Rebuild New Orleans

[alon504]

Very intriquing to say the least....I'm amazed at how many support a $5 Trillion proposal to dismantle the city, yet, can't support $20 Billion to build proper flood protection for a vital city in America when it comes to steel, coffee, food, and oil. The majority has spoken. Let's hear the proposals to come up with $5 Trillion since so many of you are against levee protection. Or do all of you propose walking away from a 1.2 million metropolis (population that lives behind levees) and letting it become the largest waste field in the entire world? Do you not care about nature and the environment or is that another subject to you all? I see a connection. If we are going to abandon New Orleans and leave it to nature, certainly we have to eliminate all environmental hazards in the city to protect the Earth? Tell us about your position and your defending of such an expensive proposal?! Please propose financing methods of the costs you all are proposing in this mammoth effort to abandon and dismantle the city...we all know that without levees that is the only other choice. Or do you propose letting it wash out into the Gulf of Mexico without levees? Wow..that would certainly do wonders for nature...don't you think?!

[marathon]

^ I must say that you are fast becoming your own worst PR.

[Snowguy716]

As someone from a state that pays out a lot of money to pay for natural disasters and receives piddle in return, I think we should go with the cheapest option that will get the most people back on track in their home city.

Building world class levies and pump systems is a must for New Orleans. The city needs a major face lift in infrastructure. It seems Louisiana has just let its infrastructure rot and then wants the federal government to step in and fix it all for them. This is going to have to be something that Louisiana takes a big part in also.

Once the proper infrastructure is in place, there need to be strict building codes so that homes can withstand the hurricanes that WILL come again. And we need to work heavily on the gulf coast itself further south and east to help prevent further erosion from the coast line from seas that are, in fact, rising due to.. Oh my God, melting ice caps, caused by... Oh my dear lord... global warming!

Hell, I don't want to pay for this destruction through my taxes. But I don't want to displace an entire city either and expect those affected to get jobs and houses and educations somewhere else without any help whatsoever. That's the most selfish viewpoint of all. It all comes down to a little optimism, a little humanity, and vast quantities of cash.

[alon504]

^ I must say that you are fast becoming your own worst PR.

This isn't a PR campaign...and it doesn't have to be...I'm looking for real intelligent justifications on the amount of people that support letting an entire city just wash away.....all I want is real, intelligent answers backed up with hard number reasonings. Levees aren't a PR campaign issue...this isn't some type of election. It's about life and death of many people and an entire metro area...anybody that has a vote, certainly has a well thought out answer in their justifications. I want to hear them.

[Phizzy]

I'm amazed at how many support a $5 Trillion proposal to dismantle the city, yet, can't support $20 Billion to build proper flood protection for a vital city in America when it comes to steel, coffee, food, and oil.

Didn't we already spend $billions on the levee system, the levee system that didn't work despite the fact that Katrina was only a category 3 hurricane at landfall? What makes you think spending $billions more is going to work?

Let's hear the proposals to come up with $5 Trillion since so many of you are against levee protection.

Where does this figure of $5 trillion come from?

Do you not care about nature and the environment or is that another subject to you all? I see a connection. If we are going to abandon New Orleans and leave it to nature, certainly we have to eliminate all environmental hazards in the city to protect the Earth? Tell us about your position and your defending of such an expensive proposal?

Yea, I do care about the environment. That's why I'd like the Great Lakes cleaned up. But, that is now in danger due to funds being diverted to the rebuilding of New Orleans. So, you want us to abandon the Great Lakes clean up to spend ever more on New Orleans?

Don't sweep away Great Lakes cleanup

"The effects of Katrina are still being felt in the Great Lakes region, far from where the hurricane made landfall.

A $20 billion proposal to clean up the Great Lakes over the next 15 years appears to be Katrina's latest victim, a casualty of $200 billion in federal aid targeted for hurricane relief. Katrina isn't mentioned in a leaked report that now calls for keeping Great Lakes expenditures "within current budget projections." But the financial problems the storm created can be the only explanation for the abrupt turnabout in White House policy."

[monsoon]

... It's about life and death of many people and an entire metro area...anybody that has a vote, certainly has a well thought out answer in their justifications. I want to hear them.

