T Nation

Abandon Ship (New Orleans)

While Gustav sparks this public post, my thoughts were mixed about it a couple years ago.

The meteorological experts say there is a cyclical pattern to the increases and decreases of hurricane activity in the Gulf/Caribbean area.

That being said, after reading this - http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/781431.html -
and seeing that hurricane activity like the 05’ hurricane season will be more and more common for the next 10-40 years… is there a point to rebuilding a city so vulnerable like New Orleans over and over again?

I mean, I understand the magnitude of saying, sorry, you can’t live in this place anymore where many have placed their roots. But with billions of dollars being spent to get everyone back on their feet to simply have it happen a few years later and perhaps sooner and sooner? With 1,836 lives lost, 705 people still missing, over 100$billion dollars of damage, and over 400,000 jobs lost due to financial crisis… do we really need to be put through that again?

Edit: thank Neuromancer for his grade A proofreading skills

It’s ‘abandon’ and ‘Gustav’…and ‘meteorological experts’.

Please,try a bit harder.If something is worth saying,it’s worth saying properly,don’t you think?

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It’s ‘abandon’ and ‘Gustav’…and ‘meteorological experts’.

Please,try a bit harder.If something is worth saying,it’s worth saying properly,don’t you think?[/quote]

I partly agree.

I wrote it, skimmed it, and posted it. I don’t really care if a few grammar/spelling mistakes pop up. I’m not writing to get critiqued, nor am I writing for CNN.com
You read it, understood it, and all you can do is point out a few mistakes in my writing? I am throughly impressed that you are SO SO SMART!

or in the words of Al Pacino…

“Oh, what a big man you are, hey let me buy you a pack of gum, I’ll show you how to chew it.”

It has nothing to do with impressing you.It has more to do with what value you place on what you have to say.

I agree,I’m feeling pedantic.Look at it this way:why should anyone respect or take note of what you have to say,if you don’t take it seriously enough to state it properly?

Anyhow,my apologies for the mini hijack.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It’s ‘abandon’ and ‘Gustav’…and ‘meteorological experts’.

Please,try a bit harder.If something is worth saying,it’s worth saying properly,don’t you think?[/quote]

so what if his fucking spelling is wrong and he said meteorologist experts instead of “meteorological experts” you knew what he was talking about didn’t you? kills me when someone directs attention away from the topic to stupid spelling and technical errors. i understand that good grammar and spelling makes you seem less ignorant but it’s not as though he spelled every single word wrong. just a few words were misspelled and one happened to be in the subject title, he’s human so chill the fuck out.

i use lower case letters at the beginning of every sentence and sometimes don’t use paragraphs, get over it. with that said, if you aren’t going to join into the topic with an opinion about it, then don’t respond at all. but if you insist on responding, try a bit harder staying focused on what the discussion is about.

anyway, my opinion of this is, yes it’s worth it. many people call that place home even after everything. personally i would have left long before Katrina had struck and stayed gone after knowing that my house and life are gone. but thats just me. i had read that the levees are only good enough for a category 3 storm, if thats true then all i can say is obviously the powers that be want that city completely destroyed someday. money pinching, poltitics, power, rules/policies are more important than being human.

If people and companies want to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to build below sea level in hurricane-prone area with a truly massive river flowing through it, that’s their right, no doubt.

The idea that they have a right to other people’s tax dollars to subsidize their wishes to build below sea level, however, I cannot agree with.

heres a little food for thought.

I met a man when i was working for pepsi as a fleet mechanic.
he was a new guy and frankly he was a nice guy but as far as working on the trucks he was an idiot.

well one day we were out after work and he was bragging to the rest of us,how katrina was the the single best thing that happened to him

he was in his late 30s,has been unemployed for going on 7 years,was homeless and a drunk.
well the government after katrina gave him a newly built 300k dollar home in az that is his,and he does not pay anything but the taxes on.
he was also givin a job that pays great and he hasnt a clue how to do the job. he was told becuase he was “displaced” that he basicly had preference over anything he wanted within reason that is.
they also gave him enough money to live on for a length of time and moved his family out here with him.
I havent seen or spoke to this guy for a while so I dont know what happened next
but it stands to reason he is not the only one “displaced” and taking advantage of things the way he did.

