New Orleans gone forever?

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
It'd be a shame but the devastation is massive. Terrible, just terrible.

Definately too early to tell.

Deal with the needed now then check the rebuild. I cannot fathom the thought of displacing and replacing a major city of it's citizens, business and history.

Time.

Time is needed to do, sort and consider.

Peace.
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Insurance company estimates on the news last night were 10 to 20 billion, which sounded low to me. Still we're willing to spend greater funds much farther away, so it's not impossible. The levee system in New Orleans was built only with the intention of withstanding a level 3 hurricane. If they can't build it again to withstand a level 5, then no, they should not rebuild there.
 

newguy27

Active member
Feb 26, 2005
1,347
0
36
It's defintiely terrible and almost unbelievable what has been going on. However, I think they will rebuild the City....too much history there.

I hope the eventual casualty figures are a lot lower than what is being predicted. :(
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
I suspect the Big Easy will rebuild. It has been a symbol of indulgence for so long I tend to see it not only comming back. But comming back with a flare only seen there.
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
Serious wingnuttery chimes in ...

From Wingnut Daily, er, WorldNet Daily:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46086

I've been reading about looting and watching the pictures from New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. So here's my question: Do you think New Orleans would be better off right now if its public school system had taught all students the Ten Commandments as part of their secular education?
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Winston said:
The city will not be drained for a month, people will not be allowed back for 2 - 3 months. It will take *years* to clean up and rebuild various roads, sewers and infrastructure.

Why bother?

Build on higher ground.


For the same reason it was built in the first place.
 

MarkII

New member
Sep 22, 2004
1,904
0
0
While it will be a shame to lose a tremendous amount of historical sites, it might be time to just "fill in the bowl" and rebuild on higher ground with a totally new infrastructure.

26 billion should buy a fairly decent sized city if building from scratch. Repairs always cost more...
 

Mcluhan

New member
Zero sum balance

New Orleans will be a massive re-build project, flooding money into the regional economy. Billions will flow into the economy from insurance funds. Companies based in Bermuda will raise the rates to compensate. The wind and water did not destroy the infrastructure, but the property damage will be total. Just take the number of houses in the flood zone and multiply by $220K then double the product for municipal damage. Its billions. Then there’s the commercial district.

N.O. will survive and be rebuilt, however the President is infor a rough ride over a long period of time, especially if the story of war funds diversion verses the levies maintenance of N.O. becomes a hot issue.

One can see the media has already turned the critical eye floodlight on the Administration’s handling of the disaster. The damage to the refineries exacerbates big story of high fuel prices already tied to the question of a useless war in Iraq gone wrong. Meanwhile the world gets a shocking look at the nasty underbelly of US urban society at its worst in the form of anarchy and civil disobedience. Police stations are under siege, looting and mayhem prevail in the city streets, police officers fail to report for duty (Aaron Brown shakes head on CNN), and to take the cake, sniper fire at a helicopter medivacing patients which could have used a Blackhawk escort. Onlookers will conclude the Empire is a bit more fragile at the core than expected in terms of its ability to handle internal security in the face of a civil upset.

At the end of the day this disaster at home underscores the real purpose of the National Guard and its not fighting mercantile wars in the Middle East. My prediction is, the debate over misallocation of assets will rage on for some time besieging the President’s war as weakening homeland security where it counts the most – at home. Bush’s popularity at an all time low before Katrina will over the next few months come to a rest on the bottom, where he belongs.
 

Mcluhan

New member
Pat Buchanan Speaks Out

Leading the charge to tie Bush to the steak is Pat Buchanan.

Who Lost New Orleans?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Even the disasters and tragedies that at first unite us in grief or anger – Pearl Harbor, 9/11 – end up dividing us. New Orleans will be no exception.

Despite the 9/11 commission report, questions remain about the warnings received and advance knowledge President Bush had or should have had about what was coming.

With the Katrina disaster, however, we are not going to have to wait months for the accusations and recriminations. They have already begun, and will poison our politics for years. Even as the hurricane was coming ashore, Robert Kennedy Jr. was attacking Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour for his role "in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush's ironclad campaign promise to regulate CO2."

Because of "Barbour and his cronies," wrote Kennedy, "we are all learning what it's like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence. … Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and – now – Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children."

Kennedy was seconded by Germany's environmental minister, Jurgen Tritten, who mounted his hobby horse – the hurricane was the result of the global warming Bush has ignored – and rode, rode, rode.

Columnist James Glassman tore into these twin distortions of reality and exploitations of disaster. But the RFK-Tritten attack was ineffectual. No rational American is going to believe that, had Bush signed Kyoto, New Orleans would not be underwater. It is on the more serious matters that rancorous argument is about to begin, and deep divisions are about to be driven into our society.

First, it seems self-evident that those in the path of the storm who had the least suffered the most. Those who had no way out were left behind, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, perished. From TV pictures of the 20,000 crammed into the Superdome and the hundreds hauled off rooftops, most of them, it appears, were African-American.

Conversely, TV footage of looters happily at work – taking not just food and water, but jewelry, guns, electronics, and booze – reveals them, too, to be disproportionately African-American.