Indeed it is about life and death as we discovered when the inadequate levee system was destroyed by a not uncommon storm these days. The current plan to build back the levees to their "pre-Katrina strength" is folly, creates false security and is a big waste of tax money as we all know another storm will hit one day.

Since nobody is willing to spend the money to build proper flood control in NO, and it's not certain they even know how to do it, then the government needs to move people out of harms way instead of continuing to do battle with nature where it will ultimately lose.

[alon504]

The $5 Trillion is a figured that was tossed around for abandoning New Orleans in several meetings I attended last fall when discussing all alternatives. I'm disappointed to hear that Great Lake clean-up has been postponed. I'm a lover of the Midwest, have family there, and visit Chicago often (it's where I went in September when New Orleanians weren't allowed into our city for 30 days). Hopefully, that can be restored, as well, but, we've got to have the levees in New Orleans...there is absolutely no other course of action. The levees were built by the Federal Government and this tragedy is the Federal Government's fault for not heeding studies over the past 20 years that forecasted a Katrina-like event would occur if levees were not properly built...and guess what..it happened and in addition to 280,000 homes being flooded, over 1100 died in New Orleans proper, alone, and we still have over 1400 missing (many who were likely washed into the Gulf of Mexico). It's a tragedy that shouldn't have occurred and we need to ensure that it won't occur again...proper levees ensure that...all experts have already told us this much.

[Recchia]

Levees that the Army Corps are now building will not meet new FEMA standards, resulting in $6 billion more needed. [New York Times]

How could this happen? Levees they are building RIGHT NOW won't even meet FEMA standards? I'm perplexed...

[alon504]

How do you think we feel down here?...How in the hell could they make a $6 Billion error? That's not chump change. You should see the news down here...people are absolutely infuriated, to say the least.

[Recchia]

How do you think we feel down here?...How in the hell could they make a $6 Billion error? That's not chump change. You should see the news down here...people are absolutely infuriated, to say the least.

I can absolutely see why. $6 billion is a ridiculous error. Who is at fault?

[alon504]

I don't know "who" is at fault, but the Army Corps of Engineers are in charge of these projects. They have been in control of our levees forever..we have local levee boards that regulate the activity, but, these are all federal projects. Now, they say that it is going to take another $6 Billion?! This is bordering on insane...how could the government let it come to this after all of the warnings for the past 20 years?!

[GRDadof3]

Levees that the Army Corps are now building will not meet new FEMA standards, resulting in $6 billion more needed. [New York Times]

How could this happen? Levees they are building RIGHT NOW won't even meet FEMA standards? I'm perplexed...

Sounds about right.

This isn't a PR campaign...and it doesn't have to be...I'm looking for real intelligent justifications on the amount of people that support letting an entire city just wash away....

Yah, Detroit shouldn't be allowed to wash away.........oh, this is a New Orleans thread?

[Relient J]

monsoon, in response to your original poll question I have no objections in general to the city being rebuilt. However, as your question seemed to refer to the Federal government paying for the reconstruction I voted "No." The U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to spend money to rebuild cities. Under the 10th Amendment, the state of Louisiana could do so if it so desired provided it does not violate the state's constitution.

[Relient J]

I apologize for the double post. My browser had a problem with the forum briefly causing my original message to be displayed twice.

[alon504]

monsoon, in response to your original poll question I have no objections in general to the city being rebuilt. However, as your question seemed to refer to the Federal government paying for the reconstruction I voted "No." The U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to spend money to rebuild cities. Under the 10th Amendment, the state of Louisiana could do so if it so desired provided it does not violate the state's constitution.

Are you suggesting that we (the US) should ask New Orleans for a refund b/c of Katrina? Didn't the Federal Government build the levees? What about New York City and 9/11? Grand Rapids and their great flood in the '90's? Florida with its' six hurricanes in the last 2 years? San Francisco with the Great Earthquake that occurred 100 years ago today? Should the Federal Government withdraw all funds and assistance in rebuilding your home states' recent situation with tornadoes?....Wow...you're proposing one tall order. You think everyone should pay for this and all disasters themselves? Or maybe you are saying the states should pay? Are you saying that it is appropriate for the US to turn its' back on suffering Tennesseans and other Americans during times of disaster? You appear to be one cold poster. I'm completely on the other side of the totum pole than you and that includes situations with all Americans I mentioned above..including Tennessee's recent bout with death and disaster!! And I say that with pride. Your reasoning is far out, but, nevertheless, as on any public forum, I respect your opinion, although, I'm totally not that way.

