Should New Orleans be given back to nature?

[NNN0LHI]

I am sure there is some serious discussion of this somewhere. This is really a worst case scenario we are witnessing. I wonder about the wisdom of cleaning up and rebuilding a major city located on the Gulf Of Mexico which sits below sea level. About a hundred miles north might be better to re-build on. I guess it would be called the New New Orleans? And don't yell at me either. This is something that will be discussed in the near future I suspect.

Don

[Alpharetta]

1. I'll let the Presidential scientists decide that

they'll need to assess the damage due to toxic waste.

of course, they'll need to check the Bible.

[Spinzonner]

2. What makes you so sure she'll take it ?

It might be an environmental cesspool for an extended period.

[mattclearing]

3. I don't see how the costs of rebuilding, especially with the waste, could

be justified.

[Sparkman]

33. If you mean sewer waste, most lake side mountain building now requires...

PUMPING waste to holding areas (pucky ponds or septic tanks) to keep the lake free of crap. So an engineering problem just needs the managers and the greedy to back off, implementing the best solution.

[Mizmoon]

4. My daydream of moving near the Gulf is now over

I'll keep our NY winters and "hurricanes" that are really glorified thunderstorms, thank you.

Those poor people ... I can't imagine what they are suffering and I can't imagine that they want to go back to that city ever.

[FloridaPat]

13. Hurricanes aren't glorified thunderstorms. The ones that I saw

last year had no thunder in them at all.

[thereismore]

27. In defense of Mismoon, "hurricane" does not mean hurricane. n/t

[formerrepuke]

5. Note that Venice, Italy is a sinking city; they regularly clean it up

after major flooding- and everyone knows that the city's predicament is only going to get worse. I've read about how one day there may be a dam (dike, whatever) built which will separate the city from the sea altogether.. maybe something similar will happen with N.O.

[Xithras]

46. There's a big difference between Venice and NO

Venice is a city built of stone, so "cleaning up" means replacing furniture, patching plaster, and touching up the paint. If Venice had to be rebuilt from scratch every time it flooded, it would have been abandoned centuries ago.

[tazkcmo]

6. Not yelling, just laughing

I'm guessing you haven't spent your life in Nawlins working hard to buy your home to raise your kids in. I'm palso betting that you're not onr of the hundreds of thousands that know no other home than this one. You could make the same arguement for L.A., Oakland, San Fran, Miami and dozens of other major cities in the U.S. for one reason or another.

[K-W]

15. Those other cities you mentioned aren't under water right now.

So how could the same point possibly be made about them?

Obviously people who have worked hard would deserve to get an equivalent value somewhere else and whatever assistance would be needed to adjust in the strictly hypothetical case that such an action was taken.

I think from a very detached standpoint this is a no brainer. It would be a huge environmental coup and logistically would make perfect sense, but I think it is a no brainer on the other side in the real world where indeed, people cannot be forced out of communities against their will.

We also don't have a truly democratic government that would be a necessary condition to even consider such major state planning.

[tazkcmo]

21. Earthquakes

My point is that many cities have been built up in high risk areas for destruction (San Andreas fault, New Madras fault, Hurricane Alley, etc) Do we not rebuild these cities when destruction occurs? What about flood plains? Lotsa folks who can only afford this cheap (and un-insurable) land live there.

As for a "detached standpoint", I don't have one. I'm too attached. That's all I'm sayin', see what I'm sayin? That's all I'm sayin'.

[Xithras]

51. Earthquakes do limited damage. Most floods do as well.

The Northridge earthquake was one of the most devastating in recent California history, and yet it severely damaged less than 5% of the building in LA. Loma Prieta was the last one to hit the SF bay area, and severe damage was limited to a couple thousand homes...there were tens of thousands in the shake radius. Your typical midwest flood is over and done with before structural failure occurs...the water goes up one day, and is back down three or four later. Those structures can be repaired, where the wind battered and soaked ones in NO will have to be replaced.

This disaster shows that the level of risk taken on by NO due to its location is much higher than that in other cities with other disaster dangers. There are only a handful of incidents in US history that were comperable...Galveston, SF 1906 among them, and they ALL forced a reevaluation of the way the cities were built and where their critcal infrastructure was located. NO will have to do the same.

[SoCalDem]

52. New Madrid....and most of the disasters you mention

are localized.. It's rare for their damage to include the NUMBERS of people that hurricanes affect..and in California, when places are determined to be in a geologically unsuitable place, and are destroyed, they are NOT allowed to rebuild..

It's a moot point anyway.. NO will get rebuilt, and in due time this will happen again..

Humans do not learn from their experiences..

