General @ Tuesday August 30, 2005 02:00 pm by WunderKraut
Update: This post has been moved to the top again due to strong opinions being raised in the comments. Go check them out.
Update: 9-1-05: I was going to post this as a comment, but it got long, so I am posting it here:
Time for me to wade in here. I think there have been some great points raised here.
My personal thoughts are a combination of many that have been expressed already. I know that the majority of New Orleans is privately owned and I understand how you could take what I said to mean as if the government were to rebuild the city.
Here is my point and Porkopolis seems to get it. We have an entire city below sea level. Some 500,000 people call the place home year round, plus many hundreds of thousands who commute and have offices in the city. What we are seeing on our news did not come out of left field. Rather, experts have been warning for years that this could happen. It has happened. As a result hopefully most of the people who owned land and buildings had flood insurance and will get a settlement so that they can start again.
But like has been mentioned, how many more times do we allow this to happen? Yes the government is not rebuilding on its own, but it is using tax payer funds to help with rescue, housing, food, etc. Then private insurance companies are going to have to pay out the nose. That will trickle down to what I pay for property insurance. Yes, you could argue that they should not have insured stuff below sea level but they did. Should they do it again?
Chances are they would, because their vision will be long term in the sense that another storm won’t hit again for awhile. They are wrong, but in a free market they are allowed to make those choices.
So what do we do? How about passing zoning laws on the local level that say all structures and roads have to be above sea level and maybe even a certain height above that? That happens all the time. A city can pass zoning laws to tailor or curtail development in certain areas. By making strict zoning laws for areas below sea level and up to a certain height above you would limit the development in flood prone areas. That way the insurance companies are not tempted to make a buck by giving that false sense of security to the property owner. So when the next storm hits, there will be some damage, but the majority of the city would have been abandoned because of the zoning laws.
Think of it as a giant buy out program. I sort of see how one could call that a socialist idea, but it happens all the time. A city offers to buy the people out. If they refuse, then they get no compensation when a flood happens.
So, New Orleans could pass tough zoning laws, but they won’t. They wont because then the city would cease to exist and they would be out of a job. To me, the right thing is to get tough and either truck billions of tons of fill into the city or basically zone the low areas out of existence. But politicians will not make that tough call. Never in a million years. At this point I agree with commenter JM who said:
I seriously hope this question and topic gets seriously considered by our top officials, or else they will have the deaths of many more people on their hands the next time a hurricane hits a “rebuilt” New Orleans.
Update: This post has been moved to the top for the time being. I feel these are very important questions to be asking. Wizbang has a post up today and I have been exchanging comments all day with readers. Here is a particularly well thought out comment and it captures the questions I am asking:
No doubt there are hard questions to be asked. I know you aren’t suggesting the abandonment of a port at the mouth of the Mississippi, and I think we all accept that as an absolute.
I think you’ll agree that the degree of reconstruction is what needs to be considered. Rather than create a vast, sprawling population center in such a vulnerable site, wouldn’t it be wiser to delay such “luxuries” and focus on rebuilding the industrial infrastructure we know we must have? Then, perform expedited engineering feats on grand scale to rebuild/redesign/reconstruct the flood and storm defenses of the mission critical city. Finally, establish new construction codes that can withstand the inevitable and repeated hurricane winds that will revisit this city (and ones like it).
Rather than rush in and rebuild everything on the cheap (relatively speaking), wouldn’t it make more sense to set up a longer-term, new millenium where more practical considerations are pressed to the fore over the desire for flash and entertainment? Focus on the city’s economically viable industrial engine and steer clear of the tourist one.
Rebuilding in these zones, and not just the Mississippi delta, is too short-sighted and expensive given the inevitable pressures of Mother Nature. These events are not random or unusual. When such predictable disasters are continually met with a desire to return to the way things were, these sites really become economic sinkholes. Is such a pattern a wise use of resources?
