I read an interesting guest article over on Ornery, On Whether to Abandon New Orleans . Now for my part, I'm all for giving all the individuals that suffered from the flood a reasonable amount of assistance and letting them spend it how they may. If they want to stick in and rebuild in the same place, then that's no skin off my nose.

But the author of the essay offered a very interesting argument. I didn't find it persuasive, for reasons I'll explain, but here is the core in case you don't want to read the whole thing (which is mostly a depressing litany about just what a horrible place New Orleans was before all the zombies...er, the flood).

quote:

---

You've needed us when escape from your mundane world was the only thing that would keep you sane and healthy. When you needed to be transported to some otherworldly place where time is slow, meals are savored, music is breath, is life. We have been your spiritual succor for so long, longer than most of the country has existed.

Without us, there is no America. The Mississippi river made this country great, opened up access to vast stretches of the interior, allowed America to grow, and to prosper. We are the Mississippi. Everything that enters the river from abroad, or leaves it for the international waters beyond, passes through our port, or the ports of our sister communities downriver. Our music, jazz and blues, is the very cornerstone of all that is original in American music. Our cuisine has fed your presidents, your senators, your captains of industry. We are the salt that has given this country flavor. We are the mistress that America cannot admit out loud that it loves.

You need us. To be America, the real America, you need us. To have the culture that you have, we have to have been there from the start.

---

quote:

---

Everything that enters the river from abroad, or leaves it for the international waters beyond, passes through our port, or the ports of our sister communities downriver.

---

You want a compelling argument to rebuild? Then tell me how you're going to pay me back for this rebuilding. Because make no mistake, the taxpayers of this nation are going to pay for this. Rich insurance companies certainly wouldn't want to dole out what they promised to, not when they gambled and lost. It's frankly dishonorable, if that means anything anymore. (Insurance companies make me mad, but that is a topic for another time and place.)

So tell me how New Orleans is going to be so profitable that over the next ten, twenty, even thirty years the residents and businesses there are going to be able to repay the country for rebuilding the city. Tell me how you're going to make levies and other protections strong enough to save a city below sea level from being destroyed again.

<shrugs> Anyway, maybe you can come up with something else to compel me, but this isn't it.

Here's my two cents:

First of all, understand that New Orleans was a cultural center and that many people love it and call it home. I too would be devastated were my home destroyed and I would long for things to be the way they once were. However, I do not think it would be a good idea to rebuild New Orleans, not where it was anyhow. It was not built in the best of places in the first place (not that the people who first built it could have known that). It's in a spot that has a known annual hurricane risk. They can rebuild the city, but to what end? So that another hurricane can come along and destroy it again? You know that it will happen again. It's only a matter of time.

I know I probably sound unsympathetic right now, but I'm trying to look at the situation from a logical point of view (which is why that argument at the top of this page did not persuade me--it was too much of an emotional appeal). I think that if they want to rebuild it so badly (though it will undoubtedly cost taxpayers dearly) they need to build it elsewhere--further inland or something like that. No levies, no barricades, nothing's going to stop another hurricane like Katrina. There's not much we can do to stop them--except to build inland. So if they really want to rebuild New Orleans, let them build it elsewhere.

In fact, I think it can be argued that New York and its buroughs are the spiritual center of this country and a far better symbol of what America is (still not complimentary though ...).

Or perhaps you could use Salt Lake City, home of a religion that was grown here in America -- in spite of persecution so intense Constitutional rights were ignored on several occasions -- and has become a worldwide organization.

Really, you could point to any town in this country, big or small, and say, "That's America."

As for rebuilding, I think the reason why some people are so fixed on it is because they just want things to be the way they were before Katrina hit. They're still reeling from the shock. But even if the levees are fixed or, better yet, replaced by dykes, New Orleans is never going to be the same. Personally, I think that's a good thing. It sounds like New Orleans was starting to get stagnant.

Don't get me wrong. I get a little sad when I think New Orleans may never be as big or "easy" as it once was (kind of like Galvaston after the 1900 hurricane). But it's not like after 9/11 when I kept looking at the pictures my husband took during his trip to New Jersey -- him and his brother standing on one of the islands out there, the World Trade Center commanding the background skyline. For a few days, I wanted NYC to rebuild, if only to have that skyline back.

Now that the magnitude of what occurred has sunk in, I know that no amount of rebuilding is going to change what happened. So, just like New Orleans, I really don't care what the people there do. I'll only get upset if no one wants it rebuilt, but the government tries anyway.

Sorry for the long post.