[WyLoochka]

25. The choice to re-build or not

Won't be put to a vote. RE-building can't be done without insurance and the insurance companies will refuse to insure. And BushCo has so bankrupted the treasury and already saddled the next three generations with so much public debt they will have to pay for through taxes, there will be no way enough money will found to decontaminate the area before re-building could possibly even begin.

So those who have spent their lives in Nawlins and choose to go back there will be on their own as far as future losses and the cancerous results of trying to live in massive chemical dump.

450,000 people are in shock right now. All of them have lost everything. During these next few months of waiting for the water to recede, building structures to be checked, toxicity measured etc, many will start to wake up to reality, they will find other places to live, send their kids to school, work etc and many will not return.

Nawlins will NEVER be the same. This may sound cold to life long residents, but there is actually an opportunity here to do the "right thing" and let the River run free across the Delta as it is supposed to do. Emotions probably won't let us do it, but we should probably just go ahead and knock down all the levees from Baton Rouge south. River flooding would dilute the toxins that are trapped and eventually the area would be restored to it's natural storm buffer function that is was before all the levee building.

[TahitiNut]

64. The presence of so much oil industry infrastructure ...

... will virutally guarantee some kind of rebuilding ... for better or for worse.

[Coventina]

7. That's a very difficult question: Same goes for Venice

These two wonderful, historic cities are victims of time, situation, circumstance and poor planning.

The not-so-good decisions about site were made hundreds of years before we came on the scene. Do we continue to battle? Or do we give up?

On the one hand, the art historian in me cries "NO NO NO! NO way should we let all that history and beauty sink beneath the waves!"

But on the other hand.....are we wasting money and lives on something that simply can't be saved?

Right now I just don't know.

[bryant69]

9. Hmmm

My answer is probably that nothing can be save forever. Being human is to try to save stuff. If there's a feasible chance of saving New Orleans for another couple of generations, perhaps we should try.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lilith Velkor]

72. Same goes for DC n/t

[DemNoir]

8. Your kidding right?

Maybe your home should be "given back to nature" if some disaster strikes it. Let's clear out Florida while we are at it, and NYC, because if it took a direct hit from a hurricane the same thing would happen.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[info being]

19. Failing to respect nature is foolish

I would support not rebuilding New Orleans, but helping people relocate to a better area.

[WyLoochka]

40. Yes, the people in FL

living in coastal areas should be making the intelligent decision, on their own, and be moving out now. It should be public policy to strongly discourage building and re-building in these areas.

With climate change going on - the storms are going to become more and more severe. We have to be honest with people that are in the path. It would be insane and wasteful to fund the rebuilding of these areas. We should fund mass relocations, not re-building.

The emotions of people attached to the areas are completely understandable, but we should not make decisions based strictly on their emotions which, for a long time, will tie them to the way it "used to be." It is very tragic, but the way "it used to be" has been changed by factors way beyond their, or anyone else's, control.

As far as NY - it is really the entire southern half of Long Island that is facing a catastrophe of this scale, not the City itself. I'd recommend the same approach when it happens there, as it will eventually. Let the ocean do what it does - there is no way you can win against hurricanes growing in severity driving the ocean across the southern half of the island. No way.

No way can we secure the NO site against the ocean, winds, river either. Money spent on trying to do it would be wasteful now that we are experiencing the catastrophic effects of climate change in real time rather than on a computer model. We need to get people out of the way, not put them right back into the path.

[Inland]

42. Of course, homes are given back to nature all the time.

Illinois has moved a number of towns off rivers that flood onto higher ground.

Homes on fragile barrier islands are often destroyed and not rebuilt.

Florida is moving people off areas that used to be everglades and are being reclaimed.

It's not evil to raise the question.

[SoCalDem]

55. and it saves public and private money long term

The Mississippi towns/cities that relocated, now have large expanses of public use land near the river..parks, baseball fields, soccer fields,recreation areas.. When the river floods, they get flooded tennis courts and ball diamonds..When the river recedes (as it's done for millennia) they have a little washing off to do, and all is well.. there are no more frantic river rescues, no more grannies hanging onto branches in their nightgowns..

Fighting nature is expensive and doomed to fail eventually.

[Jersey Devil]

49. I've been arguing that for years about NY, NJ beach houses

A house built on a beach like they are here in NJ on barrier islands and on LI should not be rebuilt after destroyed by storms. Federal flood insurance should not permit the rebuilding of homes in the same place where they were wiped out in the first place. Let the people collect the insurance money and build somewhere else. These areas should never have been developed in the first place

[mixedview]

53. lol. agree. most places humans live have problems,

doesn't mean humans give up and "let nature take over" - we innovate.

[SoCalDem]

57. savvy people work with nature..not to try and subdue nature

native people in tropical coastal areas my not have had "book learning", but for thousands of years they have known better than to build permanent structures on or near the beach.. they use the beach for recreation and fishing and launching boats, but they LIVE on stilted houses..well away from the shore..they use paths to get to the beach/water.. Westerners are the only ones who feel the need to be able to have coffee on the deck, and "dive off the railing into the water"...

[mixedview]

65. I prefer technology and the advancement of mankind. /nt

[SoCalDem]

68. Luck to ya

:)

[Eloriel]

10. Don't you think this is a little insensitive, given that there are

many DUers who are from that area? I do.

[Stuckinthebush]

20. Maybe not...

I've heard some people from that area say, "Screw it...don't rebuild."

People who live in New Orleans knew they were living on the brink of disaster. Most will tell you that. I think the question is very valid given that pretty soon people will need to start making decisions on what to do...spend billions of dollars rebuilding a city that will probably succumb again to nature, or let it go. It will never be easy to discuss it.

[Eloriel]

24. Well, I'm more concerned about DUers, some of whom have

already weighed in along the lines I suggested: insensitive!!

Edited: See? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4523776&mesg_id=4524207

[WyLoochka]

43. No, it is not "insensitive"

to discuss this. It would be dishonest and a disservice to them to not discuss it. People living in these areas need to be told the truth, even though the truth is hearbreaking - it is going to get worse.

[Toots]

11. Scientists have been saying for a while now that NO would be flooded

Rising waters from Global Warming would flood a large portion of the Southeast. I don't know if this can be blamed on rising waters from Global warming but I am certain Global Warming is playing it's part in our future and it ain't gunna be pretty. I don't think they will rebuild NO with the prospect of a repeated performance from nature. I am sure Insurance Companies will also have a say in how rebuilding takes place. I am afraid the NO we once knew is Dead......

[shadowknows69]

16. It has been proven beyond a doubt with this disaster

that mother nature's wrath will lay low the best laid plans and levees of mice and men. Louisiana has to come together as a state and assess the pros and cons. We may have no choice. It may be a forbidden zone for years anyway the clean up effort will have to be monsterous.

[Inland]

14. The people citing Venice have a point, but it actually says DON'T rebuild

True, Venice is sinking, and yet, they keep propping it up.

But look at what IS and ISN'T in Venice. Granted, I haven't been there, but I think I can say with some assurance that

Venice does not have heavy industry. Venice does not have superhighways. Venice does not have refineries, transportation hubs, and half a million people in bungalows. All THAT stuff is on the mainland.

In other words, Venice is a smallish city pretty much dedicated to the idea of its *former self*.

It could be that New Orleans should survive as a tourist city/convention center, with just enough infrastructure to support that. Most of the people and most of the activities of a modern city may have to move elsewhere.

Just a thought.

[info being]

22. I was in Venice last week.

You are pretty much right. I would support the idea of a New Orleans rebuilt in that way.

[markus]

17. If the US won't rebuild, La should leave the US

and take the port and our oil and gas with us.

Have A Day.

[tazkcmo]

34. Yes! Yes! Yes!

So much for together we stand huh?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GumboYaYa]

71. Wohoo, Markus you are the man....

I agree whole-heratedly. We will take our music too. No more rock, jazz, or blues for the rest of the US.

[Swamp Rat]

18. FUCK! ... Thanks a lot!

I don't need to read this kind of shit right now... I've been coming here for support ever since I made out alive, but this doesn't help, my friend. :cry:

[mogster]

26. Hi buddy

Hope you find your mom OK :hug:

This is just post-disaster jumbles, don't worry.
Kudos to you SR for all you've done here at the DU. If you need any help, PM me :-)

[Swamp Rat]

30. thanks n/t

[markus]

37. The Great Acadian/N'wawlinian Diaspora has got your back

We are not going to let this kind of talk go anywhere.

I"m already trying to get through to senior staff for Chief Democratic Geek Sen. Kent Conrad to say, please starting looking for the $100 billion difference between initial ROMP estimates of damage of $125 B and the insurance industry's $25 billion in cover losses

[tazkcmo]

35. For sure.

I personally am all for re-building. It's a better use of my money than blowing up stuff. And it helps my southern neighbors, too.

[WyLoochka]

48. It won't be just your money

That is required to rebuild. You will need massive funding from the rest of us to plant you right back in the path of recurring destruction.

And, tazkcmo, we have so many future obligations piled up on us, due to BushCo's looting of our present and future treasury, even if we decided to commit funds to re-build for you, we are tapped out.

You may want to hear platitudes right now about the rest of us being willing to pitch in to fund you in your determination, grit and all that, instead of hearing about reality, but you will be better off dealing with reality sooner rather than later.

[sundog]

36. hang in there sr

stay strong...

i truly admire your courage and strength...

you're in our thoughts right now, more than you know :pals:

[Swamp Rat]

39. With responses like yours, I do know.

Thank you very much. :hug:

[ArkDem]

23. Only in places with warm bongs.

[theboss]

28. Shouldn't we tear down now LA and San Fran while we are at it?

This is not going to to be discussed because it is not going to happen except in the minds of some very extreme back-to-the earth environmentalists.

[Sparkman]

31. The Dutch solved an even bigger problem, so did the Aleuts. ENGINEERING.

[K-W]

32. No, of course not. EOM

[Inland]

44. Tearing down vs. rebuilding.

Whether to tear down is a very different question. After all, much is already down.

[Sparkman]

29. Holland has a vast network of dikes, N.O is just an engineering challange.

BUT like the profit motive has demonstrated so many times, the greeedy have to be reined in, and the engineers have to run the project. The managers just foul up the stew.

[Ganja Ninja]

38. They should rebuild but ...

They need to raise the level of it by dredging and filling. It's a common practice in low lying areas in Florida to dredge out retention ponds and use the fill to raise the ground level. What ever they can't raise the should not rebuild on unless the buildings are on stilts or pilings.

[Inland]

41. Well, not to be morbid, but

a destroyed city provides fill. Chicago's downtown park is built on rubble from its 1871 fire.

[GreenArrow]

45. Nothing Gold Can Stay

"Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay."

-- Robert Frost

[mtnsnake]

47. Your post is not insensitive at all. Places below sea level or in a flood

plain were never meant to be inhabited by humans in the first place. However, we figured out how to hold the water back in MOST cases and then keep our fingers crossed. Our luck finally ran out. New Orleans has always been 2nd on the list of catastrophes waiting to happen, behind the west coast of California.

In the case of New Orleans, it might be wiser to put our money into getting those unfortunate people back on their feet again in some NEW location, rather than take another chance that might result in even more suffering.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. If You Are True To Your Logic Than Cali Should Be Evacuated Now

or at least most of it....

Risks are part of life....

[mtnsnake]

56. Not really the same. Flood plains below sea level were never meant to

be inhabited. They're wet normally and covered with water if man doesn't build levis. They're meant for fish and amphibians. Earthquake zones are at least dry. It would make a good debate, though!

[K-W]

58. "Risks are part of life...."

Indeed, but it does not follow that all risks should be taken because risk itself cant be avoided.

[GumboYaYa]

59. New Orleans has not disappeared yet.

As of this morning Uptown is still dry in most of the places. The beautiful mansions on St. Charles, Audobon Zoo, Tipitinas, Tulane... will suffer only mimimal damage even if the water continues to rise. I have seen these areas flood up to about four feet before and they all recovered fine.

The places destroyed so far are the Ninth ward and east side (very poor where the homes need to be replaced anyway), and Lake view, kenner an Metairie (where most homes are likley insured).

The French Quater has water now, but not bad. It has flooded before and recovered.

I am in no way ready to kiss the city goodbye. If they can stop the breeches today, many areas will stay intact. Virtually every place in America carries some risk of a natural disaster. Everyone wants to act like CA earthquakes are no big deal, but for decades they have been predicting the big one there (just like New Olreans) and that it will be tragic when it happens. Just because the disaster has not struck yet does not mean that it will never happen. If we shut down NO, shut down CA as well and there are plenty more examples.

Life always has risks. New Orleans will be rebuilt. There is too large of a capital investment there for it not to be rebuilt. There is also, too much worth saving still in the city. This discussion is intellectually interesting for some, but other than that very pointless.

[K-W]

60. Great response. EOM

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Hmmmm

"Life always has risks"


You just said some risks shouldn't be taken...

[K-W]

63. Of course some risks shouldnt be taken.

You disagree with that?

I was merely taking issue with your reasoning, not arguing that we abandon New Orleans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. You Need To Do A Risk -Benefit Analysis...

For instance I could assume more risk by walking in certain parts of this nation than I could ever assume living in a flood prone area....

[CitrusLib]

62. Actually, I finally got in touch with my cousin who lives in New Orleans

Or I should say did live in New Orleans. Right now they are feeling like it should be annexed to Lake Pontchatrain (OK, I NEVER spell that correctly). But I imagine they are still in shock. She and her husband just realized today they are both homeless and jobless.

[LisaL]

66. It isn't the question of "should". Sounds like nature wants it back.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. What If Nature Wants California and Florida Back?

nt

[fishnfla]

69. The city is 270 years old, it has survived wars, pirates, slavery,

famine, floods, fires, epidemics, debauchery, other hurricanes, a crappy football team

It'll be back

[Solly Mack]

73. No. Never. Bring her back - no matter the cost. No matter how long it

takes.

America desperately needs the flavor of New Orleans.

[Swamp Rat]

74. .........

:cry: :hug:

[Solly Mack]

75. You're in my thoughts Swamp Rat

:hug: