Should they rebuild New Orleans where it is?

shack

My first reaction was to say don't rebuild. Too risky...too expensive...good money after bad. Then I got to thinking about the economics of NOT rebuilding. Can you imagine the cost of cleaning up NO. There is no way you could just abandon the city. The environmental impact would be devistating. Nature would find a way to re-cycle most of the stff over the next century or so..but there is all the chemicals and stuff that would create a nightmare. It would immediately become an environmental superfund waste dump site of immence perportion. The cost to clean up the city to abandon it would probably be more than the cost to rebuild. Just do it RIGHT this time!

Demiurge

You have to do all that regardless if you rebuild or not.

shack

Not necessarily. It is much less expensive to clean, repair and continue to use much of the infrastructure of a city such as asphalt, cables, underground tanks, sewer systems, gas lines, etc, etc, etc...than it is to remove them and clean up. There is no way that stuff could simply be abondoned in the Mississippi Delta

George Grand

They should re-build it on the present site of Filthadelphia. Couldn't possibly be much worse than what's already there. The Cro-Mag residents wouldn't even notice the new construction going on around and on top of them. They're all wrapped up in the Terrel Owens saga.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

shack

George Grand wrote:

They should re-build it on the present site of Filthadelphia. Couldn't possibly be much worse than what's already there. The Cro-Mag residents wouldn't even notice the new construction going on around and on top of them. They're all wrapped up in the Terrel Owens saga.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

Haven't the poor residents of New Orleans suffered enough?

George Grand

I'm ashamed I didn't think of that. I hope they can find it in their hearts to give me another chance.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

DarqueKnight

I can understand why some would think that rebuilding New Orleans is an exercise in foolishness. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I urge those who wish to relocate the city to read here and think again:

Facts About The Port Of New Orleans

There is much more to New Orleans than just annual Mardi Gras revelry. It is an important commercial, military, and cultural center.

When the city of New Orleans was originally surveyed in the early 1700's, the city planners were well aware that they were in a hot, mosquito infested, swamp. In many respects it was, as one forum member stated, a "****" location. However, the site had two things that made it irresistible as a potential center for trade and commerce: 1. It was 90 miles upriver from the Gulf of Mexico and easily defensible. 2. It was in close proximity to a wide and deep river.

One could argue for relocating the population and leaving the port and military infrastructure, but this is not a reasonable suggestion. History proves that every successful port grows into a thriving city. Therefore, if you move the current citizens out, others will move in.

If the citizens of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Southeast Florida, New Orleans, or any other disaster prone location are devastated and have to rebuild over and over again, I will have pity each and every time misfortune comes their way. Often, the benefits of moving into and developing a location outweigh the risks and dangers of living there.

DarqueKnight

See how one small segment of the New Orleans community successfully prepared for and is dealing with the crisis:

Storm Preparations At Tulane University

Ricardo

Discussions seem to get started......
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/01/hastert.katrina.ap/index.html

Demiurge

shack wrote:

Not necessarily. It is much less expensive to clean, repair and continue to use much of the infrastructure of a city such as asphalt, cables, underground tanks, sewer systems, gas lines, etc, etc, etc...than it is to remove them and clean up. There is no way that stuff could simply be abondoned in the Mississippi Delta

This stuff is pretty much all damaged. The roads are all effed up. The sewer systems are already 200 years old, can't imagine what they're like with with this much water pressure on and in them. Gas leaks galore.

And I wouldn't advocate abandoning it. I'd advocate cleaning it up and not building again on unstable ground.

People are talking like this is Kansas. It's not. It's New Orleans, a river delta, a swamp.

The ground is saturated with water moreso than it already was.

I guess it is truly pointless for me to say the same things over and over again, but I'll bet you that in due time we'll be finding out things are a hell of a lot worse than everyone thinks. I'm also not usually the doom and gloom type.

TroyD

- Compensation for flood damage is almost null because nobody buys flood insurance. That is a nightmare, but then again I never said it was easy

Do you live in a flood zone and have a mortgage? I do. Your mortgage company will INSIST that you maintain flood insurance. If you let it lapse, they will pick it up and add it to your tab.

B - You don't take it from anyone to give to these folks.

Ok, where do you get it? If you go with your assumption that these people have no money or whatever, how is this going to work?

Giving to city to someone else? Who? The might mississippi? Yep. That's 'who' it belongs to anyhow.

No, I'm talking about displacing over a million people (we haven't even touched on industry yet) and absorbing them elsewhere. Essentially, taking over one large city and giving it to someone else. That's what I'm talking about.

*

As stated in my post all you have left in New Orleans is a city of Scum, by majority. Comparing this to Chicago and L.A. is laughable.

That's simply not true. Even if all you judge by is TV pictures, the vast majority of folks while distressed are peaceful. Actually, the rioting in the cases I gave was actually worse than the looting in NO.

Have you read anything on Betsy?

Yes, I have. It was one of the worst natural disasters in history. 80% of NO was underwater, after the water was let out the levees were built. They rebuilt NO then so why wouldn't they do it now?

Of course your LOGIC is still escaping me on why you'd re-build here

My logic is fairly simple. History. In EVERY natural disaster in US history, the affected area was rebuilt. Period.

You are talking about leveling an entire city. What do you propose to do about that? Just level everything? Any idea how long THAT would take?? You would STILL have to drain and clean up to a certain extent to just do THAT. You can't just leave it there to rot, that's an even WORSE environmental hazard.

And you've not had the same issue in Chaleston by any stretch of the imagination

I never said we did, but the same principle applies. According to your logic, we shouldn't build (or rebuild) any place prone to natural disaster. Ok, so why don't we just clear all the coastlines. What about the banks of the Mississippi? How about tornado alley? As has been pointed out, there are risks involved everywhere.

NO, is, I believe, the larget port in the US. What do we do about that? Seen the gas prices? Do we just shut down those refineries and move them someplace else? What do we do about gas in the interim. What about all the businesses and other industry in the area? Just shut them down completely?

Now, I would agree, I probably wouldn't have built thre to start with but as a port city, it was inevitable. However, you advocate just abandoning it, which on the surface does seem like the thing to do. As I've said though, there are too many practical reasons why not.

Whatever wager you care to place, I'm in. Five years from today.....

BDT

hellohello

well, would new orleans be new orleans if it were built anywhere else?

brettw22

Technically, it would have to be renamed "New New Orleans"

hellohello

so it just wouldnt be the same

ND13

DarqueKnight wrote:

There is much more to New Orleans than just annual Mardi Gras revelry. It is an important commercial, military, and cultural center.
QUOTE]



Exactly, and that is why they'll rebuild it now, and rebuild after the next one and the next one and so on and so on.

Demiurge

Club Polk ate another post. Thankfully the dialogue seems to be pretty civil thus far so I don't mind retyping my thoughts.

Do you live in a flood zone and have a mortgage? I do. Your mortgage company will INSIST that you maintain flood insurance. If you let it lapse, they will pick it up and add it to your tab.

Nope, I don’t live in a flood zone. I guess all I’m prone to here is tornados, droughts, and blizzards, all of which I have first hand experience with in my state.

The big debate going on right now is whether or not the damage caused is by flooding or by hurricane. It’s much easier to get compensation for hurricane damage than it is for flooding. Not to mention the city is old, while there are a lot of mortgages, etc, not all mortgage companies are as reputable as those you’re dealing with. A lot of these folks are renting. Forget just the buildings; these people have lost their cars and everything in their homes as well.

I assure you the insurance companies are going to fight tooth and nail on a lot of this and there will be a lot of loop holes for them to jump through. It’s a huge mess.

Also, since the point of this thread is the question of rebuilding, who is going to insure this area again in the future giving the unique circumstance that is New Orleans? I’m not. Who believes it’s worth the tax dollars to re-build this city in its current location or at all? Not me.

I find this to be almost the most minor question when it comes to rebuilding. No matter how you slice it a lot of people are screwed and we’ll need to help set them up for the new beginning to their lives insurance or no insurance. It’s the least of our worries.

Ok, where do you get it? If you go with your assumption that these people have no money or whatever, how is this going to work?

No, I'm talking about displacing over a million people (we haven't even touched on industry yet) and absorbing them elsewhere. Essentially, taking over one large city and giving it to someone else. That's what I'm talking about.

I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at. Are you asking where we’re going to put all of the people of New Orleans if we clean it up and plow it under?

This is a big country, I hardly think we’re lacking the space or resources to relocate and absorb this entire city into our nation. I don’t think that’s much of an issue at all.

