God Spare New Orleans

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Why I'm a libertarian. Why you ought to be one too.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Why I'm a neo-con. Why you ought to be one too.

fixed

[classicman]

I would hope that the leadership would realize a city built below sea level wasn't a good idea in the first place and they would instead pay to move them instead. Geez how much more of a hint do they need?

Originally Posted by classicman

I would hope that the leadership would realize a city built below sea level wasn't a good idea in the first place and they would instead pay to move them instead. Geez how much more of a hint do they need?

Should we move all the folks out of California now....before the next devastating earthquake like the San Francisco earthquake of 1906?

New Orleans has survived for 300+ years, a unique American city in many respects...and having never experienced a "perfect storm" like Katrina, with the devastation compounded by a failure of the infrastructure due, primarily to a lack of funding.

I think your solution is a bit heavy handed.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WOW! Congress really did a great job of dealing with the issue didn't they? Not.

IMO, the appropriations of the Republican Congress in 05 and 06 (and spread out over a period of 4+ years) were reasonable, it not a bit slow, much like the FEMA response (as well as the state/local response).

So why do you think Congress didnt do such a great job? Or is it the Democrats that you want to blame?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Redux

I think your solution is a bit heavy handed.

I'm amazed to be saying it, but I agree with classicman. There's no point relocating people who are living in perfectly good houses, but once the place goes underwater, it's is the height of foolishness to pay them to rebuild houses below sea level again. The place is a bowl surrounded by water on three sides. It relies on pumps to keep floodwater out, and when there is a storm, the electricity to those pumps is lost. It's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

If people want to live in the flood zone, that's fine. It's a free country. But the government shouldn't be giving them one nickle to do it, and the insurance companies should set their rates at an appropriate level to take into account the extreme risks they are taking on.

But then I also think that people shouldn't be able to get insurance for houses on barrier islands. Or at a minimum, they should have rates that reflect the increased risk there.

California is not a good example, because construction standards can make a house able to withstand earthquake damage.

Originally Posted by glatt

....California is not a good example, because construction standards can make a house able to withstand earthquake damage.

Construction standards can make levees able to withstand massive flooding.

The difference is that it is private funding for individual housing/commercial construction and public funding for the levees.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Where are you guys proposing these 450,000 people, in the city alone, relocate to?

If you relocate them all to Boenher's district, you could probably vote him out of office!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Redux

Construction standards can make levees able to withstand massive flooding.

But you still need the pumps to pump out the rainwater. And the pumps fail whenever there is a massive storm.

Also, what's the point of building a levee to protect inferior real estate locations, when there are plenty of places in the country that are above sea level? This isn't the Netherlands. We live in the US. There's lots of land. Let's live on land that doesn't flood when it rains.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I would hope that the leadership would realize a city built below sea level wasn't a good idea in the first place and they would instead pay to move them instead. Geez how much more of a hint do they need?

That attitude and resulting corrections had been ongoing in the 1990s. From You're Doing a Heck of Job Brownie:

Furthermore, FEMA is about avoiding damage before that damage can occur. A most famous case is Evansville and Graphton IL where FEMA moved the towns. Other lesser know examples include FEMA's campaign to convince AL homeowners in flood-prone Elba area to sell their homes and relocate. FEMA in the 1990s demonstrated how it is better to solve problems before they happen - which is a well proven William Deming concept.

Such programs were ongoing in CT, DE, CO, IL, MA, MN, MS, MI, MO, ND, SD, WY, UT, TX, and PA when something happened.

These 'mitigation activities' by FEMA were terminated in about 2001 - about the same time that professional disaster managers were being replaced by political appointees.

Due to massive flooding, Graphton IL was moved. Two years later, another Mississippi River flood washed over the same land. But this time, the bottleneck (in part created by dikes in St Louis) did not wash through Graphton. FEMA had moved the town uphill - solved a problem before it happens.

There is no reason to rebuild New Orleans' Ninth ward. Other parts of New Orleans are fine. But it makes no sense to rebuild on land that is already ten feet below sea level - and dropping due to underlying geology.

Nobody is suggesting the Gulf coast should be evacuated. Or that New Orleans should be eliminated. Chantilly Ridge in New Orleans is perfectly safe. But when does it make sense to house a hundred thousand people on land that will always be flooded at least ten feet by a simple category three hurricane? Category Three is what those massive dikes and levees were designed to withstand. And Katrina hit New Orleans as a category three in a region that category threes are too common.

View what happened to St Bernard's Parish. That wave overwhelmed 20 foot dikes. Then traveled a mile plus across marsh land. Then washed out almost all buildings not designed for such flooding. So government should pay to rebuild inferior buildings. Well, St Bernard's Parish is not even at same risk that New Orleans's Ninth Ward is. There is no reason for New Orleans' Ninth Ward to be rebuilt. Want to live in St Bernard's Parish? Then building codes should require expensive structures that can withstand that only category three hurricanes and not yet seen category four hurricane.

Where is the 'theys'? New Orleans Ninth Ward is not same as other parts of New Orleans. And yet the discuss has lumped everyone on the Gulf coast as same. Katrina was not the massive Category Five that it also was. It was only a Category Three made so much worse by, well, where do 85% of all problems originate?

[Shawnee123]

Where are you guys proposing these 450,000 people, in the city alone, relocate to?

Are there houses in your neighborhoods in which they could reside?

We get tornados from time to time. I suppose I can live here and have insurance on my place because hey, there's a chance a tornado might miss you. I'm sure there's a table or chart somewhere pertaining to the risk I take living...well, anywhere.

edit: I just realized the insurance on my moon dome is going to be OUTRAGEOUS!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Where are you guys proposing these 450,000 people, in the city alone, relocate to?

Are there houses in your neighborhoods in which they could reside?

Yes. There are a couple houses on the market here. Room for a couple families to buy. I understand there are lots of houses for sale in Detroit and the surrounding area.

I feel for them that they lost their homes. But once you lose a home, it's gone. You can't get it back. As long as you are moving into a new home, why not a new home in a place that doesn't flood so easily?

[Shawnee123]

Yeah, I know what you're saying. I'm thinking of people who have always lived there, whose families have always lived there...it just seems like a huge uproot and undertaking, as a suggestion.

If, for some reason, Ohio wasn't "safe" anymore (I say that while laughing!) where would I go. What region of the country would best suit my needs, after being this Ohio person all my life, decended from people who were here all their lives.

Well, besides the moon or the Unabomber cabin?

[Shawnee123]

You live in an area all your life. You have kids, you have aunts and uncles, you have parents, you have neighbors. You know the guy at the grocery store and you pray for his sick wife. You run into old school teachers from time to time. Your "living there" constitutes much more than just where you physically reside. It's a part of you.

Sure, people move away all the time. They don't move their entire lives, and the people they've known and the places they've been: for some this seems it would be pretty tough to do, to start all over somewhere else.

I'd gladly move from here, but there are things that keep me here: my family, my friends, the networks I've built as a result of living here my entire life. I could do it, I'm an adventurous sort, but I know there are people who would rather expire than leave everything they know.

To say "live elsewhere" to a huge population doesn't seem reasonable or feasible. Yes, there was a devastating weather catastrophe. As Redux pointed out, there are ways to prevent so much devastation. It's not like it's happening every other year.

[glatt]

I'm fine with them staying there, if that's their choice. But they should pay for it. If they expect me to bail them out, then they need to show some brains about it. Don't build a house in a swamp surrounded by water in a hurricane zone. Helping them is just enabling them. Like lending money to a gambler.

[Shawnee123]

Not everyone has the finances.

[Shawnee123]

(raises hand) oooh oooh oooh

Top management?