Because it affects all of America, specifically, a city 60 miles to it's west, Baton Rouge, which has suffered major growing pains in the aftermath, and a city 120 miles to the east, Mobile, my hometown, which didn't share Baton Rouges fate because for about a month, you couldn't really cross through coastal Mississippi
If New Orleans goes down, that affects the whole region. Baton Rouge clearly does not have the infrastructure to handle the entire exodus (this of the more well-to-do refugees), and now that 10 is back of, if the final nix is put on the city, many of those people will end up here, and we had infrastructure problems before we had new arrivals, I estimate we have about 35-45k people in the area who came because of Katrina. Traffic on Airport used to be bad at certain times of the day, it is now bad all day, many roads that previously lacked congestion, such as Dauphin Island Parkway, have once again become congested.
And we havent even gotten to Mardi Gras. Baton Rouge does not have a reputation of having a Mardi Gras all that big, it shocks many people too. Cities such as Mobile and Lafayette do however, so the question is, considering that many colleges in the Southeast (as well as the rest of the country) have long managed to let students out around Mardi Gras for a few days, the question is, where will they go. If New Orleans is lucky, they will have as many people downtown on their Mardi Gras day as we have on ours, roughly 175,000-200,000.
This means people who want Mardi Gras are more likely to scope out alternatives, such as Mobile. Mobile doesn't nearly have enough hotel rooms as it is, and this would just complicate matters. More importantly, one thing I like about Mardi Gras day here, is that is a family affair, I don't have to worry about seeing some drunk woman exposing herself on Conception Street just to get some beads or a moonpie. We're not the only ones who'd be potentially negatively affected (granted, this would be offset by the fact that much of NOs banking industry would end up here)
Jackson is trying to pull itself out of a crapper induced by the fall of oil in the 80s and the overmigration of people from the Delta previously to that. It is well known that, Jackson, is one of a few cities in the South, along with New Orleans and Birmingham, where it's real easy to start up your gang enterprises if you want to. Many of the crooks in New Orleans have family in Jackson (not to mention Mobile) and if the city is not rebuilt, they'll be migrating this way. Granted, how many will return is a good question, but, another question is, how many still reside in metropolitan New Orleans. I just came back from New Orleans a few days ago, and traffic on 10 was as busy as ever, gets even worse when you try to cross Lake Ponchartrain to leave the city, as that damn bridge is now a one lane on either side affair, and the backup to get on it is even worse. It took me an hour to travel a mile going eastbound on the part of the Interstate near the Highway 11 exit for the Irish Bayou
New Orleans affects more than just Louisiana, cause it like it's neighbors and fellow victims in Mississippi and my state, were in areas somewhat isolated from the rest of their states, and in many ways, more culturally in-tune with each other than their states.
It would be a bad thing for the South to just let New Orleans die, and we shouldn't, especially when we have a golden oppurtunity. New Orleans has long been the South's symbol of urban decay since the days that Dutch took over the city. We now have a chance to rebuild it into something like a larger version of Mobile, and if we dare, maybe even a larger version of Charleston, there will certainly be enough historic buildings for that.
It would be a powerful sign to the rest of the world if we did rebuild it better because it would show the world that theres really nothing that will stop America from doing what it wants to do. It would enhance our prestige (and to be blunt, save our Mardi Gras from becoming a tourist trap)
I understand your point. In my opinion though, if surrounding communities have to go through growing pains then so be it. It is much better to adjust and deal with the population and the growth it demands now and be done with the problem for good than deal with it at some unforeseen point in the future. In the future the problem will have not gone away and the magnitude will have grown after the population has increased. Not to mention the pumping of never ending tax payer dollars into the money pit called the New Orleans levee's. As a nation we hav propped up New Orlean's for over 2 centuries with a never ending supply of money and engineers to solve a problem which we need to admit will never go away and will only get worse. It is time draw a line in the delta mud and stop putting lipstick on a pig.
>>
It would be a powerful sign to the rest of the world if we did rebuild it . . .
<<
we?
Good God. We are supposed to pay for this thing because you don't want Mardi Gras kids going to your town? Geez.
Yeah, that'll convince people. /sarcasm
Your general underlying premise appears to be that people who happen to serve in the government are entitled to take my money from me by force, because they're better judges of how to spend my money than I am. I think the massive corruption of the New Orleans government alone is enough to rebut that argument. In addition, your premise is morally wrong. No one is entitled to take my money from me without my consent. The govt may have the power to do so, but it doesn't have the right.
Specifically, you're telling me that I'll benefit from the rebuilding of New Orleans, a conclusion with which I respectfully disagree. In addition, you tell me that I'm obligated to help relieve the citizens of New Orleans, Baton Rouge and other coastal cities of the hardships they've incurred as a result of their decision to live in a hurricane-prone area. I respectfully disagree with this assumption as well. The people of whom you speak are adults. They're responsible for the decisions they make, just as I'm responsible for mine.
I submit to you that if we subsidize irresponsibility and corruption, which is exactly what we're doing by paying for the repair of a city built below sea level, we will encourage that behavior, and the entire cycle will repeat itself. If we refuse to do so, and the people there have to pay for their own rebuilding effort, they'll likely make different decisions about whether to rebuild, relocate, etc., and will benefit in the long run by making decisions that are wiser than the ones they made originally. Far fewer people will choose to live in a city built below sea level and right in the path of catastrophic hurricanes. When people know they'll reap the consequences of their decisions, they'll almost always make much smarter ones.
This may seem harsh to you, but in fact it's a much kinder philosophy than the one on which your argument is based. Forcing people to subsidize irresponsibility and corruption is not kind. Nor is treating adults like children, robbing them of their dignity and adult decision-making capability by cocooning them in a cradle made of other people's money.
I'm a big advocate of voluntarily giving money to any cause that an individual deems worthy. My objection is to being forced to pay for (in this case) a rebuilding project that I think is a bad idea on both moral and practical grounds.
What do you think of this?
If you think Mobile has it good, come down I-10 a little further to Houston. The Houston area has hundreds of thousands of grateful, happy and loveable "Evacuees". They are extremely hard working and are not causing any large increases in the crime rate. They are not having "gang fights" in our schools and make very fine scholars.
If you would like to share in this bounty, please call Mayor Bill White of Houston, Texas and I'm sure he will fill up the Sunset Limited passenger Train with some of these delightful people and ship them your way so that the fine Citizens of Mobile can enjoy even more of the Big Easy charms.