We need to do everything we can to rescue people still trapped in that annihilated city, but beyond that I think it's time to face facts: New Orleans should be almost entirely abandoned. Let everyone collect their insurance checks and spend their money how they will, but I don't think I single dollar of public money should be spent rebuilding a coastal city that's 80% below sea level. That's just insane. Experts had been predicting this distaster for decades, and now that it's finally come it's time to cut our losses and pull out. No tax dollars should be spent rebuilding or repairing any structure less than one foot above the high water mark.
Nicole Gelinas has an article in City Journal in which she points out that New Orleans was collapsing before Katrina, and the job of reconstruction will be nearly impossible.
The truth is that even on a normal day, New Orleans is a sad city. Sure, tourists think New Orleans is fun: you can drink and hop from strip club to strip club all night on Bourbon Street, and gamble all your money away at Harrah’s. But the city’s decline over the past three decades has left it impoverished and lacking the resources to build its economy from within. New Orleans can’t take care of itself even when it is not 80 percent underwater; what is it going to do now, as waters continue to cripple it, and thousands of looters systematically destroy what Katrina left unscathed?A city blessed with robust, professional police and fire forces, with capable government leaders, an informed citizenry, and a relatively resilient economy can overcome catastrophe, but it doesn’t emerge stronger: look at New York after 9/11. The richest big city in the country in more ways than one mustered every ounce of energy to clean up after 9/11 and to rebuild its economy and its downtown—but even so, competing special interests overcame citizens’ and officials’ best intentions. Ground Zero remains a hole, and New York, for all its resources, finds itself diminished, physically and economically, four years on.
In New Orleans, the recovery will be much, much harder. The city’s government has long suffered from incompetence and corruption.
We need to help the survivors rebuild, but somewhere else. The WaPo has an article explaining why most ex-residents won't bother waiting around.
First they have to pump the flooded city dry, and that will take a minimum of 30 days. Then they will have to flush the drinking water system, making sure they don't recycle the contaminants. Figure another month for that.The electricians will have to watch out for snakes in the water, wild animals and feral dogs. It will be a good idea to wear hip boots and take care of cuts and scrapes before the toxic slush turns them into festering sores. The power grid might be up in a few weeks, but many months will elapse before everybody's lights come back on.
By that time, a lot of people won't care because they will have taken the insurance money and moved away -- forever. Home rebuilding, as opposed to repairs, won't start for a year and will last for years after that.
Even then, there may be nothing normal about New Orleans, because the floodwater, spiked with tons of contaminants ranging from heavy metals and hydrocarbons to industrial waste, human feces and the decayed remains of humans and animals, will linger nearby in the Gulf of Mexico for a decade.
Who'd want to return to that?
(HT: James Taranto for the City Journal link, Orin Kerr for the WaPo link.)
I was listening to the Dennis Praeger show earlier today and a caller brought up the fact that other American cities such as Seattle and Sacaramento were both terribly flooded and that part of the rebuilding of those cities included literally raising much of the land so that the city would not suffer such a disaster again. I haven't been able to verify the caller's story, but if that is true it seems that it could be done in New Orleans so that such a unique city could be saved.
Megan: 80% of the uniqueness is already gone.
Geography determines where people build cities. New Orleans is the mouth of the Mississippi. It's a major seaport. If America were nuked into oblivion, and another civilization were to arise in that area a thousand years later, they would build a city there.
The federal/local question is entirely different. Thomas Sowell is right to argue against federal relief for entirely predictable natural disasters. Part of the cost of living in an area includes dealing with its natural disasters. Where I live, we have tornadoes and ferocious hailstorms, and we pay higher homeowners' insurance accordingly. So why should I also have to pay for earthquakes in California and hurricanes in Florida?
BB: Yeah, but you can rebuild a mile or two inland, you know, above sea level.
Yeah try getting earthquake insurance in California and actually getting value out of it. You pay out the nose and still have a 15% deductable, that is if the insurance company doesn't go out of business when everyone submits claims. Most homeowners insurance basically sticks it in your tailpipe ove earthquakes. However its inccorect to think that residents of California and Florida don't pay higher rates, dispite the dange and on top of that there is the infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt.
But then making the arguement that why should I pay for earthquakes in California & hurricanes in Florida. Simply because when the economy of those states are booming the tax revenue goes to pay for things in other states (many of which I find disagreeable, like pork for the sugar industry, public education, other farm subsidies, croprate welfare), are benifiting from some program that I have to pay for, that I never see anything from and in cases like sugar get screwed by.
BB and tP: Yeah, there's no earthquake insurance in California, basically. Most companies won't even provide it, just too risky. If there's an earthquake that devestates the city we'll all be relying on federal money, if any, to help rebuild. Probably somewhere else.
Michael, I think it's an engineering question on whether it would be worthwhile to move the city back from the sea. To the extent that the city depends on access to the sea, I imagine that they really can't move it very far back without creating big inefficiencies. Besides, it wasn't proximity to the sea that killed the city; it was proximity to the lake.
Please see also this.
Michael - Thanks for stopping by. I found your site through the Bear Flag e-mail ring. I am not a member of The BFL, but i used to post at Justene's. (Calblog) It was my intro to blogging. I am a Dem, soon to be Independent as i can't stand beingt affiliated with the DP after 28 years of loyal support.
I think they should consider anywhere below sea level unbuildable for the reconstruction of new Orleans. I would honestly say I dont think they should rebuild it at all... But I know the arguements of common sense will never win out in a case like this... There will always be a demand for a port city in this location(or close by), being the gateway to the mississippi. But i would love for it to just be written off, as the cost of starting a new city completely from scratch would be far less than the cost of rebuilding. It will be interesting to see the population of nearby cities to see how many people just make their exodus into a new home. I am sure Houston will end up gaining quite a few people unwilling to move back to New Orleans.
I'm no psychic but from past experience I can safely predict that the politicians and businessmen in the southern states, and their friends elsewhere will do the following.
The politicians will make speeches that will go something like this...
1. Condolences and sympathies to the victims...blah, blah, blah. (As if any of them really care.)
2. References to a diety. (The stupid and gullible eat that sort of thing up and it makes the speaker sound like a "good" person.
3. Rousing platitudes for a bang up finish...
"We're going to rebuild bigger and better than ever" (Always a crowd pleaser.)
Then after the speech, the politicians, business folk and "movers and shakers" in the bunch will go out the back door, buy up all the "distressed
property" they can get their hands on and make themselves richer at the expense of the poor and middle class (with the taxpayers footing most of the bill).
It's a simple formula but that's what made this country what it is today.
Sorry for the double post and I really can spell and punctuate correctly.
BB: Essential port operations could be put back into a dangerous zone and built to withstand this sort of thing, but there's no need to build all that housing below sea level.
Jim: The stupid and gullible believe all sorts of things, it seems.
Mark: I deleted the first post, no problem.
We all know the cost of rehibilitating New Oreans and other devistated cities, and resettling the people there will cost umpteen zillion bucks and will take many many months. Meanwhile the vicitims suffer. How can the rest of the country help? Sending money to the Red Cross is fine, but how about a much better, cheaper solution?
How about every city in this great country offering to "take in" a family for every 10,000 of their own population?
The City of Santa Barbara, for example could adopt eitht families and never feel it. The Cirt of Los Angeles could easily adopt 120 families. Across the county the thousnds of cities could relieve suffering of tens of thousands of people almost over night and be very proud of it.
The cities could provide air fare, housing, public jobs, health care, and food and clothing money until the adopted families got on their feet. These are not street people, the victims of Katrina are hard working Americans down on their luck.
When the emergency is over, those who want to could return home after living in relative comfort, having gained new friends, and perhaps even learned a new trade.
That would trully be a "kinder gentler America."
Billy Bob
big cities may be the ruin of us all...
"woe to those who build house to house"...
specially like new orl.. they KNEW it could be a disaster for long time, have warned bout building the coasts... but big business=gov don't care... make money... develop, develop...
Why did the Mayans abandon their cities so suddenly?
a Lesson From the Past...
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/22/39809.html
folks need to use there brains n be logical bout things... don't throw good money after bad... common sense lacking alot it seems...
prepare for the worst!
get out of the filth of the big cities now!