Slashdot Mirror
9 Weeks to Pump Out New Orleans?
Cr0w T. Trollbot asks: "It looks like New Orleans is going through something very close to the worst case scenario right now. This somewhat prescient study, written well before the hurricane, describes some of the challenges (engineering and otherwise) facing New Orleans. 'In this hypothetical storm scenario, it is estimated that it would take nine weeks to pump the water out of the city, and only then could assessments begin to determine what buildings were habitable or salvageable. Sewer, water, and the extensive forced drainage pumping systems would be damaged. National authorities would be scrambling to build tent cities to house the hundreds of thousands of refugees unable to return to their homes and without other relocation options.' The hypothetical is looking awful close to reality right now. What can be done about draining and rebuilding New Orleans in light of the massive flooding, and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"
I know this sounds crazy, but given its bowl shape terrain, instead of pumping out the water and rebuild, why don't they rebuild over the water?
Otherwise, try asking Dutch how they have been living with large parts of Netherlands below sea level.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
...how many foreign countries are sending aid to the US now?
Well New Orleans is too big too just simply give it up and move on. I figure they'll have to just start pumping out water one problem neighborhood at a time. It might take months or years to fully recover but it has to be done. The cost of leaving all that alone is far worse.
Long term: I think a massive public works project will come out of this. Something along the lines of the Netherlands Delta Works Project. Only on a much more massive scale. Something along the lines of a massively huge dike between New Orleans and the ocean. Either that or find a way to drop enough dirt under New Orleans to raise it about 100 feet. Either that or maybe the United States will actually address and attempt to fix global warming with this hurricane blow?
...in bed
In the long run, it probably would be best to abandon the city entirely, but that won't happen, so, all the taxpayers in the U.S. will have to pay for it even if they don't live there.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Woah.. Did you notice the dateline on that article?
9/11/01.
Spooky.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"New Orleans is a disaster waiting to happen. The city lies below sea level, in a bowl bordered by levees that fend off Lake Pontchartrain to the north and the Mississippi River to the south and west...
Or more to the point, does it bother anyone that our tax dollars will be used to pay for people who do have insurance, because the insurance companies will run to the government to bail them out when that $20 billion bill comes due?
It's not helping the folks who have no insurance that bothers me. It's helping out comapnies whose business is selling risk, but who end up short on cash when their policies have to be paid out.
How about we limit the economic incentive to rebuild such a large city in such a blatently absurd geographic area?
After every major hurricane we see federal disaster relief helping to rebuild the are hit. Why not make the relief contingent on rebuilding outside of that area, or building structures that are far more resilient to hurricane damage?
As it is, the disaster relief limits the ability of the free market economy to control risk - insurance companies won't insure for flooding in New Orleans for a good reason. Why should taxpayers bail out residents in disaster-prone areas time and time again? Mother Nature always wins in the end. But I predict that we'll see massive rebuilding and an increase in the size of the levees, and New Orleans will rebound...until the next time. Maybe 150 years time, or 300. Or maybe not that long. That we don't know, but New Orleans will still be below sea level either way. Think that evacuating ~1 million people is bad enough? What will the population there be in 150 years time?
Look at Galveston, TX. In 1900 the island city was enjoying a huge economic boom. People didn't want to believe that anything could happen to the city so when a major hurricane hit the city got obliterated. ~3600 homes destroyed and between 10,000 and 12,000 deaths. They rebuilt, and raised much of the city from a lowly 9 feet above sea level, some by a whopping 11 feet. Woohoo.
My heart goes out to those who have lost homes, belongings, pets and family.
I'm not going to blame the victims. Their lives suck right now. But I don't think any of them have the right to be surprised.
If I lie down on the train tracks, I shouldn't be shocked if I get hit by a train...
Flood insurance is provided by the federal government. You still have to buy it, but private insurers won't touch it. So if the feds stopped providing it large sections of, for instance, the Florida coast would cease to be attractive to development - you can't get a mortgage on something you can't get flood insurance on if it's anywhere that can flood at all.
So, yes, the government should stop providing flood insurance. Except then there would be millions of people in houses suddenly without much value since they can't sell them for much since the new owners couldn't get mortgages. And the banks holding the current mortgages wouldn't be too happy either. And Florida would be in a terrible way, which would be a hell of a repayment for the favor its government did for W back in 2000.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Define "rare event"... I suspect that you (and most people think about your life time), but cities should be built with longer timescales in mind.
At somepoint many developed areas will either be abandonded as urban areas (due to lack of water as much as too much water), or we shall spend vast sums of money to inhabit areas that are "suboptimal"... people are very bad at actually evaluating "rare events"...
Speaking of living in New Orleans, there are millions of people who do. A lot of posts here suggest abandoning NO. While that's a great long-term solution, what do you do now? Many of my friends live and go to school in NO. Even if they get back to their homes, and somehow they're undamaged, they may not have a school to go back to.