[Relient J]

^ I am not suggesting that any of the areas you mentioned refund the federal government for money given to them by the federal government in the past. I'm just pointing out that the U.S. Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to spend money to rebuild parts of the country that have been damaged by storms, earthquakes, etc.

Certainly any state can vote to spend its own money on such projects provided such expenditures do not violate their own state constitutions. I also approve of the role charity does and should play in such cases. Personally as a Christian I think the church should do more in such times (and that includes myself). However, the fact remains that Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to spend money on rebuilding homes, businesses, etc due to natural disaster.

[alon504]

^ I am not suggesting that any of the areas you mentioned refund the federal government for money given to them by the federal government in the past. I'm just pointing out that the U.S. Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to spend money to rebuild parts of the country that have been damaged by storms, earthquakes, etc.

Certainly any state can vote to spend its own money on such projects provided such expenditures do not violate their own state constitutions. I also approve of the role charity does and should play in such cases. Personally as a Christian I think the church should do more in such times (and that includes myself). However, the fact remains that Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to spend money on rebuilding homes, businesses, etc due to natural disaster.

I want you to know that the church has done a great deal. I attend a church in Chalmette and we only got $1.5 million from our insurance policy for our destroyed church. We have $550,000 liquid cash in the bank, and our new facility is going to cost $4.8 million, and many of our members are still scattered all over SE Louisiana with some in other parts of the country (as I'm sure you are aware, our entire parish, St. Bernard, went under water). There are churches in other parts of Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, and Florida that are going to pay for the difference for our new building, and make sure that we still have plenty of our cash on hand. We are not even going to have to pull a loan. It will paid for 100% when completed. Demolition of the destroyed facility is scheduled in the next month and we should be in our new facility by early, 2007. So, good things are happening, but, there are still many people from the flooded areas that are hurting. That's a fact, but, we're rebounding. We really are...

[Relient J]

^ I rejoice at hearing of the work that the church is doing in New Orleans. That is good news indeed.

[GRDadof3]

Grand Rapids and their great flood in the '90's? Florida with its' six hurricanes in the last 2 years? San Francisco with the Great Earthquake that occurred 100 years ago today?

Grand Rapids had a big flood back in the early 1900's, but we haven't had a devastating flood since. Just wondering to what you were referring?

[Phizzy]

Grand Rapids and their great flood in the '90's? Florida with its' six hurricanes in the last 2 years? San Francisco with the Great Earthquake that occurred 100 years ago today?

Grand Rapids had a big flood back in the early 1900's, but we haven't had a devastating flood since. Just wondering to what you were referring?

alon probably has Grand Rapids confused with Grand Forks.

Interestingly enough, Grand Forks should serve as a model for rebuilding in New Orleans. Following the flood of 1997, Grand Forks did not rebuild in flood prone areas. For example, 635 properties in the floodplain were sold to city, demolished, and the resulting green space is to never be built on again. In essense, the city was moved away from the river.

[jednc]

Thanks NCB for pointing me to this thread. I searched for it, but I'm new here and I guess am still finding my way around.

Also, I am not glad to know how the poll turned out one way or the other. I simply wanted to know what other people were thinking. On the SSP forum, all I got in return for my counter opinion was name calling and bashing.

As for using Grand Forks as a model, it sounds pretty sensible to me.

[Snowguy716]

That is right. Grand Forks rebuilt the right way. And who paid to rebuild? The federal government, the state governments, the local governments... and there wasn't a debate about "it should be charity" and "those people are stupid for living there" and all the heartless "me first" and kicking people while they're down bull crap that I get from so many people, mostly far right-conservative evangelicals that call themselves "christians".

Minnesota, North Dakota, and the affected communities pulled together and rebuilt. There was no question. It was just what had to be done.. and there were no big corporations awarded money to rebuild by a self serving idiot president.

And this spring, when the Red River of the North had it's 4th highest crest in recorded history (well below 1997 but the highest since the 1960s), nobody even flinched because they made the right investment, the levies held, and everybody stayed dry.

It's time for people to actually get over themselves and their obsessive self-serving penny pinching and get the damned place rebuilt.