Going with your premise that they have nowhere to go or live, where do you think these people are going to live for the possible year(s) it would take for this area to be habitable? Are they going to go without jobs and homes this entire time? Of course not. Hence my belief it would be more economically prudent to give these people money and compensate them so that they can start anew rather than paying for them for months at a time while they’re unemployed and have no place to call home.

Nobody knows how long it would take people to get back in there to live, but it’s not days nor do I believe it’s a couple of weeks. I think we’re looking at months and months if not more.

And on the topic of rebuilding, why?

Yes, I have. It was one of the worst natural disasters in history. 80% of NO was underwater, after the water was let out the levees were built. They rebuilt NO then so why wouldn't they do it now

The reason I asked is because Betsy is not Katrina. Much like Chicago, Hastings, and LA are not New Orleans. New Orleans is unique. Katrina is unique. What happened to your city isn’t what happened here. In the grand scheme of things it’s apples and oranges.

Not only did New Orleans get hit with a hurricane, it got hit with a massive flood. We’ve never seen anything like this before in our nations history, never.

Not to mention, 40 or so years ago, when Betsy occurred we chose to make New Orleans be able to sustain a Cat3 Hurricane. In order to make it sustain a Cat4 hurricane the early estimates are that it would cost us 2.5 Billion dollars. You also need to add on top of that a city that’s in much worse shape than after Betsy with a much larger population and a much more condensed city.

I question the economic validity of re-building this city. It doesn’t make any sense.

I’ve also not heard from you whether or not you believe New Orleans is a wise location for a city? In 1718 when it was founded it was insane to build a city there. It’s true now in 2005 as well, in fact even more so given how much this city has sunk over that time.

It’s just not at all feasible to have a city here.

There was nobody to blame for this either. All the engineering in the world couldn’t prevent this and it can’t prevent it in the future. Hence the reason rebuilding here is so insane.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

That's simply not true. Even if all you judge by is TV pictures, the vast majority of folks while distressed are peaceful. Actually, the rioting in the cases I gave was actually worse than the looting in NO.

Quite frankly anyone who can get out of that city is out of that city or they’ve made their way to a place where there is a little bit of order.

Having been in Iraq would you rather be dropped in Baghdad right now or in the middle of New Orleans? I choose Baghdad. At least there I know there is a powerful presence of uniformed soldiers who I can go to for help. In New Orleans I have no idea who the enemy is. There’s absolutely no order. My chances of getting killed are high in either place, but I have more mobility in Baghdad than I do in New Orleans. It’s not only surrounded by water on 3 sides with only 2 highways to get out of town, it’s covered in water as well.

The National Guard and the police who stuck it out there aren’t mobile. Hence my commentary why comparing this to Chicago, Hastings, or L.A. just doesn’t hold any water (No pun intended).

People will die when the NG tries to take over this city section by section. That’s what I meant in my comments. People will be shot and people will die. The majority of what is left in that city right now is the scum of the earth. Unless you’re immobile, hurt, trapped, or a scum bag criminal…you have no business to still be there after 5 days. At some point you need to assume some of the responsibility for your circumstance.

So I stand by my comments.

My logic is fairly simple. History. In EVERY natural disaster in US history, the affected area was rebuilt. Period.

You are talking about leveling an entire city. What do you propose to do about that? Just level everything? Any idea how long THAT would take?? You would STILL have to drain and clean up to a certain extent to just do THAT. You can't just leave it there to rot, that's an even WORSE environmental hazard.

Troy, that’s not logic, it’s human arrogance with a splash of insanity. Your only argument for building here is because we rebuild after every natural disaster. This isn’t every natural disaster. This isn’t Florida and this isn’t Charleston. Hell it’s not even Biloxi. That’s not logic or a reason why, it’s just our history. What are your arguments against my assertions about the insanity of having a city in such a location? What are you arguments against the fact that the city is up to 27 feet below sea level in some placers. What are your arguments against the fact that the city is now littered with both human and industrial toxic waste? What are you arguments against the fact that New Orleans is build on a swamp and the ground is absolutely saturated with water?

And yes, I am advocating leveling an entire city. In fact I believe it will need to be leveled whether we want to rebuild here or not. The cleanup will need to happen whether we want to make the place habitable again or return to the swamp it is naturally.

I’ve never once argued that we just leave the city there to rot. It needs to be cleaned up. The potential for economic and human loss in the future is a million times greater by

cont...

