You seem focused entirely on the movement of the port activities of New Orleans. Right now, that's not where the problem is. The problem is with those who are stuck with property that is worthless as it now stands but might have revitalization value if given the time to do so. They need help getting out of worthless mortgages in order to rebuild their lives. This is a real-world problem that they have been forced to live with day in and day out for five months now. Lets help them in solving this real-world problem first, then worry about where the next port will be. The plan being proposed is a loan to an agency that will buy these properties at 60% of pre-Katrina value and work to make it attractive enough to be resold to redevelopers. It will pay for itself in that regard. The homeowners don't get squat extra. In fact, they lose 40% of their pre-Katrina property valuations. Most of them are currently being screwed by their insurance companies. What they do get is a chance to start over. Right now, due to the slow-moving forces of the system, they are being held in limbo. Let's help them.
My big picture is focused on helping them have the ability to move on with their lives. The location of the port is another issue entirely. I just don't think anyone could convince Americans that it would be worth the moving expenses. That's why I say it isn't going to happen. New Orleans is already in place. You might believe that it's going to sink into the gulf within the next century or so, but not everyone would agree. It might be there another thousand years for all any of us knows. Without this certainty, it doesn't make sense to base decisions one way or another on it's chance of occurring.
I offer my sincere apologies to you if you have felt offended by my remarks concerning whether or not you care about what happens to us here in Louisiana. We should not be arguing this point. Both of us need to join together in an effort to improve our temperments on behalf of all of those along the gulf coast who need help. I'll drop my anger and frustration over what I see as "inaction" if you'll drop your anger and frustration with those requesting it.
And I will say to them what I also say to those on the Mississippi coast. At the most basic level, if they want taxpayer help, it needs to be to move out of harm's way.
For the Misssissippi coast, I am willing to use tax dollars to move people inland. If they wish to rebuild in areas where surge destroyed their properties, no tax dollars should be used for rebuilding.
Likewise, I do not want to hear about rebuilding or redeveloping the 9th Ward. If taxpayer dollars can be used to help property owners extracate themselves from the current situation to safer ground, I'm in favor of that.
But when I see this wrapped up in a plan to redevelop, I have a problem with that. Because redevelopment implies setting up the bowling pins all over again.
I am willing to spend more money to address all the problems that a port on the lower Mississippi faces. And education is a big part of getting others to go along with that. Few Americans understand that the Mississippi in our lifetimes could change course. If that were to happen, this discussion about NOLA becomes moot.
My desire, in a nutshell, is to preserve the historic parts of NOLA, which is a lot more viable then trying to preserve the rest of the city that flooded.
Work to revive the industrial base that got wiped out.
And then develop a plan to move the port upriver in anticipation of a diversion of the Atchafalaya by nature.
That's a ten to fifteen year plan. But it also respects much of what you have said about the importance of a port on the lower Mississippi.
The reason for the current location of NOLA is no longer valid - the need for a portage to Ponchatrain. Instead, the compelling long-term reason to site a port becomes the Atchafalaya. I am willing to support MORE tax dollars being spent to deal with that problem now. That is not the mark of someone who is looking for an excuse not to help Louisiana.