I know these are the hard questions you ask… and they are reasonable. I wonder how far the monies now necessary for clean-up at a price premium would have gone prior to natural disaster. I wonder how one puts a price on the pain and suffering of those whose lives were washed down the street temporarily if not completely away. I wonder if it’s wise to repeat the mistake and not remember that this will happen again. It may yet repeat this year… or in a hundred years. Should we gamble or should we present a better, more justifiable plan? Given the repercussions evidenced in the past few days and intermittently over the years, I’m not of the rolling-the-dice mentality.
Update: Also see my post called “That Did Not Take Long” for more New Orleans coverage.
Original Post Begins Here:
I know the flooding is still going on. I also know that peoples lives are at stake. So I am not trying to belittle any of that. Rather, I am going to ask a series of tough questions. People bigger than me are going to have to answer them. But here we go.
The publisher of BayouBuzz.com, Stephen Sabludowsky, says it will take a miracle for the city to get back on its feet: “New Orleans might not be able to survive the total inundation of water that is rising so quickly and causing so much damage. With Slidell, St. Bernard and other cities and Parishes so completely devastated it will take more than a Marshall Plan to restore Louisiana to its glory.”
Here is the obvious question: Why rebuild New Orleans? We have artificially kept the city alive for the past 200 years. Now the big one has hit and it sure does not look good.
Why rebuild a city that is below sea level? How is that a wise thing to do? Let’s assume we can pump billions into saving New Orleans. It is a long, hard road, but let’s say in 10 years the city is alive and thriving! Wonderful! The bars are once again packed on Bourbon Street! The Saints win the Super Bowl which was held in the Super Dome that very year! Yay! Then another Katrina hits and we are back where we started….
Billions wasted. Lives needlessly lost. Why?
Look at history. There are reasons there are ruins of once great cities. At some point the civilization that founded that city was unable to maintain the city. People left. The Earth reclaimed it. That is the way of history. Why try to float a city that is sinking?
When I saw the graphics of the levees, the river and the lake, I was shocked. Why the hell have we allowed people to live in such a disaster waiting to happen? Why rebuild it only to have it happen again.
The same thing happened in 1993 when the Mississippi flooded. Some entire towns packed up and moved to higher ground. Why rebuild only to have it taken away again.
I am sorry people have lost friends and families and have lost all they own. But could this have been avoided? Yes. Do not live there. I feel the same about Florida and all other coastal areas. When a city gets hit hard by hurricanes, the TV news will show some poor family that has lost everything. There will be tears, but there will also be firm dedication to rebuild and get back on with their lives.
Why? Are you stupid? I mean, it is going to happen again. You will lose everything again. Why should the insurance companies and the U.S. government be on the hook for your decision to build in an area where flooding has occurred and will occur again in the future?
I know these are tough questions and I am not trying to be disrespectful of the people who live in areas prone to flooding, but at what point do we say enough is enough?
I vote that we remove the levees surrounding New Orleans and finally allow the Mississippi and the Gulf to reclaim the land.
Even if we are able to rebuild New Orleans, why do it? This will only happen again.
Go read the Jawa Report or Rusty will send his minions after me!
26 Responses to “Some Tough Questions”
We need the port. Any plan to abandon the town must take that into consideration. See my posting on this same topic: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2005/08/30/Now+Do+You+Believe+Me.aspx
[...] For those of you who think my previous post was a little pre-mature (I don’t but you are entitled to your own opinion) I give you: [...]
Now do you believe me?
Good points Joe. It will not fly though. To much political risk. That is what will be so sad. Congressmen, Senators and even the President will be falling over themselves to show how much they care for New Orleans. They will funnel billions to the reconstruction. They will then thump their chests and say how much they care about the people. Then another hurricane will hit, this time directly, and people WILL DIE because those Congressmen, Senators and the President wanted the political windfall that came from rebuilding. They will have costs hundreds if not thousands of lives.
Shame on them.
