure and buying of the land(see below). If that is the case, then why build it where it was?

Should the federal government pay for it? Yes. Insurance should pay for the buildings, but the infastructure is the governments department. Always has been.

First I'll say that some of the responses to this thread have been interesting and I'm sure they'll continue to be interesting. I have noted that some of the people which oppose rebuilding New Orleans are some of the same people that rabidly support what we are doing in Iraq. That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You'd support a nation building exercise which will be infinitely more expensive yet you wouldn't be willing to rebuild an American city? And not just any American city, one with significant cultural significance.

But anyone I guess hypocrisy abounds these days, on with the topic.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?
First, New Orleans is an incredibly important port for the country and it happens to be out of commission at the moment. From the Port of New Orleans site:


Secondly, there is a fairly substantial oil and refining industry in the area. We are all feeling the effects of that with higher gas prices at the moment. These kind of facilities need an infrastructure to support them which includes people, housing and services.

Thirdly, New Orleans is an incredibly important part of American Culture. Its place in music history is legendary and it is certainly among the top recognized American cities.

Finally, we are Americans and Americans should take care of their own. I think everyone is perfectly willing to sacrifice just a little bit in the coming years so that millions of people don't have to be displaced.

As far as a "public reconstruction", I'm not really sure what is meant by that. If you are suggesting that the federal government finance the entire thing then I'd heartily disagree with that. But I do think they should bring their incredible resources to bear to help out our country. If they make a big investment so will private investors.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?
Of course they should. One of the functions of FEMA is to pay for hurricane damage and get people back on their feet. If you take a look at wikipedia and scroll down to the Costliest Hurricanes section you'll see that many of them happened in in the last 10 to 15 years. I'd expect that the federal government put up similar or greater funding as these hurricanes had in the past. I was looking for a table of FEMA payouts but couldn't find it.

Not only should they be involved but we should use this as an opportunity to do things better. The point about New Orleans being well below sea level is well taken. I don't look at that as a reason to just give up on the city and let the wilderness claim it, I look at it as a reason to quit screwing around and solve the problem the right way.

For example, Mustang previously cited this resource (which at the moment can't be accessed). That resource talked about a $20B (?) plan to make the levees resistant to a class 5 hurricane. That should certainly be considered as well as new plans. You would already be spending considerable money to repair the damage, might as well improve them at the same time.

Also, as has been cited numerous times the damage could have been greatly reduced if all of the wetlands surrounding New Orleans hadn't been destroyed. This salon article says:

The article also says that Bush unleashed developers here in 2003. We would also need to make restoring the wetlands a priority to greatly reduce storm surge. Had there been sufficient wetlands the levees might have been perfectly acceptable.

I hope this underscores the importance of protecting, conserving and restoring the environment for those with political beliefs that tell them otherwise. In this case it could have very well saved the day.

Could you please point out those who opposed rebuilding New Orleans and are 'rabid supporters' of the war in Iraq. And more than one please because you did say some.

Just curious because I don't see many here that 'rabidly supported' the war in Iraq.

It's not a question of should. New Orleans will be rebuilt. Just because it's called the Big Easy, doesn't mean life there will always be easy.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

Well, apart from giving folks the homes that they lost....

To show the terrorists that they can't win.

To demonstrate that, yes, the Department of Homeland Security can secure the homeland if a bit after the fact.

More "on the job" training for those National Guardsmen (looters = insurgents).

To claim success for some, any rebuilding effort; rebuilding a city must be easier than rebuilding a nation, right?

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

The Feds must adequately address these issues:

1. economic returns
2. safety
3. sentimental value

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

Like the September 11 attack, it serves to enrich those who let it happen. Does anyone imagine that the rebuilding of New Orleans (and Trent Lott's manor) will include low-cost housing for the hundred thousand poverty level citizens who have been displaced? Yeah, right.