Demiurge

rebuilding there than it would be if everyone just relocated. That’s not to say there won’t be a tornado or hurricane in their new location, but what’s happened to New Orleans isn’t just surface damage and the loss of human life. It’s the literal death of an entire city from the top of highest building to the very depths of human interaction into our earth in that location. When areas in Florida have been leveled it didn’t leave you with an unstable foundation surrounded by large bodies of water on all three sides.

You’re also ignoring the fact that what happened in New Orleans has never happened before and is a completely unique situation unto itself. I’ve never heard anyone seriously compare what happened with Betsy with what’s happening with Katrina. While similar, it’s nowhere near the scope this is.

I never said we did, but the same principle applies. According to your logic, we shouldn't build (or rebuild) any place prone to natural disaster. Ok, so why don't we just clear all the coastlines. What about the banks of the Mississippi? How about tornado alley? As has been pointed out, there are risks involved everywhere.

I’ve never made such an assertion. Normally I bet we 100% agree on rebuilding efforts 99.9% of the time. This is a totally different circumstance. It’s not just Demiurge on Club Polk making these comments. It’s a number of high profile talk show hosts, politicians, etc. A lot of Americans are asking this question. People who would unequivocally say you have to rebuild nearly anywhere else.

You can’t be living in fear of things like terrorism of storms. You have to live your life. If you’ve somehow gotten the impression I don’t believe that to be true, I’m sorry.

The looming questions are:

#1 – Is it worth the billions of dollars just to upgrade to infrastructure of the city to possibly resist a Cat5 or greater hurricane?

I say no.

#2 – Being that the city will need to be cleaned up and most likely leveled regardless if we choose to allow people to live there again or not would money be better spent with relocation of the people affected by this tragedy?

I say yes.

#3 – Can companies relocate and would tax dollars be better spent on the relocation rather than the rebuilding in an are that is unsafe?

I say yes.

Without people there are no businesses. So it’s one in the same.

It’s simply not worth it to rebuild here. The outflow of money would be better spent on rebuilding and relocation elsewhere. It’s all got to be done whether you do it in New Orleans or somewhere else.

NO, is, I believe, the larget port in the US. What do we do about that? Seen the gas prices? Do we just shut down those refineries and move them someplace else? What do we do about gas in the interim. What about all the businesses and other industry in the area? Just shut them down completely?

Gas prices have been going up long before this disaster. You and I know that the gas prices have to do with the fact due to B.S. Environmental restrictions we haven’t built a new refinery in this country for many years. This is an issue of a lack of refineries, not a lack of oil. So I simply don’t accept the premise of your argument in terms of our nation’s gasoline problems. This has NOTHING to do with the supply of oil and everything to do with the lack of refineries.

Now, I would agree, I probably wouldn't have built thre to start with but as a port city, it was inevitable. However, you advocate just abandoning it, which on the surface does seem like the thing to do. As I've said though, there are too many practical reasons why not.

Well, as noted above I don’t advocate just leaving it there as it sits today to rot, but I don’t advocate ever building there again.

You’ve made good points, that’s for sure, but I still can’t get the past the unique nature of this situation and this city. It’s going to be a tough road to hoe in the future. I’m really curious to see what happens. I suspect it will be re-built as I’ve said all along, but I also believe for the first time the discussion about whether or not to do it will be serious. It’s already getting that way already.

With that said…that’s why I stand by my assertion that this city will never be the size it was. It’s going to be much smaller.

I guess with all of this we’ll just have to wait and see. This whole thing is just so effed up. The flooding though just causes a completely different dynamic from the hurricane and that is what sets this apart from every other natural disaster and situation we’ve discussed so far.

Hmm…and as far as a wager….I’ll send you some Brats & Cheese from Wisconsin in a box of dry ice if we’re both around here for what, 5 years? What census data are we sticking with for the city of New Orleans?

What are you offering up?

TroyD

Ok, look at NO on TV, the shots of downtown. In terms of the large buildings, I don't see lots of tall buildings with structural failure. Sure, lots of houses have been blown away but for the most part the buildings are still standing. You are talking about leveling and disposing of an entire city...that's a hell of a lot more labor intensive than gutting them and rebuilding them.

You can’t be living in fear of things like terrorism of storms

That's EXACTLY what you are advocating. The city of New Orleans has stood for a couple hundred years more or less in tact. We are talking about a VERY isolated (albeit catastrophic) event.

