Steve
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:I dont think it should be rebuilt. It should be abandoned to serve as an example of man's stupidity.
Steve, as angry as I am, I not willing to punish all of the people whose lives were destroyed by willful incompetence. Most want to return to the land of their births. What we need is intelligent planning and engineering FREE OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE to redo New Orleans right this time.
BBB
Yeah Steve, that's easy to say from London.
eoe
eoe wrote:Yeah Steve, that's easy to say from London.
Now, Now eoe, dear. Steve is just venting his anger as we all have. If he thinks about a little more I'm sure he wouldn't want to do further harm those those already hurt just for revenge.
BBB
I suppose it is easy to say "from London". But its a viewpoint, and it directly addresses the question.
I started out with a quick no on rebuilding.
I've moved over to listening hard about doing it.
BBB
I dont want revenge! Revenge against who? God?
Steve
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:BBB
I dont want revenge! Revenge against who? God?
Since I don't believe in god, you will have to make do with Bush's vision of himself as god's right hand man. In fact, I kind of like that vision.
BBB :wink:
Quote:[...]
New research by the U.S. Geological Survey, however, indicates that New Orleans is sinking faster than many realize and could be under water within 50 years. The city is facing a series of issues--disappearing wetlands that protect from hurricanes, levees that are too low to hold back flood waters, rising water tables, to name a few--that if not addressed soon could have New Orleans suffering the same fate as Atlantis.
Dramatic, yes. But not unlikely, according to Shea Penland, geologist and professor at the University of New Orleans. "When we get the big hurricane and there are 10,000 people dead, the city government's been relocated to the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain, refugee camps have been set up and there $10 billion plus in losses, what then?" he asks.
Penland has been studying hurricanes and the Louisiana coastline for decades, and he sees disaster coming. "Along the south shore of Lake Ponchartrain, there was a restaurant built in 1859 and some 200 homes that were built on pilings out on the lake around the 1930s. They had all been through the hurricane of 1948, Betsy in 1965, Camille in 1969. Hurricane Georges destroyed every one of them. Georges had a particular track that had the wind blowing directly across the longest distance that build the biggest waves."
And it is a hurricane on a particular track with a particular force that could submerge New Orleans. According to data supplied by Risk Management Solutions, a leading catastrophe modeling firm in Menlo Park, Calif., hurricanes of Category 4 or stronger make landfall within 100 miles of New Orleans about once every 35 years. There have been four storms of Category 4 strength or greater since 1899. Hurricane Camille made landfall as a Category 5 hurricane and was one of only two Category 5 hurricanes to hit the U.S. in the last century. Hurricane Betsy, a Category 4 hurricane, struck about 80 miles to the west of New Orleans, subjecting the populated areas to the stronger winds and surge on the right side of the storm path.
[...]
source: The Lost City of New Orleans?
Risk and Insurance, Dec, 2000 by Lori Widmer
.......and I dont wish further harm
i want people to look at NO and learn lessons.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:I dont think it should be rebuilt. It should be abandoned to serve as an example of man's stupidity.
This is an argument we perhaps should have used several times during the 20th century to avoid needless efforts on behalf of Europe.
The other night I watched a segment on how the Netherlands manage storm surges. They have a method of providing protection from flooding that uses huge metal barriers that they can open or close when needed. It was a very costly endeavor, but the government felt that they could either pay now, or pay a heftier price later. So they decided to bite the bullet and invest in the future of the citizens.
thats a fair comment george
but you did help europe recover particularly after WW2 and i suggest it was seen as being in americas interests to do so
similar sentiments are behind europe's help to NO.
Though if I'm honest i do think the best plan would be to abandon the city.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:thats a fair comment george
but you did help europe recover particularly after WW2 and i suggest it was seen as being in americas interests to do so
similar sentiments are behind europe's help to NO.
Though if I'm honest i do think the best plan would be to abandon the city.
I understand the thought - but I imagine it would be a lot harder to come up with that hyp[othesis if one had left a home and a lifetime of memories in that floating debris.
galveston never recovered after 1904(?)
NO is a terrible tragedy for all concerned
but why should that stop people thinking rationally?
The Convention Trade can be routed to other cities--no problem.
Moving an oil refinery might be possible--moving an oil well is not.
Finally, the mouth of the Mississippi River demands a major port.
As I have indicated before, New Orleans almost certainly will be rebuilt. simply because many people want that, and because there (happily) is no authority in this country with the power to prevent it. No doubt there will be changes in land use in some areas, but New Orleans will continue. Social and economic recovery from such disasters generally proceeds much more quickly that initially thought possible, amidst all the debris and destruction.
The major impediment to the kind of planned regrowth that some here advocate is the political tradition of Louisiana - graft, corruption and irresponsibility. There is as yet no basis on which to expect that to change. Moreover the politically motivated campaign to blame Bush for the lack of preparedness of local government will likely serve to sustain that unhappy tradition.
I have grown to understand the absolute need for port facilities; I am not so clear and others of course will know more, on where it makes sense to put them. There must be a city of some sort, large or small, to make that port function. To make it function well and long, and the whole length of the Mississippi and its tributaries to function well and long, may require a great deal of money but money, however much, should be spent wisely, perhaps including retention wetlands north of New Orleans, perhaps way north - thats a tangent - I read about that once, can't describe pros and cons; allowance for natural function of the river, replenishment of the wetlands if only as a defensive buffer zone, building port/city in smart place and whatever levee/raised land/islanding system to secure it.
I'm not convinced, nor of course am I the one to convince, that the city should be rebuilt right where it is.
I understand wanting to save the city sections that don't seem ruined and the reasons why. But.. I'm not sure how long lived they are, and whether keeping them in place should be the key condition for decisions re expenditure of many billions to be paid over time in place of many other needs.
Continuing listening.
I think many of us would like to see the Mississippi gradually returned to it's natural course, and that would make Baton Rouge the likely port. Pipelines could move the crude to existing refinery and storage facilities, which would save having to replicate expensive facilities. Secure access to a navigable port on the Mississippi is too important strategically to the nation not to be the first priority.
New Orleans, or at least part of it, will almost certainly be rebuilt for sentimental reasons and to feed the maw of politicians seeking popular acclaim. A stab will almost certainly be made to restore the French Quarter, and lightly damaged parts of the downtown business district. This effort will take a lot of money, already I believe the federal cost is nearing $100 Billion and the waters haven't even receded yet. The eventual cost of recovery from the destruction along the Gulf Coast may easily double, or even treble that figure. Huge expenditures for restoration that do not reduce the risk of a repeat of this disaster should be avoided, but probably won't be. I really doubt that people yet understand what the costs of rebuilding New Orleans might ultimately be.
If an impossible National Debt is to be avoided, budgets for many popular programs may have to be cut. About the only thing sacrosanct is National Security and Defense. Money spent to restore levees, will not be available to improve national transportation systems. Money to rebuild housing will cut into resources available for Federal loans and Urban Development. What are YOU willing to give up to rebuild a sunken city that may be even more completely destroyed in the next hurricane season? How much increase in the price of petroleum products can the nation afford without facing general economic disaster. Triage is not fun, it is a necessity in times when resources are stretched to the breaking point.
Time may also frustrate the effort to return New Orleans to the status quo ante. People and businesses can't just put everything on hold indefinitely. New jobs and homes will be found, and new roots put down. I believe that many will not decide to return to a place where nothing of their old life remains ... especially now that the danger of destruction has been made so evident. New Orleans may be rebuilt, but I doubt that it will ever regain the almost magical atmosphere it once had.
I believe your concerns are well-founded. In the main the costs of rebuilding are the responsibility of the citizens of Louisiana and their state and local governments. There will (and should) be substantial Federal funds to augment this, but the primary responsibility is local. Louisiana politicians have a rich history of attracting lots of Federal pork to their state and using it on relatively low priority projects through earmarked items incorporated in various legislative actions - the results are evident in the recent disaster. Now that they are blaming the federal government for their own lapses, there is every reason to expect this to continue and to expect that we all will be invided to pay the bill.