For decades, developers have had their eye on the gentrification of New Orleans, but they've been blocked by preservationists and the inconvenient local population. That's why the wetlands that would have helped protect the city were rezoned in 2003. Well, now that local population is gone. Now, there's nothing much to preserve. And, yeah, New Orleans will be rebuilt - by Halliburton and other friends of the administration - and it will be rebuilt as upmarket condos, gated communities, gulfside resorts, and floating casinos. That eminent domain decision by the Supreme Court will sure come in handy. And, hell yeah, George W Bush can't wait to sit on the front porch - being fanned by darkies while sipping a mint julep, I should imagine.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

If and only if, it is rebuilt as it was - with provisions for completing and improving the levee project approved in 1965. If and only if as many of the listed historical buildings are fully restored. If and only if the first priority is housing for the original residents at a rent they can afford. If and only if the poverty-stricken evacuees are employed in the reconstruction. If and only if the development vampires are driven from the wetlands and they are also restored. Something tells me those plans are not on the drawing board. I'd say let it rot if I thought it meant the administration might start giving a damn about the poorest of the poor. But nothing is going to do that. So we'll have to content ourselves with sitting back and watching the richest of the rich get richer.

That was certainly a constructive post, Wertz. You forgot the part about Halliburton's super-secret hurricane maker that was paid for by stolen Social Security funds on the orders of Dick Cheney. Other than that omission though, really constructive to this topic.

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?


Aside from the unique history and culture of New Orleans, it's geographic location is important to the economy of the US and indeed the world. Anyone who spends any time near the Mississippi River will see barge after barge going up and down that river on their way to or from New Orleans. That's how we get food grown in the heartland to the rest of the world. I found this little description about New Orleans here. From that article......



As they say in real estate, "Location, location, location". New Orleans is where it is for a reason and that alone is the reason we should, and will re-build it. Perhaps not into the "Peoples Republic of New Orleans" that Wertz wants, but hopefully into a city that retains the unique and wonderful character of the old "Big Easy".

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?



You bet! New Orleans is a national asset, the entire nation benefits from it and the federal government should be a major player in re-building it.

You're right, I did. Thanks for mentioning it.

Seriously, Aquilla, why make such a leap? Halliburton had reconstruction contracts with the Navy signed and sealed before the first federal agents set foot in New Orleans. And are you arguing that the wetlands were not rezoned for commercial development?* Are you arguing that there will not be hefty profits made from the reconstruction of southern Louisiana? Are you arguing that none of the developers will have the most remote link to the Bush administration? That there will be no selective bids? No graft? I wish I could live in your world, Aquilla.

Whether or not the reconstruction of New Orleans will include the development of properties that the poorest displaced members of the community can afford is, of course, a matter of speculation. Time will tell whether that population can return or not. All I'm saying is that I rather suspect not. Get back to me this time next year and we'll see. Meanwhile, I believe that Hurricane Katrina "changed everything".

_________________________

* The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.

In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups conducted a joint expert study, concluding in 2004 that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary, much less a Category 4 or 5, hurricane. "There's no way to describe how mindless a policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection," said one of the report's authors.

-- Salon.com

It is a virtual guarantee that government housing will be rebuilt.

Of course, one side effect here is that property is going to be more expensive, in general, in New Orleans since the buildings will be new.

Not all areas of the city were destroyed however.

Wertz, I hate to rain on the Halliburton-Hate-Parade, but KBR was awarded that contract by the Navy as a ten year deal in 2002. What possible relation does that have to your post, except to take yet another cheap shot at Anti-Christ, inc?

Just as New Orleans has an agreement brokered with the US Army Corps of Engineers to build and repair levee's, the Navy has the same type of construction contract with Halliburton.

I am embracing The Dark Side. I agree with Aquilla one thousand percent.

To answer the first question. What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve? If we start getting into the habit of abandoning great cities because they are impractical then we'd better close San Francisco before the fault line rumbles and sends it sailing off into the Pacific. We should sell Manhattan and the rest of New York back to the Indians before the next terrorist attack hits. Close down Detroit because it's a basket case. Let Fidel Castro buy Miami before the next hurricane flattens it and put a "Going Out of Business" sign over the whole city of Washington D.C. because nothing works there anyway.

Name a city in America that anybody's ever heard of and there's something fatally flawed about it. There are no perfect cities. Cities are imperfect and impractical.
Great cities are great for a lot of reasons but because they are practical is rarely one of them.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

If America is willing to spend billions of dollars to build democracy in a desert then why not in a city surrounded by water on three sides? Why is it the same people willing to try and build a democracy where none has ever existed are willing to let N'awlins remain a city of the dead and a rotting monument to a nation's failure of will and courage?