[NCB]

I'll offer my opinion as well:

I was born and raised in New Orleans, and I'm very proud of where I am from, so you can guess that I want my city to be rebuilt. But, that does not mean I think we should rebuild every part of the city. This area was first settled in the mid-1690's, and I believe there is a reason that it took 270 years before someone decided to develop and populate parts of the city like New Orleans East, which is basically a giant marsh. Many parts of the city however, specifically the French Quarter, lower downtown, many parts of the Warehouse District, lower parts of Uptown, Algiers, and the majority of the rest of the Westbank are above sea level. Historically, the majority of these area's are the oldest parts of the city, and the majority of the parts of the city that you saw flood in Katrina, from Lakeview and New Orleans East to the parts of the Lower 9 away from the river, were not historically settled areas. Lakeview was first settled about 80 years ago, and N.O. East about 40 years ago, which in a city that is well over 300 years old, is not that large of a time period. You also have parts of the city, like many parts of Bywater, the majority of downtown away from the river, many parts of Uptown, and so on, that are just at, or slightly below sea level, that suffered minor fooding and damage in Katrina, and were repopulated with services restored quickly after Katrina.

To make my view on the entire situation simple, should we restore and rebuild parts of the city that were for the most part un-affected by Katrina, or only slightly affected by Katrina, (which is the majority of the historical parts of the city)? Yes. Do I think we should pay to restore and rebuild parts of the city that were completely devastated during Katrina, and would likely be in a similar situation if levee problems occured after the next major storm? No. It isn't easy for me to say that, because I love all parts of New Orleans and what they offer, even if some of it isn't exactly something to be proud of, but I realize the importance of making smart decisions with money not only locally, but nationally, and just throwing out money(and lots of it) that may not solve all problems isn't exactly something that will improve everything.

[NCB]

It's time for people to actually get over themselves and their obsessive self-serving penny pinching and get the damned place rebuilt.

What do you think the majority of New Orleanians are doing down here? I'm not familiar with your knowledge of the city, its people, and what exactly is going on in New Orleans post-Katrina, so I won't comment on it. But what you may see on the national news, like people angry that HUD is closing many of the housing projects, or people complaining that they want more money for things that aren't necessary, and whatever else the media is focusing in on now; that is in no way all of the New Orleanians. I'm in the city nearly everyday, and every time I drive in and drive through area's like Lakeview or Gentilly, I see more and more FEMA trailers, and more and more people out continuing to gut, rebuild, and move back into their homes. A family friend of mine not only lost his home in Katrina, but his job as well. He and his wife lived in a tent inside of their gutted home for 10 months, while waiting on a FEMA trailer. Not only did they have to worry about their financial situation and their current living situatation, but they had to continue to gut, repair, and rebuild their house. He needed to find a job. And they still had to worry about their kids, who were living with family and going to school in Baton Rouge. You never seem to see stories like that on CNN or Fox News when compared to the stories about "Jim and Jane are still angry about their FEMA checks" because that's not "sexy" anymore.

If you have not been to New Orleans post-Katrina, I encourage you to come down and see the city and its people rebuilding for yourself. The city is still down, but it is slowly working its way up, as are its residents. Remember that the residents of the city alone can only do so much. They can rebuild their homes, their neighborhoods, and other things that they alone can control. But residents can only do so much when it comes to levees, infrastructure, health care, crime, and other things that are currently problems in New Orleans.

[Snowguy716]

That was kind of my point. I mostly meant infrastructure things. Levees, roads, water, electricity, etc.

The city will never get back to where it was if we don't invest in good infrastructure for the residents.

I don't think the government should be going and building every person a new house. That is something between insurance companies and the residents. But the government should keep a close eye on the insurance companies to make sure nobody's getting screwed and give financial assistance to those that had no insurance.

You're right, I don't live in New Orleans and I haven't seen it post-Katrina (I did see it pre-Katrina)...but I have family in Baton Rouge, and they have friends in New Orleans that have been affected. It's not a pretty situation for anyone there...

I just think we need to stop giving away $billions to corporations to rebuild the infrastructure and go to the lowest bidder. Our federal government is more corrupt than any Louisiana government (and LA is no stranger to political corruption).. that's what makes me most angry.