Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

What I haven't been able to figure out is, suppose the answer is "no". New Orleans should NOT be rebuilt. Then what?

I don't think it would be tenable to just plain leave things as they are now. A literal ghost town, with jewelry and lootables hither and yon. So, what, clean it up and then raze it?

It seems like getting it in condition to truly leave it would be an enormous and expensive project, itself.

If the Mississippi were allowed to rechannel, then Baton Rouge might become THE Mississippi Gulf Port. Crude could be piped from there to the existing refineries along the old bed of the river. If we can safely pump crude across Alaska, why not across a relatively short distance in Louisiana?

The nation has much better and higher priority uses for the money than trying to resuscitate a ghost town. Taxpayers would save 13 billion dollars just by leaving Lake Pontchartrain to find its natural shore. One of the first things I learned was "Ignore sunk costs" in evaluating alternative plans. It apparently makes no better sense to raise and restore sunken New Orleans than it would to raise and restore the Titanic. The probable positives neither justify the costs, nor match the cost/benefits of seeking other solutions to the problem. The status quo ante was a very expensive holding action against powerful natural forces, and a return to to that state would only greatly increase the costs while not resolving the certain failure in time. The Romans had the good sense to abandon Pompeii rather than to dig it out and try to restore it to its former glory. Are we less smart, or have we more hubris?

Martial law with summary execution of all looters will have to remain in effect until long after the policy decision of whether to restore or relocate has been taken and vetted. In the meantime, evacuate all citizens in phase one, all their pets and animals in phase 2, and then allow former residents and property owners in small escorted groups into their property to salvage what they can.

Once the lives and most movable property is removed, then independent salvage operators could be licensed, just like we do those who are always seeking other sunken treasures. If the site is abandoned, all standing structures would have to be reduced to rubble as a saftey measure. Old New Orleans would then someday become a valuable archeology site. If former residents want to rebuild their City on higher ground that would be a matter between them and the State of Louisiana.

One wonders whether those who want to restore New Orleans out of sentiment will be content with the probable cost. Costs are not only direct, but at the expense of other projects that must remain unfunded. The number of desirable projects/expenditures are infinite, and available resources are finite. Public policy almost always involves setting priorities. Priorities are probably most often based on intangibles, sometimes at the expense of hard facts and numbers. Veteran policy makers know that no matter what decisions are taken, there will be a multitude of people who disagree. Usually, its best to stick to the best objective analysis based upon the most known/believed facts available. Analysts analyze, elected policy makers make policy.

Of course it should be rebuilt! I can't express how angered I am by this discussion. When Andrew struck Miami, was Miami rebuilt? Could Miami get wiped out again? Of course it can! When three hurricanes hit Florida last year, are those communities being rebuilt? Could they all be wiped out again? Of course they could! Just because another storm of the century, or millennia, or whatever this was, destroys an area doesn't mean we, as a nation, should just say, "Tough luck, guess you'll have to find somewhere else to live. Too bad your ancestors are buried there. Too bad there's a tremendous amount of historical significance to the area. Too bad the rechanneling of the Mississippi River over the years by the Army Corps of Engineers has destroyed the protective wetlands at the mouth of the river. Too bad the typical resident of the area is middle or lower class and can't afford to rebuild on their own. It's just too bad this happened, but we don't have the funds to help you. Here's a suggestion, you should all relocate to Florida, the nation is willing to support rebuilding projects there"

I love New Orleans. I love the city, the people, the culture, the history, the music, the food. There isn't a thing I can think of that I don't love about it. To say it isn't worth rebuilding is shameful.

deleted double post

Well, if no one is going to respond, I'll talk to myself

A question to all those who think the area should not be rebuilt. Just where do you propose we encourage all these people to live? I suggested Florida since that seems to be a socially acceptable place to rebuild over and over. I'm not sure Florida can handle them all. Maybe Texas, theres plenty of high and dry land in Texas. Who shall we ask to donate a city-sized area? Or, should we scatter them to the winds? One family in each of our back yards - we can all build an addition big enough to house 4 to 6 people. To the folks who say no to rebuilding, put yourself in the place of a resident of the Gulf coast, and tell me what we should do instead.

That's kind of what I was asking too, J_B. It seems like NOT rebuilding has a host of challenges, not sure if they're surmountable.

I'M WITH YOU JB. 1000%!!!

Other cities are rebuilt after disasters such as Katrina. Why the question about New Orleans??? Because you could go down there and get your groove on, whatever that may be? What about the people who lived there and worked there. All anyone seems to focus on is Bourbon Street and the decadence. There was a whole lot more to New Orleans than that.

For me, the focus is whether it ever should have had people in it, just geographically, and the importance of the wetlands and the tantalizing possibility of restoring them. The decadence thing is totally not on my radar.

I'm undecided, though, for the reasons I already said and I think you guys have a good point too about why rebuild Florida but not New Orleans?

Where will the refugees from New Orleans go to live if it isn't restored? They'll scatter across the whole nation, as their personal situations dictate. New Orleans, if it is decided to rebuild it on the old site, will remain uninhabitable for a very long time. The dams can't be repaired and the site pumped "dry" for upwards of three months. Demolition and clearing away the debris will take at least that long, and probably longer. Almost structures that remain after 3-6 months of submersion and destruction will mostly likely be so unsanitary and unsafe that they will have to be demolished. Rebuilding might begin in the Spring of 2006, or in 2007. Imagine the cost to rebuild an estimated 80+% of housing for a city that once had around a million people. Virtually all New Orleans businesses have been ruined, and what owner can just "suspend" business for 6 months to five years when all of their assets have been reduced to zip?

During the coming months and years, where shall the population of New Orleans live? Who will provide their shelter, their food, clothing, health care, schooling, and the thousand and one other essentials for a million people? How much will that cost localities and the national treasury? One can not just snap their fingers, or run the film backwards a few moments, to make everything nice again. Instead, the refugees will rather quickly begin to find new lives for themselves. Some will move closer to relatives, or take jobs in other parts of the country. Some will try to return to the Gulf Coast, and may even be able to pickup part of their lives again, though under trying circumstances. Most will show the historic resiliency of the human animal and get on with their lives. A few will sink into apathy and settle to the bottom of the socio-economic structure. The sooner the refugees take their lives back into their personal hands, the better for everyone. Anyone who thinks that the government can and should be more responsible for our well-being than we are ourselves is kidding themselves.

The bottom line is that the population and businesses of New Orleans can not be put "on hold" for the time it will take to even partially restore the city.

Even if the problems of New Orleans could be put "on-hold", that would only increase the time, effort and cost of responding to all of the other devastated people and towns along the Gulf. Vital systems for Biloxi and countless other towns have to be restored at great cost. Triage isn't often pretty, but it is necessary when any system is overloaded, and Katrhina certainly overloaded our emergency response capabilities.

Restoration of New Orleans IS NOT comparable to rebuilding parts of Florida and the Carolinas in the wake of hurricane destruction. First and most important, is the order of magnitude of the destruction. To rebuild in Florida/Carolinas typically the costs are a few billion dollars with most of the work being done easily within a relatively short time, and without much national consequence. New Orleans, on the other hand, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars over perhaps as long as a decade, and during the most of that period severe national consequences would be felt. Florida is an attractive place for retirement, entry to the Mississippi is of vital national importance. BTW, why indeed should the taxpayers of Oklahoma pay to rebuild damaged homes/businesses located in inherently dangerous locations? If one chooses to build in a floodplain and is washed away, why should society at large pay to repeat that foolish choice? Build on a slope known to be a slide area, or on a beach that has been hit repeatedly by major storms, and the risk is a personal choice. Take a personal risk, and if it doesn't work out as planned, then chalk it up to the learning curve, and move on.

It may sound stupid, but I will repeat that we could give each displaced person enough money to live on for a year in relocatd places and establish a new life and we'd be cheaper off.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/31/FLOOD.TMP

That is an article about the problems re the houses and other buildings in New Orleans. I don't think it mentions the termite situation, which is another story.

The metropolitan area and port of New Orleans should be moved to Baton Rouge and the old city left to the alligators and snakes,

where should it be rebuilt?

clearly not in new orleans

galveston?

there's a great point there. No place is 100% safe from nature and it's furies, but we could sink money into a safer place geographically and it would certainly serve the same end purpose. After all a city is not a community, merely the place where the community crashes.

Exactly. Cities are not communities. I would add that cities are seldom built. They happen. Well, Canberra was built, but I'm not sure anyone really lives there.

Thanks, Eoe. I was feeling like a lone wolf.

To those who feel we should not rebuild, then as a nation we are telling these people they shoulda know better than to live in a swamp. We're willing to help rebuild Florida because the elderly, mostly snowbirds, can have a comfortable retirement. Lord knows, we get lots of vital orange juice out of Florida, and Disney World employs a lot of people.

I realise the recovery will be a long-term effort. What better way to employ the masses than put a hammer or saw or brick in their hands and apprentice them to builders to rebuild the city? First, build huge dormatories. Build the homes next - carpenters, masons and building suppliers will come followed by grocers and other service businesses. They can live in the dorms. At the same time work on the infrastructure. Build the schools next. Families can return, teachers will come once the community is settled.

When the building boom settles, work on the refineries and industrial complexes. More families can return.

Little by little it can be done and should be done. Unless you are advocating from this point forward we turn our backs on anyone who is unfortunate enough to live through a national disaster and to just move on as best you can in an each man for himself mentality, I don't see how we can NOT rebuild New Orleans. I refuse to think that the possibility of a comfy retirement for the elderly is a greater value to our nation than the worth of using our resources to help New Orleanians help themselves rebuild.

It will take years, sure. It will take many billions of dollars, but if we are a nation then we should take care of our own. If we aren't a nation of people who care about each other and are willing to let the masses drift into whatever they can scratch up for themselves, then I say shame on us.

I'm wondering if it's really possible to rebuild New Orleans. Every single inch of land in NO is still owned by somebody, and insured. I imagine the insurance companies will either pay them flat out cash for property & possessions, or rebuild their home or business. Isn't this decision up to the insurance companies and their clients?

I'm only answering the question, without even considering the filthy dangerous condition of where the city existed. You'd think it would take a year for that mess to be cleaned up. And, don't insurance companies usually pay homeowners' rent until homes are rebuilt?

There's a ton of questions here.

I've been comparing insurance companies to make sure I have the coverage I need in case of a catastrophe. Right after the pictures came in of the carnage after Katrina, Nationwide announced it was dropping 35,000 insured members and would not renew the policies of others (no figure given for this).

Then I heard some callers voicing views on CNN or MSNBC. One man said that people should be more self reliant and not expect the government to do everything. I wonder how he feels about the rebuilding of Iraq?

All we have to do is look at Florida. They still are rebuilding as a result of the last several hurricanes. Rental properties were condemned making renters homeless. We really need to do better.

I have one question, that's slightly off topic. How soon do you think it will be before the administration begins talking about the urgent need for a tax cut?

sunlover, I'm not sure all of NO was insured. The toll to the insurance companies will be extreme, but the renters who lost everything were probably not insured. Most insurers do not cover flood damage, so even those who were insured might not get coverage for damages done due to flooding.

This isn't a matter for the insurance companies. It's up to us as a nation to get the people back on their feet.

I am almost certain that the insurance carriers won't pay
the amount equivalent to what's needed to rebuild the
houses, considering today's cost per sqft. to rebuild.
Most homeowners insurance policy covers the amount
it originally was bought for, and very few homeowners adjust the premium to current rebuilding cost.

So, the question also will be: who is able to rebuild?

I have to agree with Asherman, his points are very
solid and logical for not rebuilding.