Have you noticed that most Scientist and Engineers stay away from this argument?

They know that in the case of New Orleans, levees, dams and locks are yet another case of man’s historical arrogance against nature.

I get these images of Stewie from the “The Family Guy” standing on some Levee in New Orleans saying:

DAMN you Atlantic Ocean and Gustav; me and my levees will DEFEAT 'chu!!!”

It simply is a city, geographically speaking, that should have never existed, except as a sandbar at the bottom of the Gulf.

Sorry.

Mufasa

I, too, question the practicality of repopulating a major city that will potentially need to be completely evacuated every year. Unless we can make it hurricane proof, which I’m not sure is financially possible with our current spending commitments, New Orleans may need to cease existence in it’s current state.

i do remember there was word not long after Katrina hit that they were thinking of relocating the city little bit north from it’s current location. i don’t remember how far north and haven’t heard much about it. i imagine the residents and powers that be didn’t like that idea to much.

Well, I was watching a CNN.com video clip and an army Major told CNN that the city protection at it’s current state could handle a strong category 2 hurricane. He also mentioned that because of financial reasons, (i think man-power/time as well) that the city at this point in time could not withstand a more powerful hurricane.

My inference was that, because of certain commitments (War), the government does not have the money to make New Orleans level 3-4(5?) hurricane proof.

[quote]ShaneM686 wrote:
Well, I was watching a CNN.com video clip and an army Major told CNN that the city protection at it’s current state could handle a strong category 2 hurricane. He also mentioned that because of financial reasons, (i think man-power/time as well) that the city at this point in time could not withstand a more powerful hurricane.

My inference was that, because of certain commitments (War), the government does not have the money to make New Orleans level 3-4(5?) hurricane proof.[/quote]

No amount of money can make a city built 12 feet below sea level hurricane proof.

NOLA has been on borrowed time for a couple of centuries.

But blame the war, global warming, and…wait…here’s a thought - maybe we should blame Bush, as well.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If people and companies want to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to build below sea level in hurricane-prone area with a truly massive river flowing through it, that’s their right, no doubt.

The idea that they have a right to other people’s tax dollars to subsidize their wishes to build below sea level, however, I cannot agree with.[/quote]

I’m gonna be very disappointed when you finally say something I profoundly disagree with.

I’ve been saying this for years. Not just about this, but flood prone areas, tornado alley and gasp SoCal and it’s eventual destruction by catastrophic earthquake which could dwarf every other disaster combined.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ShaneM686 wrote:
Well, I was watching a CNN.com video clip and an army Major told CNN that the city protection at it’s current state could handle a strong category 2 hurricane. He also mentioned that because of financial reasons, (i think man-power/time as well) that the city at this point in time could not withstand a more powerful hurricane.

My inference was that, because of certain commitments (War), the government does not have the money to make New Orleans level 3-4(5?) hurricane proof.

No amount of money can make a city built 12 feet below sea level hurricane proof.

NOLA has been on borrowed time for a couple of centuries.

But blame the war, global warming, and…wait…here’s a thought - maybe we should blame Bush, as well.

[/quote]

Absolute hurricane proof, impossible, I agree with your statement. Nature wins easily with our current technology in a place like N.O. Another category 4-5 is obviously going to hit N.O. sometime in the near future.

Federal aid is being spent there, should we continue giving money to, in my humble opinion, a lost cause?

I think people are touchy about it now, but wait 15 years down the road and see N.O. destroyed a few more times… and then perhaps people will see no point in moving back.