On the other hand… there will always be a tornado or storm or earthquake or drought or mudslide or wildfire or SOMETHING. Earth is dangerous.
I concede your point that certain risks are easily foreseen and easily avoidable (building on floodplains for example). Six feet below sea level, artificially kept dry by incredible engineering… it’s much. It may have made more sense, as time went on, to have moved the port a little further inland, out of the delta, and left New Orleans to the waters. But even there, consider that a strong storm could flood the port and level buildings – ANY coastal storm could do that and, of necessity, a port has to be near a coast.
After a point, certain risks are immutable.
** that should be “a little further upstream.” Sorry.
I understand your point Nightfly. But of course a port is always susceptible to storms and what not. But you can evacuate a port and then repair and get back to business. That is a good investment for the U.S. to make. But my point about the hundreds of thousands of people now homeless in New Orleans still stands. It was the dirty little secrete no one wanted to talk about. Everyone knew the levees would not work in a large storm and that large portions of the city would be underwater. But no one wanted to do anything about it. What could you do?
Politicians could not stand up and say we are going to move the town. That would be political suicide. But now, what choice do we have? Before, the BIG ONE was just a theory. Now it has happened and the eye did not even hit New Orleans and the city is under water. Let’s not rebuild it. Unless you bring in 50′ of fill material! Let’s resettle people further inland and move the port to a better location, if there is one.
In doing that, I still understand that anything within 25 to 50 miles of the coast is still subject to storms, tornadoes, etc. but there comes a point when you have to stop throwing money down a rat hole. Besides, every time you re-build you are setting yourself up for further death and destruction.
Like the title of this post says, these are tough questions.
I love New Orleans. It is my favorite city on Earth. And I’ve been around. Some of the greatest memories of my life are within that city.
My first “real” date with my wife was in New Orleans. We stopped in at Dante’s Pizza and she put too much garlic on her pizza, thinking it was parmesian cheese. I’ve spent many a night listening to great jazz and great blues played by artists both known and unknown.
Once, a college brass band had been playing in Jackson Square. In the evening they were tearing down their equipment. Off to one side, a lonely guitarist set up his little pignose amp and started jamming on his Strat. The tuba player of the band walked over to him and started playing bass-note rhythm.
My daughters love the Audobon Zoo. The Aquarium of the Americas. I’ve been to some of the greatest concerts I will ever attend. The Ramones at the Saenger. Nine Inch Nails just down the street from there. Rollin’s Band at Tipatina’s. Kaldi’s coffee shop.
This wasn’t supposed to happen in my lifetime. It’s as though a chunk of soul has been torn out. It hurts more and more, the more I think about it.
But you’re right. From a purely logical point of view, you are correct. I know, given Japan’s success with terraforming, that much could be done to revitalize New Orleans and help to “storm proof” it. But is it worth it? I just don’t know.
Biloxi, Gulfport and those folks on the other hand — man, everyone assumes a degree of risk no matter where they live. Nature is going to do what it does. That’s why there is insurance. Part of living somewhere is the acceptance that something bad could happen.
A Modern Day Atlantis
Wunderkraut asks some serious questions regarding the reconstruction of New Orleans – primarily “should it even be done?”
Give it a read.
My take? Yes and no.
Yes, it is this bad
A roundup of the devastation from Katrina. Please give if you can!
If they rebuild – and I would say build, because there is going to be little left that is structurally sound after a few weeks of being underwater – they need to do it very differently. That sarcastic 50′ of fill comment above is about what is needed.
But if the city (and if you rebuild the port – you’ll get a city) is rebuilt – it needs to be something like Venice, Italy – or Cape Coral, FL (where I live).
Canals, canals, and more canals – and fill trucked in, as well. The dirt dredged from those canals can be used for some fill. But canals will give the water a place to go – you may still get floods in – but it will also flood back out. And the city (all of it, not just the rich neighborhoods) needs to be above sea level.