My own thought is that if the federal government shells out to rebuild the place, there is no way that anyone would accept it retaining the "charming" character lauded as a reason for rebuilding it. Nor is there any chance that you're going to get that feeling anyway, in a city that has been forced to rebuild. The entire argument focuses on the easy pace and historical flavor of New Orleans, and I don't believe you could just rebuild something like that, even if you thought it desireable.

It's true, the argument correspondingly fails to say anything that dictates that New Orleans has to be rebuilt on the same location, which is what is being debated.

But my question is more hypothetical. Assuming that there was some magical voodoo about the site itself, such that only by rebuilding in exactly the same place would you get this quality back, and that this voodoo would be strong enough to grant the identical "charms" to a new city rebuilt on the same location, and that you want a city with that special charm (no good answering if you're sad about the people who died but really quite happy the city was destroyed by an act of God), would this argument be sufficient for you to consider rebuilding New Orleans worth the money?

No, that'd be Wall Street. Of which fact the 20% below the poverty line from New Orleans could attest.

I doubt there are many practical reasons for rebuilding; though, the political rallying point will undoubtedly fuel speculative investing--and money to be made will be reason enough for many. Perhaps there's a worthwhile social experiment here: not just the rejuvenation of a depressed and decadent city, but since we seem to love building in enviromentally sensitive (and dangerous) areas, I suppose we need to figure out how to do it right. Not that this will actually lead to either of those things (idealism, apparently, isn't practical either), or that there aren't better areas to concentrate our efforts on (South Florida and Manhattan come to mind as better candidates), but if we're going to go down this path (it seems we will), why not get the most out of it.

No answers here...just musing.

quote:

---

Good morning America how are ya
Say don't you know me I'm your native son
I'm a train they call the City of New Orleans
I'll be gone five hundred miles when the day is done

---

Sentimentallity may seem like an illogical and impractical reason for rebuilding, but it is still part of what makes us human (well, most of us ).

Should New Orleans be rebuilt as the Big Easy...I don't know. Is a city only a collection of buildings and streets and population numbers? Or is the city the people? The dynamic? The interactions?

If the people of New Orleans rebuild their city will it be the same as it always was? Probably not. Why not? Because the people who are the city are no longer the same. They have lost a certain amount of the naiveté they had. Like Prince Hal who had to lose his father before he could grow up and become King Henry V.

"What should be rebuilt?" The question might be better asked, "What can be rebuilt?"

I don't know if you can restore naiveté once it has been lost.

From a practical standpoint, one must consider: What's the worst that could happen, and could the worst happen more than once? Obviously, building a town below sealevel on the edge of the ocean creates problems. I would suggest it be demanded from the governmental agencies in charge of such things to rebuild the levees so they can withstand another major blow like Katrina.

quote:

---

I would suggest it be demanded from the governmental agencies in charge of such things to rebuild the levees so they can withstand another major blow like Katrina.

---

You can't. Any scientist or engineer not lost in human arrogance will tell you that. It is a losing proposition. There are several reasons that I know of and probably more that I do not know:

1) engineers extrapolate from known conditions (ie the past), and that's ok when there's a straight-line relationship, but with the uncertainties and failures of models due to the changes of global warming, simple extrapolation doesn't work

2) relative sea levels in that area are rising

3) the uncertainty of the changing climate invalidates the hurricane prediction models. the scientists cannot provide realistic input to the engineer's black-box equations and unthinking kee-jerk reaction methods.

I also thought that what got the worst flooding and needs the most rebuilding was the poor district (aka "slum"?).

How will it be repaid? The consumption of rebuilding will be an economic engine that stimulates the whole economy. Much like war is good for the economy. When you can be productive without supply creeping up on demand, it creates an economic engine. I don't think that is a good reason to go to war, but it is why the rich allow war to happen before they have exhausted their resources to stop it.

I live in a stupid place. I live on a faulth line between moutains full of reservoirs and a desert full of chemical weapons, industrial waste, and possibly nuclear waste containment facilities. I personally wouldn't demand a rebuild here, but I know 50% of the population consider this a sacred site.

Oh, and by the time I finished replying, I forgot to ask... what does this have to do with writing?

It has to do with thinking, and thinking is the crafty application of thought to paper.

mike

Rebuilding will happen, whether it should or should not, with and without emotion. The emotional appeal Survivor posted for us is only to be expected. But it is unnecessary.

