"Rebuilding New Orleans Doesnt Make Sense"

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by aloofman@Sep 3 2005, 01:12 PM
You know he doesn't leave office until January 2009, right?

[post=340487]Quoted post[/post]​

And it's going to be a loooooooooooong 3 years and 4 months. If we all live that long.

 

[dcwrestlefan]

Originally posted by KinkGuy+Sep 4 2005, 05:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KinkGuy &#064; Sep 4 2005, 05:08 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-aloofman@Sep 3 2005, 01:12 PM
You know he doesn&#39;t leave office until January 2009, right?

[post=340487]Quoted post[/post]​

And it&#39;s going to be a loooooooooooong 3 years and 4 months. If we all live that long.

[post=340563]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

To be replaced by something equally awful, until the red states secede. They are in control. And it sucks.

I&#39;m going to change my handle here soon to "BITTEREFFINBASTARD".

 

[BruceSter]

Originally posted by jay_too@Sep 3 2005, 08:33 AM
I don&#39;t think that any engineering company would recommend reproducing Nawlins as it was; they would like to rebuild with a redundant system of safeguards. The Corps of Engineers thought the design protected against Category 3 hurricanes; it is possible to design for Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. This is a question for engineering trade studies: "Does the increased protection justify the cost?" This is a political decision...not party politics but the allocation of scarce resources.

Before the disaster, undertaking the destruction of neighborhoods [particularly the low income areas] was not tenable. These were the areas that were destroyed by winds and water. Surely, if we can spend tens of billions on "improving" traffic flow in Boston, there is justification for rebuilding New Orleans.

On its founding, New Orleans was the first "hump" of ground above sea level that could take ocean going vessels. That was the reason that the site was selected. Today, the French Quarter is still about 3 feet above sea level.

Rebuilding only the port system might not be the complete solution. People like to live near where they work; so I doubt if the daily bussing of people 60 to 100 miles to the port system is tenable. While this is not the complete solution, a billion dollars can bring to NOLA a lot of fill dirt....&#036;10 billion a lot more.

It is time to review and redesign the system of levees that were built fifty years ago to minimize/prevent annual flooding which renewed the wetlands south of New Orleans....otherwise, we may lose NOLA to the sea.

jay

[post=340455]Quoted post[/post]​

Well spoken, Jay. I think the best thing would be leaving the flooded, and future flood-prone areas as business estates, and remove all the residential estates out of it to higher grounds, so next time you won&#39;t have to struggle with the rescue of hundreds of people from their homes, but just with the damage occurring on buildings and wares. That seems to be a standard practice in other countries to handle flood-threatened areas, to restrict the settling there.

Bruce

 

[BruceSter]

I don&#39;t think that any engineering company would recommend reproducing Nawlins as it was; they would like to rebuild with a redundant system of safeguards. The Corps of Engineers thought the design protected against Category 3 hurricanes; it is possible to design for Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. This is a question for engineering trade studies: "Does the increased protection justify the cost?" This is a political decision...not party politics but the allocation of scarce resources.

Before the disaster, undertaking the destruction of neighborhoods [particularly the low income areas] was not tenable. These were the areas that were destroyed by winds and water. Surely, if we can spend tens of billions on "improving" traffic flow in Boston, there is justification for rebuilding New Orleans.

On its founding, New Orleans was the first "hump" of ground above sea level that could take ocean going vessels. That was the reason that the site was selected. Today, the French Quarter is still about 3 feet above sea level.

Rebuilding only the port system might not be the complete solution. People like to live near where they work; so I doubt if the daily bussing of people 60 to 100 miles to the port system is tenable. While this is not the complete solution, a billion dollars can bring to NOLA a lot of fill dirt....&#036;10 billion a lot more.

It is time to review and redesign the system of levees that were built fifty years ago to minimize/prevent annual flooding which renewed the wetlands south of New Orleans....otherwise, we may lose NOLA to the sea.

jay

[post=340455]Quoted post[/post]​

Well spoken, Jay. I think the best thing would be leaving the flooded, and future flood-prone areas as business estates, and remove all the residential estates out of it to higher grounds, so next time you won&#39;t have to struggle with the rescue of hundreds of people from their homes, but just with the damage occurring on buildings and wares. That seems to be a standard practice in other countries to handle flood-threatened areas, to restrict the settling there.

A few last words on politics from me. I admit I&#39;m not a Bush voter, and that I don&#39;t really like him, but that&#39;s no reason for blaming it all on him. It&#39;s pretty obvious that Nagins and Bianco clearly get a big part of the responsibility for the chaos that resulted from Katrina pounding NO - the evacuation was started too late, and was not coordinated with neighboring states. Just giving the "Everyone outta here" hours before the storm arrives and sending all those who didn&#39;t have an opportunity to get out to the football stadium (whose sanitary equipment might be suited to cope with ten thousands, but not during a timespan of days, without working sewage drainage) is no well-planned evacuation. Transportation for those without cars would have had to be provided, and at least one exit road especially for those. Plus, intensive care patients and other sick persons should have been evacuated before, to other hospitals.