Look at it this way. Charity should always begin at home.

You don't give up on New Orleans because the levees failed. You put in the research, crunch the numbers and rebuild the darn thing BETTER so it doesn't fail again. There's a thousand reasons why New Orleans should not be rebuilt, but only one reason why America should. It's the right thing to do. What's wrong with doing the right thing.

Have we suddenly decided in 2005 to correct the mistake made in 1718 and abandon New Orleans because it would cost too much, take too long and face the wrath of nature again? Today, New Orleans represents adversity. Tomorrow, it could represent an opportunity to be great again.

I also have a personal and selfish interest in seeing New Orleans reborn.

Next year marks my 25th wedding anniversary. We were planning on doing one of two things: go on a cruise or go to New Orleans. I really would like to have both options available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans

It seems the questions being asked should be asked of all towns/cities who are placed in environmentally impractical locations. Why bother with Earth at all then? Earth is an unstable place.

I read an interesting article and thought it was very relevant to this discussion. So I thought I should share it..
Will New Orleans Rebound?

I saw on the news tonight that there is apparently a bar open in the French Quarter..so I guess as the old adage says..life goes on.

Yes, it's true that every place on the planet has potential for disaster in some
form. But, the one we have all just witnessed really takes the cake. I don't
think that this country, as "rich" as we supposedly are, can afford another crisis
like the one that is unfolding. To rebuild the levees so that they can sustain
category 5 hurricanes would supposedly cost us billions. (We should have
done it already, then we wouldn't have to spend billions on the relief effort.)

I would opt for rebuilding it, but on a much smaller scale. A city below
sea level, is a disaster waiting to happen, and according to every meteorologist
I've heard, this has been a long time coming.



Yep. We shouldn't have poured all the money and man-power into Iraq.
We could have used the resources to build the levees higher in the first
place, or at least have the man-power available to react more swiftly to
this unprecedented crisis. It's a big mess is what it is. And the clean-up
will take so long we're liable to see another Katrina before it's all said
and done.



Okay, but look at what just happened. Unless we can somehow successfully
safeguard against a future catastrophe I would say don't rebuild to the same
degree. Recreate the atmosphere, but on a smaller scale. Either that, or
only let in rich people who won't mind having their lives wiped away from a
night's storm.

My apologies. I'm not sure why the Houston Chronicle reported that "The Navy has hired Houston-based Halliburton Co. to restore electric power, repair roofs and remove debris at three naval facilities in Mississippi damaged by Hurricane Katrina." (Nor can I account for their reporting that KBR - the Halliburton subsidiary to which you referred - would be doing damage assessment under a contract awarded in 2004 - unless, maybe, we're talking about three different contracts here. ) But if Halliburton was hired to restore three facilities damaged by Hurricane Katrina back in 2002, that makes all the difference. I didn't realize that one of the powers of the Antichrist is precognition. But that raises a new question: if Halliburton (and the Navy?) knew this was going to happen three years ago, why didn't they warn anyone?

As this was reported last Thursday as the Navy hiring Halliburton specifically to renovate naval facilities damaged by Katrina (and assuming the Houston Chronicle wasn't just making the story up), I think you can see what it had to do with my response. I am not all that familiar with the Chronicle, though - perhaps it is no more credible than the Weekly World News. If that's the case, again, my apologies.


Amlord: I certainly hope you're right about government housing - and low-rent housing for the working poor. And I hope that the city will be reconstructed as close as possible to the way it was a week ago - with the addition of improved levees and drainage systems. I'm not counting on it, though - and will be curious to see who gets the contracts. It would be nice if they could restore the wetlands, as well, but that is definitely too much to hope for. For the rest, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Wertz, you and I both know that your reference to Halliburton was devoid of any context and included in your post as a way to say 'look, Cheney's Halliburton is getting richer while poor people still suffer from Katrina'.

But we also both know that KBR has a long standing contract with the Navy to provide repair and construction operations in the wake of events just such as Katrina. We also both know that an agreement such as this is vital for reasons of national security, and actually makes sense.


NYT

The Houston Chronicle's wording is not technically wrong, but it implies that the Navy just offered the evil Halliburton a job, when it fact the job was already theirs.

I think the city should be rebuilt, but only the industrial/commercial part, and those parts should be built with the inevitability of future flooding considered.
The first 2 floors of major buildings could be for parking, emergency generators required and placed above flood zone, likewise emergency water supplies in each major building.

Neighborhoods should be moved to the "higher" low ground if they must, but preferably to ground that is a reasonable level above sea/lake/river levels.
Nothing but parks, green belt, etc. in the "low" low ground, and just go ahead and flood the lowest low ground and make a lake for recreational use, or more harbor/port for shipping use, depending on where the really low ground is.
The city will mostly be still there, but the relocation or reassigned use of parts of it will mitigate future damage from flooding.

Moving the entire city is not likely to occur, as it has to have a place to go, and you can bet that wherever that is, the land is already owned by others, and the courts would be busy for years just settling that issue alone.

I say rebuild it on the level that the Netherlands took on the Zieder Zee (sp)- over build the crap out of it, make it withstand a freakin' comet to the gulf- make it the safest place against flooding on earth- we have the tech, we have the ability- it is the will that is lacking. If we can spend a half a trillion on Iraq (or more) than we can sure as heck save a city with the economic, cultural and historical impact that NO has had. There is no excuse whatsoever to abandon this city- except laziness and lack of will.

I have to agree with Bill on the common sense points- some attention to the really low areas as a "sacrifice zone" - is probably a good idea. A nice park when weather is nice, a place for water to be allowed to go when it is not. Good idea.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

To an extent, but I hope that the Fed isn't the one holding the bill when all is said and done. I think that if the Fed pours some considerable money into the repair and reconstruction, that it should push the City and State governments to implement considerbly stronger prevention measures for instances such as these.

My convo with Mike in the immediate aftermath was rather eye-opening. Though I disagree, to an extent, on some of the particulars of his argument, I believe that New Orleans is simply destined to suffer the same fate, again. There's no getting around that. That being said, I think it should be the City and State's primary but not sole responsibility to foot the bill if their citizens choose to live in a precarious area such as New Orleans.

That doesn't mean that the fed should not help in protecting and preserving one of America's oldest and finest cities.


What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

Well, the primary reason I can think of is that hundreds of thousands of people live in the New Orleans area. It's their home. Unless you want to maintain a massive strain on the surounding area's infrastructure and economy while, in reality, keeping people displaced for years, rebuild the city and get the economy started again.

There are a number of things that would dissuade anyone from wanting to rebuild, including the fact that New Orleans is bound to suffer the same fate in the future. If they choose to continue to live there, I think the fed should help them find ways to better prepare, execute, and react to such catastrophes.

I heard Steve Forbes on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer this morning make the comparison to Holland. I don't think it's a completely fair one to make, as Holland has never had to deal with 200 mph winds and since the entire country is about the size of the Lousiana coast, the Dutch government is gonna be more than willing to spend money on it's nation's survival. Not to mention that the nation's capital lies at a similar height (or lack thereof) as New Orleans.

That's not to say that the state of Louisiana should not consult the Dutch in building more efficient levees, in order to minimize the potential damage of future hurricanes.

It serves very little rational purpose. Certainly, they will have to build something there to use as a port city, it's too important to the economy of the US not to use the land at all. But should they start rebuilding a carbon copy of the way New Orleans used to be? Of course not. This is an excellent chance, perhaps the only one they're going to have in the forseeable future, to actually correct the mistakes made 300 years ago when the city was founded. It was put in a bad location. That's an undeniable fact. Now it's largely gone. To make the same mistake again and put it back in exactly the same place is utterly stupid.

The unfortunate fact is that New Orleans gets hit with hurricanes regularly. They suffer damage regularly. They do so because they are below sea level. I think they need to mandate that any part of the city that gets rebuilt must be raised above sea level. It's foolish to do otherwise.



If that means are the feds left holding the bag for the estimated $100 billion cost, no. If that means helping people rebuild the area, mandating improvements, etc. then sure, I have no problem with that.

I would go a step further, time to have our own little southern Bijou flavored Venice Italy. The land is sinking like Venice I think NO is 3 feet per century. So rebuild it as a city above the water but maintain the pumps and levees for a periodic maintenance.

Build a underground mass transportation city like you have in Washington DC but better. Make it the jewel of the south. Make it hurricane proof by building solid stone concrete buildings like Venice has. Always build so you can have another level added above for subsidence.

In theory the land may fill back in as or if we allow the river to flow through.

As a matter of fact, I did not know that KBR had a long-standing contract with the Navy. Indeed, before the Houston Chronicle article appeared, I'm not sure if I'd ever even heard of KBR. It goes without saying that, at the time I posted, I hadn't seen the New York Times article you quote.

But it does raise a fair question: due to the "extensive criticism in the past two years", why does Halliburton still have the contract? (And why did they get the contract in 2002 in the first place?) It would appear that the Navy had the option to tender the Louisiana contract elsewhere, but decided to "turn to" Halliburton under the terms of the ongoing contract. Were I running the Navy as a business, I would at least have had second thoughts.


You are not technically wrong, but you imply that the Navy had no alternative but to offer the evil Halliburton the job, when in fact it could have been tendered to anyone.

If the reconstrution deal had a proviso that only local contractors could be used, I wonder how keen the Bush administration would be to leap at the opportunity to redevelop the affected regions?

Without reading through the entire contract, let's assume that you are correct and that the Navy could have gone elsewhere for the repair work.
Are you more likely to turn to the company that you already have a relationship (and a contract) with, or will you start the search and negotiations with a different company?

The Navy is more than likely concerned far more with getting the repair work complete, than the PR aspects. And lastly, I'm not saying this is the case, but are there local companies that can do the work needed? Can they get necessary security clearances if the work is being done on sensitive equipment or in secure areas?

Speaking as someone who was in the Navy and had a clearance, and worked with civilians in secure areas, there is an extremely small percentage of work that requires a security clearance during construction, or overhaul. It is more likely that the civilian would not have a clearance, but would be escorted continually while in a secure area. Sensitive larger items, like crypto equipmentor large maps, would be covered, and smaller items just put away.
On the other hand, it takes time to get new contractors on board and if you already have them there for another job and they can handle additonal work, then it makes sense to extend the work to them.

This article culled from a British magazine articulates my thoughts on this issue and related issues about as well as I could, so to save my wrists, here it is: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10214.htm

Schooly

Some of the posts here have touched a little bit on the cultural character of New Orleans, and that's a pretty intangible kind of a thing to discuss in a debate forum with specific answers to specific questions. It is made even more difficult because not everyone has visited New Orleans. It is a difficult place to truly understand unless you've been there. I have and I fell in love with that city, and most especially with the wonderful people who call it home. People like that old man I met with his saxophone sitting on a bench on top of the levee in Jackson Square playing the blues alongside the Mississippi River. Oh man, how could you not love that? That image alone makes me think we gotta save this place.

But, rather than "entertain" y'all with my stories of New Orleans, I'll instead post a link here to a slideshow that a guy has out there called "My 5 days with Katrina". Kind of a before and after kind of thing. For those who have never been to New Orleans, perhaps this will help explain some things......

It seems that there are those willing - nay, EAGER to take advantage of the situation left by Katrina.

I can see it now: Tara-sized cookie-cutter "mansions" where modest or downright tumble-down houses lived in by low income families used to be. Speculators are going to be all over the Big Easy like chickens on a june bug. And you can bet your bippie that low-cost housing will be an extremely low priority. You can hardly blame those residents who stubbornly refused to leave their homes.

I will venture to say that the "new" New Orleans will hardly resemble the spicy gumbo of the "old" New Orleans, and will be much the poorer for it.

I hope this response is still timely. I have had other concerns on my mind the past ten days or so...

What purpose(s) does a public reconstruction of New Orleans serve?

Before Katrina, a local advertising campaign was begun, with billboards posing a multiple choice question:

A. Sesame Street
B. Wall Street
C. Bourbon Street
D. All of the above

All the choices have a box to the left, and D is checked. What is to be advertised remains to be seen, but it underlines the fact that; having never been there, New Orleans is still a part of my common experience as an American.