#1 – Is it worth the billions of dollars just to upgrade to infrastructure of the city to possibly resist a Cat5 or greater hurricane?

We aren't talking the entire infrastructure. The roadways etc seem to be intact. I haven't seen anything about permanent damage to the sewers/water distribution systems but I haven't heard that they are beyond repair, either. I'm no engineer though so I'm not going to comment further on that. However, if you are going to up and move NO, it's a moot point because this new city is going to need infrastructure as well. I have to believe it's cheaper to repair than start from scratch.

It’s a number of high profile talk show hosts, politicians, etc.

Oh, the REAL experts. I see. The Army Corps of Engineers seem to think it's a pretty feasible project, I'll side with them over a talk show host.

This is an issue of a lack of refineries, not a lack of oil.

EXACTLY my point. What are we going to do about the refineries in and around New Orleans? I'll agree that there is a serious lack of refining capabilities and your idea will reduce it even further.

We still haven't adressed moving the US's largest port at the mouth of the largest river....

I dunno, how about a complete frogmore stew (shrimp, sausage and taters) sent the same way......Keep it simple, population will do.


BDT

Demiurge

Ok, look at NO on TV, the shots of downtown. In terms of the large buildings, I don't see lots of tall buildings with structural failure. Sure, lots of houses have been blown away but for the most part the buildings are still standing. You are talking about leveling and disposing of an entire city...that's a hell of a lot more labor intensive than gutting them and rebuilding them.

It's not so much the structural damage or that the buildings are falling down. It's the structural integrity of the foundation itself. We're both kind of making assumptions one way or the other there. I just see it as a swampy area that has been completely saturated for 5 days. You get all the water out you still have saturated ground soil. So steel structures, fine, despite footing issues, but any structure made of wood, which is mostly all the houses down there, shot.

That's EXACTLY what you are advocating. The city of New Orleans has stood for a couple hundred years more or less in tact. We are talking about a VERY isolated (albeit catastrophic) event.

Isolated? Maybe. How many times have cities in Florida and surrounding areas been wiped out in the same time span? Quite a few. New Orleans has been dodging a bullet for all that time.

It's still the uniqueness of the circumstance of the are in question, the risk of loss of human life in the future, and the monetary risk involved to rebuild a city below sea level and surrounded by large bodies of waters on all 3 sides.

I don't look at it from the persepctive of fear. I'm looking at the social and economic implications of intentionally placing yourself in such an area. Rebuilding a city the size of New Orleans and attempting to protect it. There's always a line and I think you draw it at something like this.

We aren't talking the entire infrastructure. The roadways etc seem to be intact. I haven't seen anything about permanent damage to the sewers/water distribution systems but I haven't heard that they are beyond repair, either. I'm no engineer though so I'm not going to comment further on that. However, if you are going to up and move NO, it's a moot point because this new city is going to need infrastructure as well. I have to believe it's cheaper to repair than start from scratch.

The 2.5 Billion dollars is what the cost estimate is to upgrade JUST the levies to withstand a Cat4 Hurricane.

As far as the sewers are concerned, your guess is as good as mine. They're all underwater. Nobody has been in there to inspect the walls, etc. I do know the system is over 200 years old so the potential for sewer wall cracking and buckling ist's out of the fray.

And it would be cheaper to repair than start from scratch as far as building a new city. But I don't think they'd relocate the city and replicate it somewhere else, per se, but I do think we'd be adding to surrounding areas, etc. That would seem to be lest cost intensive.

Oh, the REAL experts. I see. The Army Corps of Engineers seem to think it's a pretty feasible project, I'll side with them over a talk show host.

Definitely not the experts, but usually in posistions like that you're not throwing things out like that off the cuff like you can do on a forum like this.

As far as the Army Corps of Engineers, they think that rebuilding right now is a feasible project? How do they know, they're not there to assess what the damage is and what the cost effective alternatives may be. Not to metion they're not funding it as a company and having to financially back the work themselves (directly), the American taxpayers are (granted they're included in that).

We can do just about anything, but we can't go in with the 'who gives a rip what it costs' attitude.

Just because you can build a new school in your town doesn't mean it's needed or that there aren't other cost affective alternatives. It's not as black and white as you're making it seem.

EXACTLY my point. What are we going to do about the refineries in and around New Orleans? I'll agree that there is a serious lack of refining capabilities and your idea will reduce it even further.

