Skip to comments.Hastert: Rebuilding below sea level senseless
Posted on 09/01/2005 2:22:16 PM PDT by zencat
It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.
"It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed," the Illinois Republican said in an interview Wednesday with The Daily Herald of Arlington, Ill.
(Excerpt) Read more at wwltv.com ...
Put Chicago on that list Denny.
the same could said of south chicago. denny, you jerk
I concur. If it is rebuilt move it north of the Lake on higher ground or something. They are basically starting from scratch anyway.
If Louisiana had 45 electoral votes, rebuilding New Orleans would be a foregone conclusion.
Since it only has 3, there's a better than 50% shot that it won't be.
From AP Jazeera, I see. Designed solely to further inflame the Left, if that's possible. They are currently in a psychotic rage at Bush for (1) causing the hurricane and then (2) using Halliburton to profit from it.
That's the most sense that man has made in months.
--and what "sea" is bordering south Chicago, may I ask--??
He's right. New Orleans is going to keep sinking - which means it could be 40 feet below sea level, then 45...
There is higher ground to the west. Levee off the French Quarter as a tourist town, and re-locate the residential and manufacturing facilities to the west. And build a canal to deal with the eventual shift of the Mississippi channel down the Atchafalaya.
Do it once and do it right.
looks like the MSM got me. They took denny's quotes out of context.
It may not go over well but it is certainly a valid point.
Why should the government (read: TAXPAYER) pay to rebuild? Yes, we need New Orleans, but not as it was before Katrina. To rebuild BELOW sea level is only inviting disaster to occur again.
Now as long as you've got your mind clear, Denny, cut PBS and NEA as you promised to do years ago, ok?
I can't imagine why the US taxpayer should foot the bill for the rebuild of NO.
And if we are gonna get the tab, why not take the opportunity to do it right and build it up to sea level??
The Republicans will buy as many votes as they can and we will get the tab, so lets fix it so that this won't happen with the next storm.
A lot of south Chicago should be bulldozed, too. :)
Actually his whole statement (which will be misquoted by the MSM) was that New Orleans should, and will, rebuild, but they should perhaps lay it out differently.
gimmie a F'ING BREAK! Would these POS say this after Los Angeles gets hit with a mega earthquake???? Why build homes on a damn FAULT LINE!!!!!!!!!! Why build homes in tornado alley? Why build homes in seattle near the volcano? Why build homes in the desert in Arizona and the southwest?
Turn the entire city into a memorial park. Libs love memorial parks.
He's right, but they'll eat him alive for saying so.
south chicago could be called wasteland. florida a hurricane zone and NYC (where I live) a terrorist zone. I guess the whole country moves to kansas.
Yeah...the suburbs (largely unaffected by the massive destruction) are already there unless we go 15 miles west or so.
>>Put Chicago on that list Denny.<<
Chicago's ocean shoreline is far enough from the city limits to make it much less of a threat. 8^>
I'm on Hastert's side on this one. He's firing the first shot in what will eventually become a mountain of public opinion against rebuilding New Orleans.
Seriously, a city built essentially under water is pretty stupid, and a recipe for disaster. To rebuild in the same place and manner would fall under the category of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Louisiana has 9 EV.
>>the same could said of south chicago. denny, you jerk<<
Then maybe it should be, if the ocean is a threat to that area.
I'm sure he'll be warmly welcome in the Big Easy when next he visits.
Chicago is 600 ft above sea level. But a lot of it could use a washed off.
I have no problem with private citizens rebuilding there, putting their own money and the money of anyone willing to insure them at risk. I would rather the government not do it with my money.
A little early for all that.
Your ideas make a lot of sense. I dearly love New Orleans, but it doesn't have to be rebuilt exactly in the same spot. It can be bigger and better than ever, but just in a location above sea level. The same could be said for the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Let's rebuild, but in a way that makes us less vulnerable to hurricanes. No offense is intended -- I just would hate to see something like this happen again the next time a hurricane targets this area.
You are astute pabiance. This 'report' is once again skewed out of context. Unfortunately many ppl have problems reading btwn the lines and making the connection to the true meaning of what he was in reality saying.
Yeah, but considering how much money he has diverted to his home-state cronies for O'Hare and other lard-filled projects...
But it's nuts to rebuild a city below sea level.
Louisiana has more than three. And, yes, rebuilding NO is a foregone conclusion, but shouldn't it be rebuilt at a place close by that isn't below sea level?
However they will rebuild at least part of it. The Port is definitely important enough to rebuild and the French Quarter wil be restored.
Jeeze Denny, don't say this in front of the Dutch!
"Do it once and do it right."
The truth is not always popular, and Hastert was stupid to have said this under present circumstances. But he was right. Surely, as time passes, common sense will prevail.
I was talking about this with my son the other night. One idea would be to dulldoze destroyed parts of the city into a series of low hills 20-30 feet above sea level, perhaps with canals or small lakes separating the various sections.
They are already sounding off even though they won't be back in session until tomorrow. They could build up a gravel pad to above sea level and build on top of that. Cost of the gravel pad: $1/2 billion. Cost of rebuilding on top of the gravel pad: $1 gazillion. A viable city at the mouth of the Mississippi and the Gulf: priceless.
Like a lead balloon. But he's right - the taxpayers don't need to rebuild another potential disaster in a hurricane zone on the gulf.
With this plan, you can salvage the French Quarter as a tourist destination - it wouldn't be that hard to keep it leveed off, since it is already near or above sea level. I doubt tourists went far into the areas currently under 20 feet of water anyway.
There is land to the west that is 20 feet ABOVE sea level instead of 20 feet BELOW sea level. And much closer to the future channel of the Mississippi. This shouldn't be a tough decision.
New Orleans survived the hurricane itself. It's the fact that it should be underwater that was the problem when the dirt that they'd used to hold the water back gave out.
It was fine when it was built, but it's no longer a place for a major city. Keep the port, the industry as neccessary and enough city to run it, and let everything else move inland and higher.
I have been thinking about the same idea to leave the French Quarter and tourist or historical places but why put so much infrastructure back in harms way...whether 10 or 50 years away. Hastert may have angered some but why are we so afraid to say things that make sense. Is there no open discussion? For the sake of sentimentality, we may doom NO to the same fate some day. Hastert is finally acting like a leader and saying something that may not be popular but deserves consideration.
I agree. But you can bet your federal tax dollars - and mine - will go to rebuilding it, in manner just as vulnerable as before.
This is an incredibly stupid thing for a politician to say right now and it's going to cost Hastert dearly... but be honest, weren't you thinking it on some level?
Which will continue to sink.
A viable city at the mouth of the Mississippi and the Gulf: priceless.
Which Mississippi River? The one that currently flows by New Orleans? Or the one that's gonna form eventually well to the west of New Orleans, leaving the existing channel as a brackish slough?
Move it west. Deal with all three problems once.