The Loss of New Orleans Wasn't Just a Tragedy. It Was a Plan

http://www.jewishworldreview.com ^ | Jonathan Rauch

[manny613]

Must read until the end to appreciate.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Short article.

[Shalom Israel]

I was with him right up until he proposed yet another government board to go around assessing risks for us. He's overlooking something critical: who says we need to live in a vulnerable spot like NO in the first place? The cost of moving out of NO and letting it go to rot is arguably less than the cost of shoring up the levees, so why is he comparing only the cost of prevention with the cost of rebuilding? What about the cost of just getting out of dodge?

There's a simple, natural way to force people to take that cost into account: force them to pay for their own home repairs--or else pay for the premiums, if an insurance company is willing to supply a policy. They'll decide for themselves if the insurance is worth it, or whether they wouldn't be better off moving to northern Miss.

[Enterprise]

"In 1999, reports the Chicago Tribune, Congress authorized the Army Corps to conduct a $12 million study to determine the cost of protecting New Orleans. But the study was not set to get under way until 2006"

This is an opportune time to get the study underweigh. But being the Government, I wonder what conclusions they will make?

[BartMan1]

bttt

[dirtboy]

The plan for New Orleans in case of a hit from a very powerful hurricane was to lose the city.

Like, duh.

Even if the levees had been raised to what were estimated to be Cat 5 level, realize that forecasters were off by ten feet in forecasting the surge that hit east of the eyewall.

So if the levees had been raised and more people stayed behind, accepting the estimates of the Corps of Engineers, and had there been a direct hit and the Corps was wrong, the death toll truly would have been catastrophic.

The point is not to make New Orleans safe in its current location. It should be to move much of NOLA to a location that is safe without extraordinary civil engineering projects.

[thulldud]

I read it to the end, but I still don't appreciate it.

Meanwhile, Congress and the White House consistently and sharply cut requests for levee-improvement funds.

He didn't say anything about all the money that got "diverted". Considering that, one can imagine (it's difficult, I know) that even Washington might be inclined to close the checkbook.

The Dims in charge of LA just consider the whole world a big casino, and NOLA was in the pot. So they lost a hand this time. Big deal, Uncle will give them an advance on their allowance for the next roll.

They forgot that this isn't a game. The dead and grieving certainly won't.

[Calpernia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485468/posts
The Port of New Orleans and WHY We Must Rebuild!

[JusticeTalion]

"Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." - Albert Einstein

Bulldoze New Orleans, plant grass and move the city to higher ground or,

Bulldoze the city, fill in the six foot deficit and then rebuild it.

Rebuilding New Orleans where it stand today is ludicrous.

God bless our troops wherever they may be.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I read the whole article and it failed to mention the law suit that stopped the Corp of Engineers from doing improvements to in 95 or 96. The suit was filed by The Sierra Club and demanded a full environmental impact study. Looks like Katrina gave em an IMPACT STUDY.

[Final Authority]

Did you see on the news yesterday that residents of select neighborhoods in the city were led in to check out their property so they could recover papers and valuable items. No sooner had they gotten in fires started burning with smoke columns rising as the residents seeing flood damage committed arson. The fires were put out and the residents herded back on the buses.

They just won't quit trying to "get over" on the culture of the rest of the USA.

[AntiGuv]

I don't get it. Why would they allegedly set fires at seeing the flood damage?

[Enterprise]

"There's a simple, natural way to force people to take that cost into account: force them to pay for their own home repairs"

Don't be silly. We're talking about the Government here. It never met a financial sinkhole it didn't like! And New Orleans is perfect in so many ways. Low income, high crime, gambling, tourism, and so much of that long green to splash around. A Government dream city if EVER there was one. The Government is going to be back, happily rebuilding and pouring a couple of hundred billion taxpayer dollars into that sinkhole. No way is the Government ever going to let go of that bedraggled cow.

[handy]

I don't get it. Why would they allegedly set fires at seeing the flood damage?

Cynical take: Perhaps flood damage is not covered by their insurance, but arson is.

[ModelBreaker]

Why would they allegedly set fires at seeing the flood damage?

Fire damage is insured. Flood damage, in NOLA, isn't.

[AntiGuv]

Ooooh, that makes perfect sense.

[Shalom Israel]

Bulldoze the city, fill in the six foot deficit and then rebuild it.

That particular idea is risky. The city is sinking; adding fill is likely to be only a temporary measure.

[rod1]

So if most mortgage companies and insurance companies will not back home building on a known flood plain. Why in the world would rebuilding be allowed, supported if not promoted on the same?

[oldbrowser]

There's a simple, natural way to force people to take that cost into account: force them to pay for their own home repairs--or else pay for the premiums, if an insurance company is willing to supply a policy. They'll decide for themselves if the insurance is worth it, or whether they wouldn't be better off moving to northern Miss.

The MSM and the politicians would have a field day with such a decision.

Even if they just designate low lying areas as uninhabitable and relocate these residences to safer areas would be political heresy.

It would be much more acceptable to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to rebuild this death trap.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The cessation of government-underwritten (taxpayer-underwritten) flood insurance would guarantee that no city would be rebuilt in that location.