As demands arise that the National Guard and Army shoot looters to end the anarchy, the race demagogues will go to work. For if that orgy of rioting, looting, shooting, and racial assaults on Korean and white Americans that was the Los Angeles riot of '92 can be excused by apologists as a justified reaction to the Simi Valley jury's refusal to convict the cops who whaled on Rodney King, assuredly raucous voices will be raised in defense of the New Orleans looters.

But ultimately, the attacks will come around to a single target, President Bush, and they will run along these lines:

First, he was out of touch in Crawford, not alert to what was coming – and, indeed, photographed fooling with a guitar the day the storm hit. Second, despite the investment of scores of billions, the Gulf Coast, on his watch, was unprepared for a Category 4 hurricane.

Third, when the need arose for the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard to save the poor of those states, and defend lives and property after the storm, 7,000 Guardsmen were not on the Gulf of Mexico, but in the Persian Gulf.

Bush's priorities are about to be challenged, and Katrina will turn America's eyes inward, even as the crisis on the Mexican border is turning America's attention away from the Syrian border.

The antiwar movement has a new argument: What in Iraq is more important than Mississippi and Louisiana?

As the cost of the disaster mounts, the questions will tumble, one upon the other: Can we afford both Iraq and resurrecting New Orleans and the Gulf? Which comes first? As the Gulf poor have lost most, ought not taxes be raised on the rich to pay for both?

Finally and critically, there is the question of why the levees broke and New Orleans was inundated, lost for years if not forever. As of Monday, the city had been spared. The French Quarter was dry. Then came the deluge. And there are print and TV allegations that funds allocated to strengthen the levees were diverted or cut by the Bush administration.

Soon, we will be hearing and reading of recommendations by some officials that the levees be strengthened, and of decisions by other officials that the money be used on something else.

The scapegoating has begun. It will be deadly serious. The stakes are the highest. The ultimate objective will be to break the Bush presidency. Katrina and "Who Lost New Orleans?" will be as pivotal to Bush's second term as 9/11 was to his first.
 

Big Sleazy

Active member
Sep 13, 2004
3,535
8
38
Unfortunately you've got to move it. Another hurricane, perhaps even larger and your in the same boat all over again. This coupled with the fact that what insurance company is going to insure you for damage if it's not moved ? I don't know how many of the buildings are now structurally unsafe but it's got to be a lot. They have to be torn down. For the one's that are OK, what about the stench, the bacteria ? I've never been to New Orlean's and alway's wanted to go, but I don't see how building it up in the same place makes any sense. Other than nostalgic.

BS
 

strange1

Guest
Mar 14, 2004
806
0
0
Scientific American had an article in 2001 that predicted and explained why N'Orleans was doomed.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00060286-CB58-1315-8B5883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

THE BOXES are stacked eight feet high and line the walls of the large, windowless room. Inside them are new body bags, 10,000 in all. If a big, slow-moving hurricane crossed the Gulf of Mexico on the right track, it would drive a sea surge that would drown New Orleans under 20 feet of water. "As the water recedes," says Walter Maestri, a local emergency management director, "we expect to find a lot of dead bodies."

New Orleans is a disaster waiting to happen. The city lies below sea level, in a bowl bordered by levees that fend off Lake Pontchartrain to the north and the Mississippi River to the south and west. And because of a damning confluence of factors, the city is sinking further, putting it at increasing flood risk after even minor storms. The low-lying Mississippi Delta, which buffers the city from the gulf, is also rapidly disappearing. A year from now another 25 to 30 square miles of delta marsh-an area the size of Manhattan-will have vanished. An acre disappears every 24 minutes. Each loss gives a storm surge a clearer path to wash over the delta and pour into the bowl, trapping one million people inside and another million in surrounding communities. Extensive evacuation would be impossible because the surging water would cut off the few escape routes. Scientists at Louisiana State University (L.S.U.), who have modeled hundreds of possible storm tracks on advanced computers, predict that more than 100,000 people could die. The body bags wouldnÆt go very far.
 

root11

New member
Aug 1, 2003
12
0
1
Buffalo
Bad idea from the start, move it!

It was a bad idea to begin with. Time to cut the losses and move on...

"In 1718, French colonist Jean Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville ignored his engineers' warnings about the hazards of flooding and mapped a settlement in a pinch of swampland between the mouth of the Mississippi River, the Gulf of Mexico and a massive lake to the north"

<http://www.dailypress.com/news/la-na-water31aug31,0,6239458.story?coll=dp-breaking-news>
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
New Orleans, a Sinking City

As more comes out about NO there is a good chance it may indeed be gone forever. Rebuilding it may cost far more than it is worth, and even if rebuilt many doubt it will anything as it was before Katrina hit.

Been listening to NPR stories on the subject and with it sinking along with the massive toxic waste mess that would have to be cleaned up and removed....to where?....the prospects don't look promising. This is probably worse than Love Canal.

There are a few NPR reports on the costs etc., here are some:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837031

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837938
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
New Orleans will never be the same. Many of the people that defined it's cultural diversity will never return, and there are very serious questions about whether it could survive into the next century, even if this had not happened. The land is sinking at three feet per century, eight times the world rate. New Orleans will be rebuilt as a port and transfer center, but it is hard to argue for the cost to try and restore it back to what it was.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts