update: new orleans

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The leadership IS pandering to the demands of the wealthy. What the wealthy want is a richer and especially whiter New Orleans. That's what all this NIMBY-ing about the trailers is all about, preventing the housing project and Lower Ninth Ward people from coming back.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems like a good thing to me. It seems these people were never productively involved in the economy of the city in the first place. They've been relocated, why in the world would anyone want to make an effort to bring them back? As the OP put it -

[ QUOTE ]
pvn: The public housing residents won't be brought in until later (and apparently many of them have decided not to come back).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. Public housing residents get to choose where they will live, and be returned at someone elses expense? Those that can afford to return will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until the storm it was customary to send buses round to the projects on election day to bring the residents to the polling places. That was, for example, how bond issues and millage increases got passed. (Public housing and section 8 residents did not pay the increased millages either directly or indirectly; they just voted for them.) The busloads from the public housing projects also formed the voter base of many of our elected officials. Those officials would like to see their voter base return.

Just as some people and their political representatives would like to see a whiter, richer city, others have a vested interest in maintaining a large African-American majority.

It should also be remembered that while the Lower Ninth Ward was the least desirable neighborhood in the city, and it did contain (infamous) housing projects, much of the Lower Ninth Ward consisted of modest homes which had been passed down from generation to generation. These homes were owned and occupied by many of the lower-paid workers on whom New Orleans' service-based economy depended. These people have as much interest in coming home to their properties and rebuilding as the people in the big houses on the lakefront. And the economy as it revives will need their labor.

[sweetjazz]

LOL -- I like your posts.

I agree that there is too much pandering going on to the wealthy people in the city, but at the same time I am somewhat sympathetic to the effort. For one, keeping wealth in the city is a priority, probably more useful than bringing in labor (which is more readily available). And it is easier to help out those who can help themselves already.

So while I don't particularly like it, I understand it to some extent. Hopefully more will be done to help people in the Lower Ninth Ward, Gentilly, Mid-City, NO East, etc. Everybody will be better off if everyone in the city is given a chance to succeed. The way to have an affluent and low crime New Orleans is to give everyone who ends up in New Orleans the opportunity to succeed.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The busloads from the public housing projects also formed the voter base of many of our elected officials. Those officials would like to see their voter base return.


[/ QUOTE ]
Reason enough to thwart their plans.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any indication that the incompetence of the local leadership has eroded their political base? Is there an impeachment process, and has it been threatened? As an outsider I'd assume that the wealthier residents remaining would force the leadership to start pandering to their demands.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's pandering and there is plenty of "base erosion". There are elections coming up in february, and there's lots of discussion as to whether they should be postponed because of the widespread diaspora on the one hand, and the need to clean house as soon as possible on the other (another related question I haven't seen addressed is how you differentiate between people that have temporarily relocated and plan on coming back vs. people that have permanently relocated and don't want to come back (but still might have an interest in voting)).

[BluffTHIS!]

I think many of you in this thread are ignoring what should be the main point here, and that is in what fashion should NO be rebuilt, especially if it involves our federal tax dollars.

Two ways:

1) Rebuild/allow owners to rebuild, as it was;
2) Only allowing rebuilding in areas that are not flood prone which will result in a smaller city.

And I think that pvn's obviously accurate assessment argues for #2, along with the fact that NO should not be shown favoritism in easing federal flood rebuilding/insurance guidelines when areas following the flooding of the Mississippi in many states in 1993 were not, i.e they were forced to elevate or move. We as tax payers should not have to pay for a rebuilding just as before with the possibility of having to do so again any time. This is the same as requiring more stringent building codes in hurricane/earthquake prone areas.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many of you in this thread are ignoring what should be the main point here, and that is in what fashion should NO be rebuilt, especially if it involves our federal tax dollars.

Two ways:

1) Rebuild/allow owners to rebuild, as it was;
2) Only allowing rebuilding in areas that are not flood prone which will result in a smaller city.

And I think that pvn's obviously accurate assessment argues for #2, along with the fact that NO should not be shown favoritism in easing federal flood rebuilding/insurance guidelines when areas following the flooding of the Mississippi in many states in 1993 were not, i.e they were forced to elevate or move. We as tax payers should not have to pay for a rebuilding just as before with the possibility of having to do so again any time. This is the same as requiring more stringent building codes in hurricane/earthquake prone areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALL of New Orleans is flood-prone if the levee/flood protection systems fail. The areas along the river did not flood, not because they are so high--they aren't, but because the levees along the river did not breach. Under other circumstances they could have. The areas immediately along the lakefront (north of Robert E. Lee/Leon C. Simon) did not flood, but if the seawall had failed (and it could have), then they would have been washed away. OTOH, NONE of New Orleans would be flood-prone with proper flood controls in place.

The Netherlands is my second home, so to speak. Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam is about 30 feet below sea level, and no one worries about flooding, nor does anyone counsel abandoning Amsterdam. After the great flood of 1953 the Dutch resolved to do a proper job of flood control, and so today they do not need to worry about the North Sea inundating their (very) low-lying areas ever again. And while the Netherlands does not get hurricanes, it is subject to gale-force and even hurricane-force winds nearly every day all winter long. Storm surges from the North Sea constantly beat along the shores of the coastal provinces (like Zeeland). ALso the great rivers (the Rhine, the Scheldt, the Maas, and the Waal) which bisect the Netherlands are prone to flooding, and the areas along the riverbanks have flood protection that works.

The high ground in New Orleans is only about 6-8 ft above sea level, the low ground only about 6-8 feet below. My house is no more than a foot below sea level, but it is adjacent to the breach in the London Avenue Canal floodwall, and the water at my house reached just about 10 ft--which is deep enough to flood every single property in New Orleans, depending on where the flood walls/levees do or do not fail. Further if the sea walls that surround the south shore of the lake fail (and they could under the right circumstances), there will be twenty feet or more of water in the city--and every area would be "flood-prone" so to speak.

So the question is not whether New Orleans should shrink to the so-called high ground along the river, but whether there should be a New Orleans at all. New Orleans was a cultural gem unique in all of North America. If the rest of the country wants to have New Orleans back again, then certain steps need to be taken--including rebuilding the eroded coastline (which will do very positive things for the country besides protecting New Orleans) and installing the kinds of flood protection structures the Dutch have (and they have offered to help in this regard). If this is done, the city can be safely rebuilt (and the new structures should be built to tougher codes) and, we can hope that the unique culture will flourish once again. New Orleanians really can't live happily anywhere else--80% of New Orleanians were born there, a higher percentage than any other city in the country. If it is at all feasible, New Orleanians will come back to their homes.

If the coastline is not rebuilt and if good flood control structures are not put in place, then no part of the city is safe from flooding, and the country has basically decided that it can do without New Orleans. All we will have then are the port and the pipeline. Port Fouchon (the country's only oil supertanker port), the Columbia pipeline, and the Gulf Coast refineries were Bush's first concern. (I will never forget his first reaction to news of the flooding--assurances that the pipeline and refineries would be taken care of and the nation's oil supply not jeopardized--this at a time when thousands of people were in mortal jeopardy on the roofs of their houses, people for whom he spared not a word.)

So, New Orleans or no New Orleans--not a shrunken New Orleans which is still prone to catastrophic flooding.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So, New Orleans or no New Orleans--not a shrunken New Orleans which is still prone to catastrophic flooding.

[/ QUOTE ]

no NO it is then IMO. Because I'm not willing to pay big federal tax bucks for the idea of a "cultural gem".