We should rebuild New Orleans

[whatever4]

somewhere else.

Somewhere safe. Take the materials inland; the (probably valuable) old brick and wrought iron and even some moss and build a new New Orleans.

It's not for the city and property itself, but for the people who love it, loved it and always will. The history, the shared memories, the personal memories and the many lost homes. Familiar places now gone. Families that have lost absolutely everything, and not only do they have no home, they have no home town, a prized possession. For some, part of their identity, family homes for generations. Famous world wide.

It's all been ripped away along with so so many lives. With nothing left.

Just my two-cent short essay. We should take the parts and pieces of the buildings and beloved landmarks, and rebuild it. Yes, we should rebuild New Orleans. Just somewhere else.

[musette_sf]

1. Oh, just truck it all over

to Orlando and call it fucking Nouvelle New Orleans Experience At Disney World.

Did you write this or is this a real editorial? Supply the link if it's a real editorial so I can tear this writer a new one.

[whatever4]

4. Odd, I didn't expect this kind of reaction

Oh, just truck it all over


Edited on Thu Sep-01-05 12:22 PM by musette_sf

to Orlando and call it fucking Nouvelle New Orleans Experience At Disney World.

Did you write this or is this a real editorial? Supply the link if it's a real editorial so I can tear this writer a new one.



Ahh, yeah, I wrote it. I don't care where they truck it, who trucks it, and you can call it "fucking Nouvelle New Orleans Experience At Disney World" if you feel like.

The point was to see the worth of the feelings of rebuilding, and to gently nudge people into the logical thought process of realizing it could easily be rebuilt farther inland, so it could easily be rebuilt without the hurricane/flooding danger.

THOSE issues could be left behind. They're non-issues; New Orleans doesn't have to be located in the same exact spot to still be...New Orleans. The problems and issues causing such bitterness can be easily side-stepped

Except for those still in need of lashing out, that is...

Tear away babe; been a while since I had a decent target

[musette_sf]

6. Your post should not have been made to Editorials section

and if you really believe what you wrote, then there is no hope for you. While we're at it, why don't we just move San Francisco to Stockton? Hey, it'll be a LOT safer, and besides, it doesn't have to be located in the same exact spot to be San Francisco. Besides, we now have a fake GG Bridge in Disneyland's California Experience, so who cares?

You're not worth flaming.

[whatever4]

8. Ah, I see, my mistake

Ah, I see, my mistake, and thanks for moving it moderator; sorry about that.

"Your post should not have been made to Editorials section


and if you really believe what you wrote, then there is no hope for you. While we're at it, why don't we just move San Francisco to Stockton? Hey, it'll be a LOT safer, and besides, it doesn't have to be located in the same exact spot to be San Francisco. Besides, we now have a fake GG Bridge in Disneyland's California Experience, so who cares?

You're not worth flaming. "

yeah, I got knocked the other day for writing "essays", so I honestly thought here was the place to post that.

So, no one writes their own essays here either? Well, how about that. Have to go look at the different areas, see how I misunderstood that. Surely somewhere around here someone has original thoughts.

Hmmm substance of your post. No, never said there was hope for me, actually, and for the rest...there's probably going to be a lot of people in a LOT of cities of this nation relocating to safer places before BushCo is done creating a new and different environment for us; care to argue that one too? But in any case, you make it sound as if I mean to force people to move, to push the issue, and I don't. I mean I hope they want to do it that way, and I think they should do it that way, and if I said "we" instead of "them", it was purely as shared national identify. If that's wrong, too bad.

Ya know...I wrote this with the people of New Orleans in mind. As far as flaming, your non-flame was rather retardant.

[maxsolomon]

2. no.

floods happen all the time.

N.O. is our shared history. we don't tell holland to move somewhere else. we don't tell Venice to move somewhere else. if the levee had held, this would not be an issue.

[phantom power]

5. Well, the levee didn't hold.

So, if you're planning to rebuild on location, I hope somebody has a better plan for the future.

The next Katrina won't be 30 years from now. It will probably be next year. And the year after that.

[raccoon]

12. Absolutely, and that's the problem with rebuilding on coastal areas,

these days.

Rebuilding after 25-30 years is one thing; every year or every 2-3 years is just foolish and a colossal waste of money.

[whatever4]

7. Well, I have to agree to an extent

But understand, my thought isn't to "tell" anyone to do anything. It's what I think they should do. Farther inland, because where they are now is too low, and the location sits between a lake and the gulf; there won't ever be a very good fix for that.

I realize they could also build "up", but it seems like so much effort will have to be taken to make it safe, all the while being a risk, that it's not worth it. Perhaps not for me to say, and so it's just my two cents. Not a strong opinion; not my city. But there are a lot of folks saying it should never be rebuilt, and with all the deaths, it's hard to argue.

I just hate hearing how many people are screaming to never rebuild, and with all the history, old brick and iron and landmarks, it doesn't even make sense, to not rebuild some of it, somewhere.

[raccoon]

11. I think it would be foolish to rebuild in the same area,

below sea level. It would make more sense to rebuild the city somewhere near its old location, where it would be at a higher elevation and not such a flood risk.

[bullimiami]

3. EXACTLY.

My thoughts.

The houses are pretty much a total loss.
Have insurance pony up for the cost of the houses and have the government buy or exchange the land for the closest safe place they can find to rebuild residential NewNewOrleans.

If the businesses and large buildings have something to rebuild then OK. But no housing.
All the reclaimed land should be made into a park or left as a lake.

[whatever4]

9. yes, and a memorial too, sadly. A new identity for this area. nm

[Bridget Burke]

10. No, but infrastructure & environmental concerns must be met.

Parts of the city are NOT gone yet. The French Quarter is high enough to have avoided much of the flooding.

Of course, the "we" who will make the decision are the people of New Orleans. Perhaps I misunderstood you--where's your home?

[phusion]

13. Maybe NOLA

should be an autonomous/sovereign zone in the future? That way, the city can build up its OWN disaster response system and can ACCEPT aid from other countries.

[raccoon]

14. Maybe they can SECEDE and ask for FOREIGN AID

from Uncle Sam...and other countries.

[LordBinkyTheBuffoon]

15. I kind of agree

I never been to New Orleans in my life, but I do understand how people feel about it. NO has to be one of the culture capitals of America.

But, would it be the same after you rebuild it? Or would it be a different city that just so happens to be named New Orleans? For instance, would all the people who lived there move back, or would they stay away in fear of this happening again? Unless they rebuild the city exactly the same way, it probably wont even feel like the place they once knew if they move back.

Perhapse I'm wrong. Maybe I don't truly understand the "spirit" of New Orleans. I'm ready to be proven wrong :)

[KamaAina]

16. Where would you find 60 square miles of dry land

in that area?

I've seen a lot of "relocate N.O." posts this week. None has offered much in the way of specifics as to where it would go.