Hastert: Rebuilding below sea level senseless

AP via WWLTV ^ | 09/01/2005 | AP

[zencat]

It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.

"It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed," the Illinois Republican said in an interview Wednesday with The Daily Herald of Arlington, Ill.

[logician2u]

. . a crime against civilization.

Spoken just like a true liberal.

[inquest]

to not rebuild it would be a stab in the back to the American spirit

The American spirit isn't defined by begging the federal government for handouts. If the people of New Orleans want it rebuilt bad enough, it will get rebuilt.

[GonzoGOP]

Put Chicago on that list Denny. Well Chicago did have some problems with flooding. Of course that is why Lower Wacker drive is 20' below the level of Wacker Drive. At one time there was only one Wacker drive, but they filled in the area along the Chicago river with 20+ foot of land fill (I think it was the wreckage from the fire, but that may have been used for what is now Grant Park) so that it wouldn't flood. He didn't say we wouldn't rebuild New Orleans. Just not 7' below sea level. Its time to dredge up a few million tons of sand and good old Mississippi mud off the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and and build Mount Katerina. Then plop New "And Improved" Orleans right on top of it.

[Schwaeky]

what? are you wanting to rebuild near Breaux Bridge????

Boudreaux and Thibodeaux might get upset with all the jigs coming that way...

[Schwaeky]

yeah doesn't the levees along the Trinity river pose the same hurricane risk to Houston that the Mississippi does with NO....

[Alberta's Child]

Here's a list of three reasons why New Orleans will probably not be rebuilt in any way that remotely resembles what it was before this hurricane. You may have your sentimental reasons for wanting to rebuild the city, but you'd have to admit that these are all based on a very objective assessment of the situation there.

1. If you could start all over again, you wouldn't build New Orleans where it is located right now -- mainly because the terrain has changed so much over the years (it's been sinking continuously) that the city no longer has the "advantage of place" that made it a viable area to settle 200+ years ago.

2. Point #1 could apply to a lot of places (someone mentioned places like San Francisco, Anchorage, etc. in this regard), but from a practical standpoint it never makes sense to just get everybody out of a city, destroy the buildings, and start all over again everywhere else. In this case, however, these basic practical obstacles to shutting down an entire city are not a concern. The city already has been evacuated, and at least 80% of the buildings already have been destroyed or so severely damaged that the cost of repairing them won't be much less than the cost of replacing them. The most sobering aspect of this disaster is that for the first time in U.S. history, it was deemed necessary to fully evacuate a metropolitan area of 1.4 million people. Just think about that and realize the implications of this unprecedented measure.

3. From a political standpoint, I don't think anyone who looks at the situation objectively would even want to see New Orleans rebuilt. This is mainly because from this point forward it could only function as a massive public works project that turns into a city in which the government owns 100% of the land. Just think about it for a moment . . . the most far-reaching implication of this disaster is that land titles in a city below sea level are basically worthless. This means that no prudent investor will ever buy a piece of property -- and no bank will ever extend a mortgage without extensive government guarantees -- in a rebuilt New Orleans.

[Schwaeky]

and i still want BOTH rebuilt (the towers and NOLA)...

[Doe Eyes]

What he says makes sense. I think it will be political suicide for the R's, however to push this point.

I saw the results of the last election, and it was mostly Red (about 90%). 90% of America should be calling the shots.

[kabar]

If it is to be done, let it be done with private funding for investors who can afford to take the risk. As as taxpayer, I don't think it's worth the money.

As a taxpayer, I think it is well-worth the money.

[Chgogal]

Hey, we're NOT below sea level but we are in the Blue category. :(

Not all of us are perfect, ya know. ;)

[independentmind]

Of course this is only my opinion, but the best way to describe what you propose is throwing good money after bad. Leaving alone the possibility of another catastrophic hurricane on the Gulf Coast, I have ZERO confidence that elected officials in Louisiana would handle a rebuilt city any better than they have handled the current one.

[Pylot]

I am not anti rebuild.

I just don't think that I should have to pay for it.

Let the citizens of the area, and industry, and business, pay for the rebuilding.

[af_vet_rr]

its one of our cities, and a national treasure, to not rebuild it would be a stab in the back to the American spirit

The 1948 Hurricane

Hurricane Betsy. 1965

Hurricane Camille. 1969

Hurricane Georges. 1998

Hurricane Katrina. 2005.