While I get your irony or w/e of placing blame else where… not on a city built 12 ft below sea level. War does tax resources and global warming does have an effect on the weather, and I thought the general consensus was that it also contributes to more destructive weather(although I will not argue this point, since I don’t know much about it) but that could be just the biased shit I hear in the news.
As for Bush, it was epic failure on all levels of the government that caused Katrina to be worse than it had to be.

I’ve been no fan of Dubya; but I am also not one to blame him for the Katrina aftermath.

Have any of you tried to get a SIMPLE response from a Federal Agency on a problem you are having?

FIMA was (and probably still is) set up to respond to a crises like…well like a Federal bureaucracy.

There is no way in Hell that I think that the preparedness of NOLA now is because of any fundamental change in FIMA; it’s because of Governor Jindal and the Governor’s of Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

Mufasa

[quote]ShaneM686 wrote:

My inference was that, because of certain commitments (War), the government does not have the money to make New Orleans level 3-4(5?) hurricane proof.[/quote]

ABC news tonight said that of the 12 billion dollars allocated for rebuilding the levees, only 3 billion has been spent. The money is there.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’ve been no fan of Dubya; but I am also not one to blame him for the Katrina aftermath.

Have any of you tried to get a SIMPLE response from a Federal Agency on a problem you are having?

FIMA was (and probably still is) set up to respond to a crises like…well like a Federal bureaucracy.

There is no way in Hell that I think that the preparedness of NOLA now is because of any fundamental change in FIMA; it’s because of Governor Jindal and the Governor’s of Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

Mufasa[/quote]

YEP.

It was the fact that it IS a federal bureaucracy that made it the very last way anybody who gives a damn would like to see a natural disaster dealt with. When will we ever learn the lesson that government bureaucracies should have the power and the money to perform only a few broad foundational functions like ours once did?

This whole mindset just kills me. The debate is always about how to make these programs work better instead of even considering whether they should exist at all.

[quote]doogie wrote:
ShaneM686 wrote:

My inference was that, because of certain commitments (War), the government does not have the money to make New Orleans level 3-4(5?) hurricane proof.

ABC news tonight said that of the 12 billion dollars allocated for rebuilding the levees, only 3 billion has been spent. The money is there.[/quote]

My original statement included man power, as the Army Major stated.

No idea if he is correct, but it seems like the Army Major in charge of the engineering would have a decent understanding of what is going on.

Like I said too, I don’t blame Bush, but was he calling anyone putting pressure on people to do something?
I do not know… but it seems like with the executive branch being as powerful as it is in the current fluctuation of power in the 3 branches of government, he could have done a better job.

I’m not saying it is solely his fault at all, just saying, he rightly deserves SOME of the blame.

As you had written, “… an army Major told CNN that the city protection at it’s current state could handle a strong category 2 hurricane. He also mentioned that because of financial reasons, (i think man-power/time as well) that the city at this point in time could not withstand a more powerful hurricane” it was fairly natural to think you were saying that lack of money was a cause or even the main cause.

By the way, do you think it was Bush’s job to order Nagin to get those school buses going? Was it his job to order the city to get its act together before the hurricane? Was he supposed to fly in the United States Air Force and bring in the US Army to evacuate people? What should he have done pre-and-during hurricane that he did not? Specifically?

Surely there was no problem of not handing out enough money afterwards??

Funny how there was no such whining in Kansas, where the Federal government did no more with regard to the flooding (and should not have.)

It’s the responsibily of cities, counties, and states to be prepared for hurricanes, flooding, etc and it is their responsibility to be both able to recover from them and to actually do it. However, there’s a part of the spectrum where the concept of responsibility is utterly denied and who have it that the Federal Government is supposed to do everything that in fact is their own responsibility.

The people in Kansas did not fall within that part of the political spectrum. The people in New Orleans not only fall within it – speaking of aggregate behavior, not every single individual – but they are the very definition of it. I speak of course only of the whiners and the victim-mentality set, not those that have chosen to be responsible for themselves, of which there many, also.