ELEVATE! ELEVATE! ELEVATE!
Seattle rebuilt itself 30 to 70 feet higher. New Orleans can too! ^_^
This is such an important topic, that I will include my post (Providing assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina responsibly)here in its entirety and in full agreement:
Today we are all New Orleaners and Gulf Coasters. Like the national aid effort that was made on behalf of the victims of the 1993 Mississippi Flood, every effort should be made to provide immediate aid and assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
This is our nation’s (both public and private institutions) opportunity to show what we’re made of. We will provide comfort to our fellow Americans, even those that did not heed the mandatory evacuation.
After the 1993 Mississippi Flood, the National Research Council developed a report called Reducing Future Flood Losses. One of the primary recommendations of the report was to:
It’s not too early to start planning responsibly for the future of the costal floodplain areas affected. Responsibility calls for honesty. Our country has huge resources, but they are not unlimited resources. In light of New Orleans’ geographic realities, the irresponsible thing to do is to have any talk of rebuilding the city.
One of the principles of political leadership is that when faced with a tough decision, the decision that benefits the most individuals is the correct one. (You might remember this as a theme in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan when Spock summarized it as, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.“)
Some will call such talk callous, uncaring and selfish. Responsible citizens and leaders should be respectful of those wishing to preserve a way of life they have known for generations, but we can’t let nostalgia run our public policies especially when we’re looking at a rebuilding effort of untold billions of dollars. The helping hand that we extend to our neighbors in need should balance compassion with logic. Hearts and brains are called on for trying times like this.
The old lawyer maxim applies: it’s not the answer, but the question.
Here, you ask “should it be rebuilt?” That question shows, willfully or not, your political philosophy. Only a socialist could ask a question like that, as though at some point there was some possibility that a politician would have a press conference and say: “We’ve decided that we’re not going to rebuild New Orleans… Sorry folks.” It’s not up for a debate in any committee, it’s not a bill that’s being sent up for votes, it’s a city in a free market economy with endless property owners that need to make a crucial decision in the future.
A person who believes in free market principles (perhaps more ostensibly) would have phrased the question: “Should people invest or reinvest in New Orleans?” That question would raise the more realistic answers, and considerations. Those answers would depend on what property, if any, the person being asked had in New Orleans (i.e., a person with an 85k house vis-a-vis a hotel owner), and what business or purpose that person or entity had in New Orleans or might seek in New Orleans. The considerations would depend on what the government would do to ensure the market that no such catastrophe could occur again — of course meaning the levees and their maintenance, and the tax issues involved with that — and how much money would be needed to restart or start a business there. Of course property value just shot straight to hell there, which of course also invites the buy low investors.
The fact is, the free market version of the question also highlights how premature and pointless this discussion is. The socialist version might as well be asked by a first year social science professor in a community college the day before spring break.
Ramon
Ramon:
Your ‘free market’ argument is specious because the government is extremely involved (FEMA, US Army Corps, Homeland Security, Military, Coast Guard, etc.) and by indirection, all the tax payers in the U.S.
I’m all for individuals wanting to return say, “We’re prepared to fully assume all future risks of our decision(s)” then I’m totally with on let the free market decide. I state that as a libertarian.
However, when Gulf Coasters are asking their non-Gulf Coast residents to share in the risk, those non-Gulf Coast residents should also share in the decision.
Porkopolis
Ooops! Sorry for the typos on the previous comments. Would be nice to have a preview view.
Pork,
The question posed is whether to rebuild, not whether to rescue and provide emergency assistance. I can assure you here in NYC the army corps, homeland security and the coast guard are not part of the planning/financing of the rebuilding of the Towers.
Whether to rebuild is a question posed as if the entire city were government owned and, thus, a decision by committee or vote or politics would be required for it to occur. Or, conversely, that somehow public opinion could prevent a rebuild by fiat. The plain fact is that the property in New Orleans is largely (in the high 90 percent range, i’m sure, minus parks) privately owned. Whether or not someone on a website thinks it’s a good idea to “rebuild” a city has no bearing on an investor looking at his property, his business, his debt, and his future.
