No Orleans

[GomJabbar]

From: The New York Times, Published: December 11, 2005, Link: Death of an American City (Subscription required, but free)

A thought provoking article on the situation in New Orleans. When considering the fate of New Orleans we should also consider the fate of the other harshly affected gulf coast areas.

I admit a bias. I lived and worked in Louisiana for some 19 years. I met my wife there and started my family there. Mostly I lived about 50 miles NNW of New Orleans.

[K. Eng]

I remember seeing on CBS 60 Minutes that some scientists are calling for gradual withdrawal from New Orleans because it will be too difficult to keep the city from flooding over the next few decades.

I hate to call it quits on something, but sometimes I think one just has to let go. New Orleans is below sea level, and at the current rate of erosion (I think it was a couple acres/day) of the surrouding area, the city is going to be a fish bowl in the gulf coast by the mid to late part of this century.

I was wondering if it was possible to start building a sucessor city to New Orleans in a more safe location... that might be more wise over the long haul (next few centuries).

[GomJabbar]

Most people associate New Orleans with Mardi Gras, and it's nickname "The Big Easy". They think of crawfish, chef K-Paul Prudhomme and blackened redfish, shrimp, jumbalaya, gumbo, po-boys, cafe-au-lait and beignets - in short, the many culinary delights. New Orleans was also a thriving music and arts mecca, and the home of many jazz greats. However, many people also think of the poverty they see there and the city's below sea level location gives reason for pause. Is it really worth it to 'fix' this city and spend some billions of dollars?

Starting with this Editorial from The Washington Post, Published December 15, 2005: Link: New Orleans's Top Priority I quote the following:

ASK ANYONE in New Orleans or from New Orleans. Read the New Orleans and Baton Rouge newspapers. Listen to Louisiana politicians. All of them say the same thing: Few people will move back, and no true reconstruction will begin, until the federal government commits itself to rebuilding the federally constructed levees whose failure led to the flooding of the city in the first place. Nobody wants to live in a place that is certain to flood again and where nothing permanent can be planned.

Most of those concerned also agree (even if not all say so publicly) that not every levee in the city needs to be built to levels sufficient to protect the city from a Category 5 hurricane, and that not every hamlet in the Louisiana bayou is going to receive hurricane protection. People as varied as Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), New Orleans Rep. William J. Jefferson (D) and lawyers from the advocacy group Environmental Defense say it is possible to come up with a moderate plan. Such a plan would include reconstruction of the New Orleans levees to a "true" Category 3 level -- which they did not reach before -- and the restoration of coastal wetlands. It would cost not hundreds of billions of dollars but between $3 billion and $5 billion over the next five years.

But why you may ask do we really need to rebuild New Orleans? One answer is found here - Link: The Port of South Louisiana.

The Port of South Louisiana is the largest volume shipping port in the United States and fifth largest in the world (2003 World Port Rankings). It is the largest bulk cargo port in the world.

In short, the following can be said. Link: New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize. I found this link with Google, looking for more info on the Port of South Louisiana. I am not sure if it is wise for me to quote from it, so I am just posting the link. Please read for some very insightful info.

[dsvochak]

Carlos Mencia said New Orleans is a bowl surrounded by soup.

That being said, New Orleans, like all major cities, is where it is for geographical/economic reasons. As I understand it, New Orleans is where it is because that was the first spot north of where the Mississippi empties into the Gulf of Mexico that had enough solid ground for a settlement. And the leveeing and land filling began shortly thereafter.

The most significant part of Friedmans article is this:

"The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled work force in order to operate. That work force requires homes. They require stores to buy food and other supplies. Hospitals and doctors. Schools for their children. In other words, in order to operate the facilities critical to the United States, you need a work force to do it -- and that work force is gone. Unlike in other disasters, that work force cannot return to the region because they have no place to live. New Orleans is gone, and the metropolitan area surrounding New Orleans is either gone or so badly damaged that it will not be inhabitable for a long time."

Yesterday the government announced an additional $1.5 Billion for levee repairs/improvements (see, for example http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... /512160341 ). Which, while it is nice, doesn't address the situation pointed out by Friedman.

How long does it take to repair/improve the levees? And how long after that (and at what cost) before the stores, hospitals, schools, and housing is rebuilt?

The only thing I'm certain of is there is a difference between people who had to live in "a bowl surrounded by soup" in order to provide the necessary work force for the oil fields, pipelines and ports beneficial to the country as a whole, and people who chose to build/buy an ocean front home in South Carolina or the Gulf States built on stilts.

The difference being I'm a lot more amenable to spending the money to rebuild New Orleans than I am to rebuild a house on stilts.

[GomJabbar]

The only thing I'm certain of is there is a difference between people who had to live in "a bowl surrounded by soup" in order to provide the necessary work force for the oil fields, pipelines and ports beneficial to the country as a whole, and people who chose to build/buy an ocean front home in South Carolina or the Gulf States built on stilts.

The difference being I'm a lot more amenable to spending the money to rebuild New Orleans than I am to rebuild a house on stilts.

Both very good points!

I was somewhat surprised but pleased when I heard on the news yesterday that at least some commitment appears to have been made by the current administration to rebuild the levees of New Orleans. Still a lot left to do though. Even with a full-scale effort, it will take some time for things to return to some semblance of normalcy

[GomJabbar]

OP-ED article in The New York Times by John Grisham (author of "The Pelican Brief"), Published: December 25, 2005 Silent Nights on the Gulf Coast

Mississippi's governor, Haley Barbour, has said his state needs $34 billion to rebuild. The state's annual budget is about a 10th of that, with virtually nothing set aside for such emergencies. The bold promises made in the heat of the moment after the storm have so far been pathetically empty. Congress has so far authorized nearly $100 billion for emergency relief and cleanup, but only a third of that has hit the ground.

Not lost on the people here was the recent rush to pass more tax cuts for the rich. And a question often heard is, "Why are we spending billions to rebuild Iraq and not a dime down here?"

There is a fear of being forgotten by the government. Washington is preoccupied with a war and its glut of messy side issues, and attention will soon turn to the midterm elections. There is also the very real fear of being forgotten by the press. The satellite trucks and cameras have long since gone. If the news media forget, then so will the people with the money in Washington. Pollsters are already noting the rapid decline in the disaster's importance on the national radar screen.