I heard a report on the television that New Orleans has the least mobile population in the United States. This is a city, they said, where a boy will most likely marry the girl next door and continue to live on the same city block where he was raised. They went on to say that the average homeowner is a 5th generation of the same family living in the same house.

Should the Federal Government be involved in rebuilding New Orleans?

There have been Federal Programs for years that assist the elderly, poor, or infirm in remodeling their homes to bring them up to minimum codes. I was doing a lot of subcontracting two decades ago for a contractor who specialized in bidding on such jobs, especially when they required some creative solutions.

The present crisis in New Orleans reminded me of a house that I rewired once. My phone rang. The homeowner was standing in water on her front porch, waiting for a boat to pick her up. She told me, “I need to reschedule.” I had been trying to reach her to reschedule. Every road out of the town I was living in was underwater. The scientists later told us it was a “500 year flood” and building codes had been established by a “100 year flood.”

The house, when I could get to it was situated near a river. It had originally been built near a coal mining operation in Kentucky, if memory serves me correctly. The homeowner’s husband had built it. When he died, her sister invited her to move to Michigan and build next door. She didn’t want to abandon the home that her husband had built, and her sons had been raised in. Her sons, all miners, came up with a unique solution. The house was moved to Michigan and set on blocks. They then excavated a basement underneath it. Part of her annual maintenance was to call Consumers Energy to pull the electric meter when flooding was predicted, move to a motel for a few days, replace the fuse box in the basement with a new one, get it inspected, and have the meter re-installed. We were called in when a new electrical inspector refused to sign off on the new fuse box. And then the rains came…

The role of the Federal Government in rebuilding New Orleans, might well be to provide a unique solution to the city’s problems.

New Orleans was built below sea level, but it does not need to be rebuilt below sea level. Locally, we need to build in such a fashion that foundations are below the frost line, and building entrances are not blocked by snow. Most homes are built with basements for this reason. A warehouse by contrast is usually built with a foundation of pilings; either telephone pole turned upside down and driven into the ground, or huge concrete pillars poured in place, or a combination of the two.

Growing up, I saw films of primitive jungle housing built on stilts. Imagine rebuilding New Orleans with the knowledge that a storm surge can bring in 30 foot waves. Now, establish a building code that says that all new construction, including reconstruction of storm damaged buildings, must be at least 40 feet above sea level. Pilings could be built up into the air, and then backfilled. Around the nation, construction debris, waste treatment solids, and certain grades of trash need to be landfilled. Construction could be started on buildings once the pilings are in place, and land fill trucked in to backfill. The backfill could be engineered for drainage, odor control, etc. The top 6 inches to a foot could be a high grade topsoil to allow for lawns, gardens, etc. Trees with deep root systems could be planted to stabilize it. A homeowner might need to rely on public transportation, waiting perhaps a decade before he could drive a car from a rebuilt road into his garage

Such a rebuilding plan would be costly, and time consuming. It would still seem to make far more sense than current FEMA plans to move mobile homes (They’re being purchased locally, and volunteer drivers sought to move them.) into a known hurricane path and invite the population to “return home.”

Ofcourse New Orleans needs to be rebuilt. This is America, not Somalia.

It has one of the most important international ports in the world handling tons of foods, oil, and petrochemicals as well as cotton. It's proximity alone at the mouth of the Mississippi River makes it absolutely necessary. It's also a major rail, air, and river hub. The city also a major producer in the commercial ship building, petroleum, and aerospace companies. Then there are the seafood industries, mining, processing, and transportation centers for minerals too. The city makes major contributions to the country too in the processing of foods, and goods like wood, paper, metal, building stone, and building equipment as well as aircraft parts. All of these impact the nation in a variety of ways.

That's simply a perspective from the economic importance.

There are hundreds of cities from Texas up the Atlantic coastline where massive destruction has and could happen. California could have an earthquake that destroys it. Oklahoma could have a tornado that destroys it. So forth and so on. Every city is exposed to some level of risk from something.

The Feds should be involved at some level in the rebuilding. Is there a place anywhere with this magnitude of destruction you know of that could rebuild solely on it's own? Far less has been declared a "national disaster." What local city economies in what states are so financially strong they could suffer this type of financial impact and return to normal without assistance?