Those aren&#39;t the only measurements that should have been taken, but it&#39;s my idea of a start. The power of Katrina was well-known to meteorologists, and I can&#39;t imagine they didn&#39;t warn the officials, but like in a TV catastrophe movie, those procrastinated till the last moment until they pushed the red button. And I don&#39;t mind whether those were Democrats, Republicans or whoever.

Bruce

 

[KinkGuy]

The VERY day (2 days before Katrina hit shore in the Gulf) bush declared a national emergency/disaster area in the states of Miss., Louisiana and Florida, it instantly BECAME a Federal situation, which SHOULD HAVE mobilized the National Guard, Red Cross, regular Military and all the declaration of a "national emergency" entails. Oops.

Give us a week or so, we&#39;ll get it together.

 

[smallman]

Why rebuild?

 

[BruceSter]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@Sep 6 2005, 05:20 PM
The VERY day (2 days before Katrina hit shore in the Gulf) bush declared a national emergency/disaster area in the states of Miss., Louisiana and Florida, it instantly BECAME a Federal situation, which SHOULD HAVE mobilized the National Guard, Red Cross, regular Military and all the declaration of a "national emergency" entails. Oops.

Give us a week or so, we&#39;ll get it together.

[post=341141]Quoted post[/post]​

Okay, he informed federal authorities, but still that doesn&#39;t match the basic idea of an organized, superregionally coordinated emergency plan. An intermediate plan, put up by the officials of the concerned states, could have worked out faster and better instead of taking the longer route through the federal authorities. In the past, various examples proved that this way of approach is a successful one, even if it&#39;s not allowed by the legislation.

We call for less red tape, but calling the next higher-ranking authority and then twiddle thumbs isn&#39;t exactly the idea.

Bruce

 

[lacsap1]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Sep 2 2005, 01:24 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Sep 2 2005, 01:24 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MisterMark@Sep 2 2005, 12:57 AM
Regarding the rebuilding of New Orleans, does technology exist that would be able to hold the water back if another hurricane of this magnitude struck the area?  (poor sentence structure, I know)

[post=339972]Quoted post[/post]​

nope - if the city is below sea level, it really doesn&#39;t stand a chance against anything stronger than category 3, and even that would be pushing its luck.

it didn&#39;t make sense, from a long-term perspective, to site the city there in the first place - but since its inhabitants are now stuck with the location, not rebuilding it at this point in time is probably even less sensible than doing so. either way, the place is fucked, cos sooner or later shit like this happens.

[post=339976]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


As coming from the Netherlands, and you all recall that the Netherlands is below sea level, the toll of the great Dutch disaster of 1953, when half of Netherlands flooding away which about 2000 people died in and around the city of Rotterdam, made us all stronger and positive for the future. The gouvernment in the Netherlands started a very costly & elaborate programme to protect us againts the violent sea and build a mega delta-dyke system against those events, what IS technically possible&#33;&#33; It&#39;s a sort of automatic computersystem containing three barriers of dykes. If the Netherlands is able to accomplish redoing the integrity of their dykes system in a modern effective standard, the United States can do the same thing&#33;?

And remember, rebuilding Rotterdam after the great floods with some extra money, positive energy & good leadership, we made Rotterdam&#39;s harbour World&#39;s Seaport number 1 with plenty of jobs for everyone&#33;&#33;

 

[Latinoboy9]

I know one thing HELP should have been ALOT FASTER&#33;

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by lacsap1+Sep 8 2005, 06:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lacsap1 &#064; Sep 8 2005, 06:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Sep 2 2005, 01:24 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-MisterMark

@Sep 2 2005, 12:57 AM
Regarding the rebuilding of New Orleans, does technology exist that would be able to hold the water back if another hurricane of this magnitude struck the area?  (poor sentence structure, I know)

[post=339972]Quoted post[/post]​

nope - if the city is below sea level, it really doesn&#39;t stand a chance against anything stronger than category 3, and even that would be pushing its luck.

it didn&#39;t make sense, from a long-term perspective, to site the city there in the first place - but since its inhabitants are now stuck with the location, not rebuilding it at this point in time is probably even less sensible than doing so. either way, the place is fucked, cos sooner or later shit like this happens.

[post=339976]Quoted post[/post]​

As coming from the Netherlands, and you all recall that the Netherlands is below sea level, the toll of the great Dutch disaster of 1953, when half of Netherlands flooding away which about 2000 people died in and around the city of Rotterdam, made us all stronger and positive for the future. The gouvernment in the Netherlands started a very costly & elaborate programme to protect us againts the violent sea and build a mega delta-dyke system against those events, what IS technically possible&#33;&#33; It&#39;s a sort of automatic computersystem containing three barriers of dykes. If the Netherlands is able to accomplish redoing the integrity of their dykes system in a modern effective standard, the United States can do the same thing&#33;?