We still haven't adressed moving the US's largest port at the mouth of the largest river....

New Orleans or no New Orleans we have a lack of refineries. While it being gone adds to the problem it also adds to the reasons we have to build more. To have so many concentrated in such a poorly located area was a mistake. We should be building more regardless if this had occured or not. I just see it as a totally seperate issue that we were facing before this had happened.

New Orleans is not the largest port in this country, but it is one of the largest ports in the country and the world.

That will definitely be an issue to address, but that still doesn't change what the circumstances facing New Orleans are.

DarqueKnight

There's lots of interesting information here:

Army Corps of Engineer Website

Dennis Gardner

One thing is for sure, the longer we take to rebuild, the less city they will need. Those displaced will start life somewhere else and many will be better off than they were in their current situation with the fresh start. This is when they can turn the lowest areas into collection lakes and rebuild the higher areas. Many businesses simply will take the insurance losses and move on without rebuilding.

Demiurge

Dennis Gardner wrote:

One thing is for sure, the longer we take to rebuild, the less city they will need. Those displaced will start life somewhere else and many will be better off than they were in their current situation with the fresh start. This is when they can turn the lowest areas into collection lakes and rebuild the higher areas. Many businesses simply will take the insurance losses and move on without rebuilding.

Definitely one of the points I was making earlier. You talk about this many people displaced....well, they're displaced for months maybe a year or more before a lot of them can move back home. In the times in between you've got to move on.

aaharvel

dorokusai wrote:

This is New Orleans, not Anonymous, USA....simply NEVER gonna happen.

If you want New Orleans to move it's location, start a coalition for that idea, and I'll laugh when it NEVER happens. You must be on drugs to think logistically that idea makes sense. While you're on your crusade, drop a line to the folks in Florida, what is essentially Hurricane alley, and ask for donations to the cause.

I'm willing to bet most folks gave zero thought to this issue, including myself, until it became reality. Reality as in not what you see on TV, and hear at the Starbucks Coffeehouse.... actual reality.

New Orleans will survive, it will rebuild, and it will be better than it was before. The ramifications of this event will be felt for a couple years, but so will the memory of the USA.

Get involved, do what you can, and leave it at that. Communities evetually heal themselves, not the masses.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

venomclan

It is within the American spirit to rebuild and press on with any challenge or disaster, NO is one of the oldest cities in our country with a long line of history and pride behind it. However it does not make much sense to rebuild it back to what it was. Even if we wanted to, it would take decades and more money and resources than we have ever needed before. We have never faced a disaster of this magnitude before.

NO is a sitting duck for floods and Hurricanes for many reasons, much more so than Florida. I currently live in S. FL and know hurricanes. Katrina caused more damage than all 4 of the ones that hit here last year. NO is an old city, with old construction codes, wood frame houses, etc. And surrounded by water at a level beneath the waterline as many have pointed out. As a large military and commercial port as well as industrial center, yes NO should be rebuilt. Not as a residential area IMHO.

First, the reality is that it will take years to level, drain, detoxify, restructure the area for any kind of building. In that time, those who had insurance will move away because they will have a settlement check and there are no jobs left in NO. Those with nothing now have no homes to return to and no jobs, for a long time. They will go elsewhere. A million people can be absorbed into the rest of the country, Hell, more than 3 times that # jumps the fence in from Mexico every year. I cannot see any insurance company covering a structure in NO. After the insurance companies pay settlements I guarantee they will cancel every policy in the state and non-renew. Some will go bankrupt and reinsurance companies will have to kick in.

After Andrew hit FL, every major insurance co. pulled out of FL and are still out. The state had to create their own company to supply coverage. Private companies could not afford the exposure to a loss that great. None will provide it again in NO. Without insurance, no building will take place. With no building, no jobs. Where do you see an oppurtunity for NO to continue? Insurance companies will be paying out losses for years. Fraud alone in a total devastation area will be in the multi-millions. It will take a long time before the total extent of the damage is really seen.

I pray for those effected and hope we will move on. It is the American way. But we have to be aware of natures power and not set us up for a fall.
Venom

MacLeod

Move the city to Wyoming or Montana. Youve got light years of land with nothing but prairie dogs!

DarqueKnight

nadams wrote:

I think they should abandon the city and rebuild somewhere else. The city's already a total loss, why rebuilt it in the exact same **** location?

