Rebuild New Orleans

[mrh3]

They should keep the port and oil business going. Over time I beleive with the oceans rising, New Orleans will be in more danger of flooding. I think most people were given a choice, they would build on higher ground.

It is not a question if New Orlean will get hit by another cat-5 hurricane , but when. Do we want to experience the problems we are having now all over again?

The only Solution is to only build on ground above sea level. If possible raise the land they have there. They could go buy a mountain and move it there.

They have some down in South America they could buy and ship it up to New Orleans.

You're a moron.

[damus]

Well, as someone not emotionally attached to the place, I do not see the need to rebuild in the old neighborhoods. Sure, Holland uses levees and does fine but this city is below sea level and in hurricane country and the city has been given a chance to rebuild basically from scratch. Why not move the city further inland and uphill? They can keep the port and the French Quarter, maybe downtown in the city with most of the population going somewhere else.

[Snowguy716]

Why not turn the old neighborhoods into marsh/park land that can be enjoyed by all city residents?

Natural marshland can soak up floodwaters much better than solid/built up ground.. so it would reduce flooding even more.

[NCB]

What "old neighborhoods" are you exactly referring to? Like I had mentioned five posts up, the majority of New Orleans' oldest neighborhoods where the parts of the city that were first settled in the 17th and 18th centuries, because they were either slightly below, at, or above sea level. I see no reason in abandoning neighborhoods that flooded only lightly do to the levee failures, such as the majority of the CBD, Uptown, Mid-City, parts of Central City, Bywater, etc. Those neighborhoods, along with the French Quarter, parts of the CBD, Algiers and the majority of the Westbank are the parts of the city that we know would have been perfectly fine if the levee's had not failed. These parts of the city only need strong levee's to survive major hurricanes, so that is where I think we need to focus on rebuilding and improving levee's first. While parts of the city like New Orleans East and some parts of the entire 9th Ward are sinking, and could need more than just levee's to continue to exist for the long term.

[Snowguy716]

Wards that are far enough below sea level that significant damage is caused by another "katrina" or heavy rain event.

Protect the areas by levee, but allow them to flood and turn into marsh. Marsh lands hold flood waters better than pavement and mowed astro-lawns.

[NCB]

Protect the areas by levee, but allow them to flood and turn into marsh. Marsh lands hold flood waters better than pavement and mowed astro-lawns.

Wetlands and coast restoration are very big topics in Louisiana right now. Funding more studies, tests, and then paying for the actual process to begin to bring back the Louisiana wetlands we have lost because of the lack of silt deposit from the Mississippi(ironically, because of the levee's) would cost quite a bit of money for the government, billions. But if Louisiana is granted its fair share of our oil royalties, which we are fighting for in congress, and would equate to about $50 billion in the next 30 years, then the federal government wouldn't have to pay one cent towards the wetlands restoration project. Not only would Louisiana be able to fully fund that project, but many other major levee, floodgate, and restoration projects as well.

[nashvillwill]

First off, the idea of raising the city to sea-level is absurd! If it could even be feasibly accomplished(which it couldn't) it is still irrational. The $ of replacing the buildings would only scratch the surface. The true value of a city is that which we never see. Water mains, storm drains, power, cable, telephone, thermal transfers, the price is astronomical! This is before we even consider the road infastructure.

Can we just rebuild it somewhere else? Ask Baton Rouge about the cost of providing for hundreds of thousands of indegents. It's easier said then done.

What perplexes me about the whole situation is that the people who seem to care the least are the former residents of NO. I have several friends who are evacuee's of Katrina now living in Nashville. If you ask them about returning to the city they say "maybe when it's rebuilt". I can't imagine being able to abandon my own city that way. It seems like all of the residents want NO fixed but aren't willing to chip in. If such a catastrophe happened in my home town, I would be the first one back in my own neighborhood cleaning the streets, parks, schools ans yes, my own home!

[NCB]

What perplexes me about the whole situation is that the people who seem to care the least are the former residents of NO. I have several friends who are evacuee's of Katrina now living in Nashville. If you ask them about returning to the city they say "maybe when it's rebuilt". I can't imagine being able to abandon my own city that way. It seems like all of the residents want NO fixed but aren't willing to chip in. If such a catastrophe happened in my home town, I would be the first one back in my own neighborhood cleaning the streets, parks, schools ans yes, my own home!

Everyone who is back in and around New Orleans right now here's about this, and the common response is "The true New Orleanians, the one's who care about and could never just abandon their city, are the one's who are already back." Of course that's not true for all situations and cases, but it is true in many ways. We have about 230,000+ people back in New Orleans, and these are the people who are coming back and rebuilding themselves, and not just waiting until "they(the federal government) rebuild it."

[Charles Pearson]

It's in our spirit & fiber as Americans to never give up. I definitely support the rebuilding of New Orleans, one of our most famous cities...And I'd much rather see my tax dollars go here than to support any war...

[nthused]

The fact is New Orleans - no matter the history or beauty - is sinking further and further every year. Putting money into such a thing is, at it's best, foolish. We have a finite amount of money to spend - let's spend it in a place that won't vanish beneath the waves before the the loans are paid-off.

[NCB]

The fact is New Orleans - no matter the history or beauty - is sinking further and further every year. Putting money into such a thing is, at it's best, foolish. We have a finite amount of money to spend - let's spend it in a place that won't vanish beneath the waves before the the loans are paid-off.

The subsidence issue is thrown around often, and understandably so, but many people fail to realize that the entire city is not sinking quickly. The majority of the subsidence is occuring in parts of the city that are already basically marsh, such as New Orleans East. Many of the oldest parts of the city are sinking very slowly, and we're not going to see the French Quarter below sea level in five years, or anything like that, as so many seem to think.

I'm not trying to come up with counter's to problems in New Orleans, because I know that would be silly, but there still are many that are misinformed about many problems relating to the future of New Orleans, and I do like to clear things up slightly with certain issues if I can. You have people across the country that before Katrina, probably only thought of New Orleans as Mardi Gras and the French Quarter, and now with all of these problems in New Orleans being brought up much more nationally, many people just get the "facts" from the media, which is almost never the best possible source. As someone who is familiar with, and has been familiar with all of these problems in New Orleans long before Katrina struck, it is still very obvious that some of the stuff the national media puts out about post-Katrina New Orleans and its problems can be very overdramatic. Though I guess that is expected, because more drama seems to lead to more viewers nowadays.

[nthused]

My point being...that it seems we tend to throw money at problems a lot...without taking into account long-term issues. N.O. is a wonderful opportunity for doing things right - unforturnately - I sincerely doubt it will happen - as "feel good" politics will take place of good decisions.

[NCB]

My point being...that it seems we tend to throw money at problems a lot...without taking into account long-term issues. N.O. is a wonderful opportunity for doing things right - unforturnately - I sincerely doubt it will happen - as "feel good" politics will take place of good decisions.

Oh I understand, and I agree, though I do think things will end up being done right, or at least better than many expect, here. Just throwing money to New Orleans isn't going to make all of the problems go away, believe me I know that.

[EbonyGardens]

I can't believe this is a question. Of course we should rebuild New Orleans. New Orleans is one of the country's most important cities in terms of culture, music, food, etc.

[Mikejesmike]

It makes my blood boil to even see the question being raised.

I'm just thankful this generation weren't the ones fighting the Germans and the Japanese 60 years ago.

[dimebag1980]

It makes my blood boil to even see the question being raised.

I'm just thankful this generation weren't the ones fighting the Germans and the Japanese 60 years ago.

You and me both, partner...

[michaelskis]

Yes, it should be rebuilt, however it should be done right. This is also a chance for new types of development including Form-Based Codes, increased density, and improved public transportation.

Additionally, some of the areas that were flooded should be turned into storm water retention areas and bogs that will help mitigate future flooding concerns.

[WOT]

Only the areas that are above sea level should receive Federal dollars. A question that should/needs to be asked is if you remove the "NO" heritage question and you were in Anytown USA, would current code allow you to develop given the same conditions? The answer is NO.

Redevelop what is safer and flip the flood plain be just that - a urban space that can be enjoyed by all citizens except for when it needs to do what mother nature designed that space to do - flood. There are countless identical spaces that have been turned into park areas that absorb a overflown river or stream.

I have heard amazing stories about churches literally setting up a "NO" branch and helping rebuild. A church here in West Michigan has opened up shop down there and have not missed 1 single week since the flood of sending volunteers down there.

There is nothing cold about rebuilding with common sense.

Just my $.04 cents.

[waccamatt]

I believe the United States should pay to rebuild New Orleans, but not in the same manner it was before. The levees along the Mississippi River amd Lake Pontchartrain are what caused the severity of this catastrophe in the first place.

New Orleans needs to be rebuilt with canals in the manner of Venice and Amsterdam, not the few canals that were there before. If the levees had not been built so far down the Mississippi to begin with, the Louisiana Delta would not have deteriorated so much. The silt from the river is what replenishes the Delta and, in turn, protects New Orleans somewhat from the Gulf of Mexico. Katrina would have been bad, no matter what, but the levee system made it worse. If you cannot build without a levee, find somewhere else to build!

[NCB]

Some recent news on the subsidence issue in New Orleans...

Louisiana Coast sinking much slower than suspected

Article

Tornqvist's study, which he presented Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis, shows subsidence rates of only about 0.6 millimeters per year.

That's 0.6mm per year, not nearly as much as the "over an inch per year" figure that the national media usually circulates.

FYI, 0.6 milimeters per year = .0235 inches per year

[Plasticman]

I dont' think we should rebuild anything down there using Fed money just for the sake of rebuilding it. In other words, don't take the "If we build it, they will come back" attitude. Take a "If there is a demand, we will rebuild and only above sea level. Investors are the way to go. When using their own money, they will be more likely to rebuild the city sensibly. Federal loans would be fine as long as they didn't rebuild in an area that could flood again. Federal grants would be fine if the grant went toward something that has national interest in it. And that doesn't include sentimental feelings toward NO. I know people in this area who have started a new life and have no intention of going back to NO. For those that do want to, there should be limitations on where they move. Trump is an example of someone who is willing to invest. Bravo. That is how it should happen.

What should happen: Issue no non-sense loans and try to attract private investment for areas that wish to be rebuilt and only as long as above sea level.

What will happen: The race card and political correctness will win the day yet again and money will be poured into the city with no real direction other than to please different special interest groups and ultimately win votes in the next two elections.

[Kayak1]

Any federal money should go towards A)Preventing the destruction of the coastal wetlands that help to weaken hurricanes as they approach NO and B)Beef up the levy system and take a lesson from the Dutch on how to prevent storm surges and levy breaks.

[dpbaker]

I say yes, if the levees can be properly fortified. I'd also strongly urge an elevated rail system of some sort, designed to operate in flooded conditions. I know, I know; a LOT of money.....