And remember, rebuilding Rotterdam after the great floods with some extra money, positive energy & good leadership, we made Rotterdam&#39;s harbour World&#39;s Seaport number 1 with plenty of jobs for everyone&#33;&#33;

[post=341597]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


yeah but we don&#39;t have as strong an incentive sense if we fail, the entire fucking country won&#39;t slip below the waves.

 

[KinkGuy]

Originally posted by smallman@Sep 8 2005, 06:32 PM
yeah but we don&#39;t have as strong an incentive sense if we fail, the entire fucking country won&#39;t slip below the waves.

[post=341628]Quoted post[/post]​

But mostly, it&#39;s just because some people don&#39;t give a flying fuck about death, destruction and disaster if it doesn&#39;t personally affect the little bubble they live in. If they were too stupid to be rich and live somewhere else, let &#39;em drown.

 

[Shamrock]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Sep 2 2005, 07:35 AM
Why the fuck would we spend potentially billions of dollar here at home when it might detract from a day or two of the war we could be spending it on?

[post=339916]Quoted post[/post]​

Iraq doesn&#39;t cost &#036;51.8 million for a few days.
Read up on the cost of military hardware and intelligence services.

 

[Shamrock]

Originally posted by MisterMark@Sep 2 2005, 07:28 AM
By Patrick Waldron
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, September 01, 2005

Lawmakers have to ask themselves if it’s worth sinking possibly billions of federal dollars into rebuilding New Orleans, a low-lying city which would remain a vulnerable hurricane target even after clean up, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Wednesday.

“It doesn’t make sense to me,” said Hastert during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board. “And it’s a question that certainly we should ask.”

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=89228

[post=339913]Quoted post[/post]​

This is only second hand information, but I have American friends who say
New Orleans is a real shithole and not worth the money. Just what I heard....

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by Shamrock+Sep 9 2005, 07:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shamrock &#064; Sep 9 2005, 07:47 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Sep 2 2005, 07:35 AM
Why the fuck would we spend potentially billions of dollar here at home when it might detract from a day or two of the war we could be spending it on?

[post=339916]Quoted post[/post]​

Iraq doesn&#39;t cost &#036;51.8 million for a few days.
Read up on the cost of military hardware and intelligence services.

[post=341717]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Yeah, I didn&#39;t use exact figures, it was an exaggeration, but I thought the point was obvious.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Worth rebuilding or not ... I guess that&#39;s a matter of opinion. But I take my hat off to NATO for getting in on the relief and rebuilding effort. It&#39;s great to know that even after Dubya has alienated so many nations, they are compassionate enough to help where they can.

 

[Sabln7]

Here is a modest proposal. Rebuild the levees farther in so that the very low parts of New Orleans can be taken over by the lake, the gulf, and river that want it. Protect those areas that are above sea level, Canal Street, the French Quarter. Dig the low areas deeper and increase the acreage of the land above sea level by adding fill dirt from dredging the low areas--fill dirt that will raise some areas of the city so that they can be built upon. Digging the low areas deeper will make the level of the lake lower. Granted, there will not be as much land for building as there was before, but New Orleans would still exist and be safer. Additional growth would have to be beyond the current city limits on safer land. Just a thought. I am not an engineer.

 

[Geekyraccoon]

Originally posted by Shamrock+Sep 9 2005, 03:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shamrock &#064; Sep 9 2005, 03:47 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Sep 2 2005, 07:35 AM
Why the fuck would we spend potentially billions of dollar here at home when it might detract from a day or two of the war we could be spending it on?

[post=339916]Quoted post[/post]​

Iraq doesn&#39;t cost &#036;51.8 million for a few days.
Read up on the cost of military hardware and intelligence services.

[post=341717]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

That&#39;s less than one quarter per person in this country. I&#39;m half tempted to start a charity that just asks for that. If everyone gave up a quarter, we could build NO. Hell, I&#39;m a poor college student and I can afford that&#33;

 

[BruceSter]

Originally posted by Sabln7@Sep 9 2005, 05:25 PM
Here is a modest proposal. Rebuild the levees farther in so that the very low parts of New Orleans can be taken over by the lake, the gulf, and river that want it. Protect those areas that are above sea level, Canal Street, the French Quarter. Dig the low areas deeper and increase the acreage of the land above sea level by adding fill dirt from dredging the low areas--fill dirt that will raise some areas of the city so that they can be built upon. Digging the low areas deeper will make the level of the lake lower. Granted, there will not be as much land for building as there was before, but New Orleans would still exist and be safer. Additional growth would have to be beyond the current city limits on safer land. Just a thought. I am not an engineer.

[post=341900]Quoted post[/post]​

Good idea, in the basics. I&#39;m in training in these matters(though not exactly, I&#39;m structural, this more concerns civil engineering) and consider a similar suggestion as possible and reasonable. There should be a buffering zone between the large residential areas and the shores, which should only be allowed for business and authorities to settle at. But I guess the rubble from the debated damaged buildings is too contaminated to be used there.

Bruce

 

[Irvy]

Since when has making sense been a priority for the American government?

 

[Shelby]

New Orleans must be rebuilt.