I'm sure lots people felt the same way about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is very easy to pack up and move on if you have no financial or emotional investment in an area. Would you abandon your mother if she were seriously injured, sick, and dying? Most people would not and could not because of the emotional attachment. Many people have a similar attachment to their personal home, home town, country, etc., even to the extent of willing to die to protect it.

nadams

DK- both sides are going to be able to argue this one for months. I guess the former residents of New Orleans will let us know, themselves. When the time comes to move back in, will they?

I will donate money NOW, to help with the relief effort, but when it comes time for them to move back in, hope their insurance covered it.

Also, I'm not talking about the outlying towns that got wiped out by this hurricane. They're not in the same group as New Orleans, because they aren't in the same LOCATION as New Orleans.

Oh, and no, I wouldn't abandon my mother if she were seriously injured, sick, and dying. I can tell you this because I didn't abandon her when she was sick and dying. I spent many days and nights having to sit there and watch her die and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it. But that's not for this thread.

Demiurge

venomclan wrote:

It is within the American spirit to rebuild and press on with any challenge or disaster, NO is one of the oldest cities in our country with a long line of history and pride behind it. However it does not make much sense to rebuild it back to what it was. Even if we wanted to, it would take decades and more money and resources than we have ever needed before. We have never faced a disaster of this magnitude before.

NO is a sitting duck for floods and Hurricanes for many reasons, much more so than Florida. I currently live in S. FL and know hurricanes. Katrina caused more damage than all 4 of the ones that hit here last year. NO is an old city, with old construction codes, wood frame houses, etc. And surrounded by water at a level beneath the waterline as many have pointed out. As a large military and commercial port as well as industrial center, yes NO should be rebuilt. Not as a residential area IMHO.

First, the reality is that it will take years to level, drain, detoxify, restructure the area for any kind of building. In that time, those who had insurance will move away because they will have a settlement check and there are no jobs left in NO. Those with nothing now have no homes to return to and no jobs, for a long time. They will go elsewhere. A million people can be absorbed into the rest of the country, Hell, more than 3 times that # jumps the fence in from Mexico every year. I cannot see any insurance company covering a structure in NO. After the insurance companies pay settlements I guarantee they will cancel every policy in the state and non-renew. Some will go bankrupt and reinsurance companies will have to kick in.

After Andrew hit FL, every major insurance co. pulled out of FL and are still out. The state had to create their own company to supply coverage. Private companies could not afford the exposure to a loss that great. None will provide it again in NO. Without insurance, no building will take place. With no building, no jobs. Where do you see an oppurtunity for NO to continue? Insurance companies will be paying out losses for years. Fraud alone in a total devastation area will be in the multi-millions. It will take a long time before the total extent of the damage is really seen.

I pray for those effected and hope we will move on. It is the American way. But we have to be aware of natures power and not set us up for a fall.
Venom

Magnificently stated.

exalted512

it seems like a lot of people are assuming a lot of things in this thread without any real evidence to back them up. Has anyone heard of the Galveston hurricane back in 1900? Killed 6k people in a town of less than 40k. 15% of the population was wiped out. Thats the equivalent of taking out all of cali AND new york in respect to the us. The town was completely flooded. I have a feeling that if they can rebuild a town that got totally wiped out back in the early 1900s, were more than capable of doing it now.

NO hasnt been dodging the bullet as far as hurricanes go. Theyve been hit several times. This one time the levees broke. Thats the whole reason why theyre in such bad shape. If they wouldve had better levees, then none of this wouldve happened. Build levees to handle all that mother nature can throw at it.

As far as the 200 year old sewer system. Thats not everywhere, thats not even in the majority of the town. Dont believe me? Look it up.

So the port is important, but the town is not? Ports and towns go together. It goes a little something like this. Port is established. Workers come for the jobs that the ports offer. Workers need place to eat, restaurants come along, ports/ocean towns in general bring tourists, hotels come along. Gas stations come along so the workers can get gas. More people come to work for the gas stations, hotels, and restaurants. on and on and on.

I guarantee you, in 5 years, NO will have been rebuilt bigger and better than ever. The population will be just as big and the levees will offer a lot more protection with back up plans in case one is breached. I guarantee you NO will not die out.
-Cody

Dennis Gardner

I found the National Geographic article that told of the pending doom for New Orleans. The first page or so reads like the headlines of this week.

National Geographic Article from October 2004


It sent chills up my spine when I found it.