People who own the land and lost houses can't just pick up and move on unless they are filthy rich. They are invested in the land, and will do what they can to get the insurance money. And they will get some help, and they will rebuild. After all, who will buy from them? They may not want to go back, but unless they were renters that is not a viable option. Landlords and tenant owners will return. Gulf shore oil and other businesses need the infrastructure back.

The opportunity is of course to do it better - to build houses/buildings designed for the area, to build levees to the best of our abilities (make them better than the worst reports recommend, and find other solutions to offset what mikemunsil mentioned and know that it can never be perfect), to change and progress to the extent allowed. The locals are actually excited to rebuild the schools. As Corky mentioned, not all of New Orleans was flooded - about 20% (I think) stayed dry, and the rest experienced a variety of levels of damage.

And franc li made a great point about rebuilding being like war, in the economic engine that will evolve from the disaster. It will be interesting to see if the fears of illegal immigrant labor come to pass, and that people from the area may not get needed jobs. I understand why they lifted the federal wage controls for rebuilding, but I suspect it will lead to many problems as well.

Other than the rebuilding generating income, and the return of the New Orleans economy, repayment won't happen. To the extent that the government can and should help (a topic of controversy to be sure), some of the rebuilding will be paid by the taxpayers of the U.S. That actually brings me comfort. Because if and when a disaster of this proportion hits my area (or yours!), I'd like to think the government would help us too. It's like insurance. You pay for it, you hope to never need it, but it sure is a good thing to have when you need it.

We are responsible to protect ourselves - savings, insurance, foresight... Insurance companies are responsible to have the money to do as they promised when it is needed... Government is responsible to protect to the extent possible (and we all know by now how money was cut from budgets that would have strengthened the levees - for whatever reasons - and that those in the know KNEW that the levees would not withstand a Katrina-force storm), and help in times of disaster. Unless we pass laws to make that impossible. But we won't, because you never know when it will be YOUR turn to flee.

Okay, goods on the table. I didn't particularly care whether or not New Orleans got rebuilt before I read that essay. But after having read it, I now want New Orleans to be rebuilt at the greatest possible cost and inconvienence.

Why?

So it can get destroyed by a hurricane again.

Now, that may be a little hard to explain in the context of what I'm asking all of you. But the key point is that the emotional appeal did touch me. I feel a desire to see New Orleans destroyed (even if it has to be rebuilt first). Probably none of you are quite like me in that respect, which is good for you. So I'm asking whether this argument, and not any speculations about landowners or civil/social engineering or stimulation of the economy, has affected anyone else. I don't mean only those who read that essay and came to a new understanding about what New Orleans means, those who already felt this way about it are welcome to respond.

New Orleans is not alone. San Francisco would be rebuilt, and it's on a major fault. Seattle would be rebuilt, and it's in a volcano basin. How many towns are on the Mississippi and vulnerable to seasonal flooding?

If a natural disaster destroyed your city, you could choose to stay or go. Rebuild here or go elsewhere. But it's your choice, not the taxpayers.

In the final analysis, we don't get to decide whether or not N.O. gets rebuilt or how it's rebuilt, no matter how many tax dollars go to rebuild it. Only the people who lived there do.

quote:

---

Seattle would be rebuilt, and it's in a volcano basin.

---

And as far as New Orleans goes... If you'll be happy to see it destroyed again, then rest assured that it will. Maybe not soon, but it is inevitable, IMO.

New Orleans is/was/always will be a victim of the very levees that protect it from the surrounding waters. It's the levees that prevent the natural buildup of sediment that offsets the natural packing of the ground; thus NO sinks. Remember, it wasn't the hurricane that wiped NO, it was the subsequent flooding.

And it will get rebuilt on the same location - it's already happening. I'm assuming that there will be some shoring up of levees, and/or other hideously expensive mitigation attempts. Eventually, there will be another catastrophic failure. Maybe not for a very long time, but as we've learned the hard way over and over, Murphy is right. And Murphy loves worst-case scenarios.

Did the argument in the original post appeal to me? Nope. I think his argument is inaccurate and egotistical at best. A number of cities feel that they are the "spiritual center" of the U.S; I think none of them are, and outright claims of such borders on offensive to the rest of us. If NO gets rebuilt, it shouldn't be because some guy (or even the whole of the NO or U.S. poplulation) thinks it's the spiritual center of the U.S. (and even if it were so, that's not enough of an argument for me).

The thing is, the Mormons already left one and are planning to leave the other. So I don't see a mystical preoccupation with place as such there.

However, Mormons do build temples, which are pretty expensive and serve a fairly archane spiritual purpose.