What is the price in American lives and the suffering of American citizens, that it would take for you to change your mind?

This is an honest question. It's not a troll. It's not meant to be harassing.

You don't even have to give a number, a simple "a lot" or "a lot more" would suffice.

[LibertarianLiz]

I'm kinda with you on this one (though, New Orleans is a disaster waiting to happen).

People are always going on about why they should pay ... yadda, yadda, yadda.

I may feel this way about NOs, or any of a number of other examples, but I'm sure that some people in New Orleans might wonder why I would live (Seattle area) in a place that is directly over a major fault line surrounded by live volcanoes. I dunno, we like it.

Why do people live in "torando alley" in Oklahoma; or the severe winters in the upper portion of the U.S. The extreme heat of the Southwest or Nevada. The earthquake zone that is California?

No matter where you go, Mother Nature (in some form) is trying to kill you.

I can't see us losing a city like New Orleans; but, I have to say that those voicing the opinion that it should be moved to higher ground may have a valid point.

[af_vet_rr]

I have ZERO confidence that elected officials in Louisiana would handle a rebuilt city any better than they have handled the current one.

Knowing Louisian the way I do, I have FULL confidence that quite a bit of the rebuilding money will end up in somebody's pockets (and it won't be people working on levees, pumps, dams, etc.).

I also have FULL confidence that corners will be cut, and that they will do the absolute minimum they can do and still get away with it.

Camille wasn't enough of a wake-up call. Georges, a Cat 2 hurricane that was a "near miss" pushed the water within a few feet of the top of the levees just seven years ago.

I have no doubt it will be rebuilt, no matter how many thousands turn up dead this time around. Politicians have ignored the warning signs for years, they've ignored the past natural disasters in that area, they've ignored the US Geological Survey's study five years ago, no reason to think things will change.

[Nephi]

Amen, brother.

[willyboyishere]

I lived in Chicago all my life until 1982, when we moved to Arizona. While Chicago's South Side may be below "sea level"
(I admit I never knew this fact), still, to my knowledge, Lake Michigan has never been subject to hurricanes, tornadoes, or anything of the sort, anaything that could destroy the city the way Katrina, the Mississippi, and Lake Pontchartrain conspired to destroy New Orleans. Just frozen water, and "lake effect"---during the horrible winter of 1979, we were living in an apartment building literally 100 feet from a tiny inlet of Lake Michigan. So I can't understand
your remarks. Hastert's remarks may deserve a "Duh" prize for obviousness, but the city's rebuilding and re-organization geographically will require an unprecedented level of risk and creativity.

[af_vet_rr]

Admin, please delete my comment #253.

Schwaeky, I asked you a question that you can't possibly answer, and I apologize. No matter if you said it would take 5000 dead Americans or 50,000 dead Americans before you would reconsider your desire to see New Orleans rebuilt, you would come across as cold-hearted, selfish, etc., and somebody would flame you (not me, but I'm sure somebody would).

Again, my apologies.

I'm very passionate about this subject, because after the Camille cleanup, I really only had one conversation with my father about it. He broke down in tears talking about finding a mother and two of her children tied to her in a tree, several feet off of the ground, after their bodies had been there for several days. This was a man who flew dozens of combat missions in WWII, and who would tell me about various members of his crew who had been killed. I had never, ever, in my life, seen him cry until that moment. Even then, the only other time I've ever seen him cry was because of the death of my grandfather. It left a very lasting impression on me.

[kabar]

Leaving alone the possibility of another catastrophic hurricane on the Gulf Coast, I have ZERO confidence that elected officials in Louisiana would handle a rebuilt city any better than they have handled the current one.

LOL. If that is your criterion, then most of the major cities in the US should be razed and never rebuilt.

[noblejones]

>>
if the GOP chooses to abandon one of the few charming cities in this country to mother nature and leave its citizens hanging, I, as conservative as I am, will leave the GOP.
<<

Louisiana has been a democrat stronghold since 1803. What has the GOP got to do with New Orleans' greed and idiocy? Dirt levees? What child thought that up? Democrats did nothing to stave off disaster, but had plenty of cash for vote buying. And it's the GOP's fault?

B'bye, democrat.