As for the government owned land, there are far too many positions held, departments created, public schools, etc. etc. that must be rebuilt as a matter of need. Think of the Universities, the colleges, the courts. You think the District Attorney’s office is going to dismiss 50k cases? or you think they’ll get that court up and running and start hitting those trials in a year’s time? I think the latter is more reasonable. Similarly for people with civil cases… The people in hospitals… The list goes on and on and on.
I’m also not arguing anything specific, I’m saying that the question is not applicable to the situation. I have no answer for what investors or property owners will do, but I know that there will NOT be a debate on the Senate floor anytime soon as to whether we should “rebuild” New Orleans.
Ramon
Ramon:
I don’t think we are far apart on this. The individual private decisions on rebuilding will be predicated and influenced by government’s (and the larger society’s) willingness to provide billions of relief for a future disaster.
My point is, we definetely owe our fellow citizens aid and comfort on this go round, but we must communicate the gravy train has reached its last stop. From here on out, they’re on their own and assume all future risks associated with rebuilding in a geographic floodplain.
As for dealing with 50K DA cases, that a appears to be a simple jurisdictional issue. The cases can be adjudicated in an alternate local. Aren’t changes in venue commonplace?
Porkopolis.
my opinion is that people should rebuilt in another location were it will be safe for all and start anew
Why should the tax dollars cover this tab??? Folks who have homes on beaches or in flood prone areas should be on the hook and or have insurance at a HIGHER premium. Those of us who have decided to live outside these areas should not have to cover the rebuilding costs. This may sound cruel however it is a reality we all need to face going forward. The Big Easy was fun yet very dangerous, it has 300 years of history but so did ancient Egypt…One thing this whole event brings into light is the fact the there is a tremendous gap between the HAVES and HAVE NOTS and it is only getting worse.
I seriously hope this question and topic gets seriously considered by our top officials, or else they will have the deaths of many more people on their hands the next time a huricanne hits a “rebuilt” New Orleans. It will not help anyone to fit mother nature and rebuild in such a vulernable area, emotionally or financially.
I was going to leave a comment, but it got so long I posted it as an update. Go check it out at the top of the post.
[...] I have written a few posts about the whole New Orleans being underwater let’s blame Bush meme. See here, here, here, here and here. I have also received quite a few comments, most of them agreeing with what I had written, but as is the case with any issue, there will be those who disagree with you. That is cool. After all, that is one of the foundations of our country: free exchange of ideas and beliefs. The only, and I do mean only criteria I have is that you can actually back up what ever you say, with, hmm, what’s the word I am looking for….oh yeah, FACTS! [...]
[...] WunderKraut.com: Some Tough Questions [...]
I think this whole hurricane situation and people fleeing to Texas is rediculous. I live in Houston and to see the news say that they dont have enough voulenteers is hilarious. There are 16,000 evacuees in the Astrodome and they still can’t find anyone to help out. I’m also glad to see Florida lending a helping hand to the situation. More importantly though I would like to agree with you on the fact that they shouldnt bother with rebuilding New Orleans just so that it can get wiped out again.
If New Orleans must be rebuilt, it should be on a smaller scale, and I know this is not possible, but persons who are not mobile/who have small children and little resources, the frail elderly and very handicapped, should not live there, unless they are able to take care of themselves, or have a sound emergency plan. Only persons who are able to evacuate should live there.
Yes I am a Socialist, and proud to admit it. I am working class, and believe every able bodied person of sound mind needs to become more self sufficient, and stop relying on the Government to protect them.
I am over hearing how this is Bush’s fault, yada, yada, ad nauseam. Personal responsibility. More of us need to embrace it, and let the Government Govern, not be our personal Wet-Nurses. Life is tough. Cut the apron strings.