Posted on 09/06/2005 12:19:12 PM PDT by libstripper
It is time to swim against the tide. The direction of public discourse in the wake of Katrina goes like this: First we save lives and provide some basic assistance to the victims. Then we clean up New Orleans. And then we rebuild the city. Most will rightly agree on the first two. But should we rebuild New Orleans, 10 feet below sea level, just so it can be wiped out again?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This question, as posed by Hastert, was at first laughed at and called insulting. I bet as the price tag pops up more and more people will be asking this question and not too many will be mocking it.
I'm sure it will be rebuilt.
It makes sense to have something there. It's at a strategic point on the Mississippi, and the Gulf of Mexico. And there is already a lot there that wasn't destroyed. The question is not whether to rebuild, but how to rebuild.
The writer, a geophysicist, is an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He teaches and does research on disaster risk management.
Sounds like this fellow should have left his liberal institution long enough to help out the liberal mayor and govornor of LA some time ago...
Easy answer...It is necessary for US commerce. It is as far north as possible to protect it from hurricanes and south enough to be a deep enough port to allow deep draft ships to load and unload to barge traffic. New Orleans empties the mid west to world markets as well as providing product from the world to mid west markets. Even Tulsa, Oklahoma needs New Orleans for the job of unloading product to world markets.
My vote is against rebuilding. Far better to spend the money on improving the port of New Orleans. Louisiana can take the Federal rebuilding money and build a new city on higher dryer land
I'd say that whatever is rebuilt is mandated to have private flood insurance for future disasters. The premiums from that will drive the economic sensibility of whether to rebuild or not, and where.
I'm not thrilled with the idea of footing the costs of recreating a disaster target, plus the category-5-proof levees to protect it. Let's say 100 billion for argument. That's $200,000 per resident. We'd be better off buying them houses elsewhere.
Don't rebuild a city that is doomed to another beating that the corrupt dem party will blame on anyone that is office. Besides I think we all have enough of the "Do anything...party hearty, get naked and be drunk 24/7" attitude in the French Quarter. The Gay Southern Decidense Festival is real American cultual happening we all should be proud of.
NO the most corrupt city in America that sits in a 10 foot hole and they want we Northeners to rebuild it...No I don't think so...Call me what you want I really don't care...NO has seen it's days...the party is over.
able
Is New Orleans an idea and the people who form around it--or a city of lots of ramshackle buildings and a few charming ones?
Time to head for higher ground to rebuild. In a couple of hundred years, the new NO will seem just as charming.
The commerce side of this is what should drive the rebuilding. IF the activity can generate capital and operate at profit, great. If not, we don't need a NOLA federal theme park.
Your answer will probably tip the scales toward rebuilding NO. Plus the perception of US failure around the world if we scale back the city in anyway.
It will definitely be rebuilt some way; the question is how and where. A thing to remember about Denny Hastert is he comes from Illinois, which suffered substantial flooding from the Mississippi about ten years ago. At that time the people of Illinois had a substantial discussion about what should be done with communities that were located on the inundated flood plane and whether they should be rebuilt in place. A consensus developed that many should be demolished and rebuilt on higher ground, the rebuilding being done with substantial subsidies, subsidies that will certainly be provided to the people of NO. The price of those subsidies and insurance settlements should be rebuilding on higher ground, not in the soup bowl.
Well, not to say "I told you so," but I posted something to this effect on the Miami Valley Conservative Alliance board two days after Katrina: (Aug. 31) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MVCA/message/2852
I don't know if this warrents a new thread, but I need some Freeper help. I am a member of a SAR team and some of our people are waiting to go to NO. Things are so disorganized down there that it's hard to get any answers. We need a place for our people to stay (4 to 6 of us). Does anyone have any ideas or know where other SAR teams are staying? Any help would be appreciated.
I think the scope of this effort will surpass that of the Illinois flooding. I believe there is too much valuable land there, to not reclaim it. It's going to be pumped dry anyway.
Rebuilding New Orleans will not be a decision undertaken solely by the President or Congress. Insurance companies, capital funds, builders, etc. will all have a piece of the decision. I suspect that the 'new' New Orleans will be a lot smaller than the one destroyed by Katrina -- but that's only my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.