New Orleans will - must - be rebuilt, immediately, to as close a shadow of its former self as possible, so that life can continue. Condemning half the city by, say, 2015 is a great start. But condemning it now is to make life impossible for NO residents.
Oh, and don't forget that tourism is NO's - nay, Louisiana's - major industry. People have to get used to the new Mardi Gras location before traffic picks up there, if you abandon NO.
I know a lot of people are thinking:
A) Just move the City
B) Just build it like this city or that city
C) New Orleans is just an party town, and of no apparent other use.
It's easy to say build it like Venice, or do it like the Netherlanders, in reality, New Orleans is different.
The reality is, a Category 5 or 4 Hurricane would devastate just about any city close to water without worrying even about the wind damage.
To the people saying just move away and don't bother, its easy to think that way when not looking at the whole picture. New Orleans is a BIG port, and there it's also a huge fishing area, and damn nice place to live without hurricanes like Katrina.
The real solution I think is to break up the levy system and use mother nature to do its own restoration work. New Orleans is sinking because the Mississippi can't redeposit sediment and create a natural barrier. Yes, without the levies there will be yearly flooding, and its an initial logistical nightmare, but without spending billions on systems that could fail again, it's the best long term solution. Right now, NOLA is devastated, and the levy systems as to be initially put up to pump out, but with the current cycle of stronger and more frequent hurricanes in the carribean and gulf, it's just a short term solution.
Let's not forget though, that while New Orleans is the easiest place to look and claim that its just a problem with the land, just look a little East where the hurricane eyewall passed, and the devastation is just as horrific to communities not below sea level.
I say we just abandon New Orleans if the damage is too extensive to rebuild. Basically, call it Americas "chernobyl" and move on. Ya, there are fond memories in that city...but sometimes it's best to not fight nature. Just leave it be. But up a memorial, rebuild refineries in other areas...but slowly, just walk away from it.
I doubt this will happen, but it would be better in the long run then supporting a city BELOW see level.
Life is not for the lazy.
Let me put in here my (little) experience about floodings.
I live in Venice, well in the hinterland of it. As you may know, it's a city build "on" the water. Or, better said, on a group of islands (107, exactly) in a laguna, directly connected by three connections to the mediterranean sea.
The area suffers from geological bradyseism (sinking) of few centimeters per year.
It's an irreversible process, simply leading to a worse situation as time goes by.
The city suffers an average of 50 floodings per year, with peak heigth of the water of more than a meter in the lower zones.
"Just" 40 years ago, the count of floodings per year was less than a dozen.
Lots are the analysis, conferences and general discussion on which should be best ways to limit the effects of such situation.
Well, the most common answer is: there's no solution.
It is just possible to extend the agony, not to dry up the city.
So, I agree with the cynical comment red so far: if you consider it worth, go and rebuild some kilometers faraway.
Sad but true.
Back to New Orleans - which is not Venice indeed - surely it will be possible to clean the city, polish it up and recall it to normality, but nothing assures you another similar (or even worse) flooding won't occur again, vanishing every effort.
Good luck to whose are still there.
Actually, that is exactly what happens (and I have been through several floods). FEMA bails you out ONCE and only ONCE.
If your house is a total loss, they generally won't allow you to rebuild there. They settle and turn your land into a park. There is a hole neighborhood across the river from my parents (my parent's house doesn't flood) that is now a park.
I have friend's who homes (in Houston) were CONDIMIED because, after essesive development around their aera, there was not enough drainage and so everytime it rain their neighborhood would flood (it didn't do this until the last 10 years). The land and homes were purchased using emminent domain, and then buldozed.
Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.
Leaving a city of this size and importance to the US economy in the hands of Mother Nature is one thing, but to leave it for sure disaster is another. This isn't a place that we can only hope to get a few years out of here and there....if left to Mother Nature, the city could have to relocate every decade to take advantage of the deeper waters elsewhere.
I saw a neat PBS show about the delta a year or so ago. The "rivers" in the delta normally fill up and, when they do, the water just redirects to the next easy path to the Gulf. This could end up either filling New Orleans in or rerouting enough to ruin the economy there. We can't afford to chase the best route up the Mississippi....there are just too many cities depending on that trade (New Orleans, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, to name a few).
I think we should invest in fixing the levee system to the best of our engineering capability and hope this kind of thing doesn't happen again. It's the only solution that will provide a stable, long-term positive economic situation for the South and Midwest.
...and if you do, build your pumping stations so that they can work submerged and without grid power, so that next time, they don't ALL FAIL. It's not like we don't have the technology- submarines, for example.
How much can it cost to build a solid foundation, and put a big diesel engine with a big fuel tank either in a sealed container with a snorkle, or put the engine bits up top a high tower (with substantial reinforcement)? This ain't rocket science.
Also, why don't the levees have anything but dirt in 'em? Why can't they have periodic concrete segments or something to stop breaks from spreading and to use as a base for emergency repairs?
Please help metamoderate.
The first thing to remember is that while 65% of the current Louisiana National Guard are in country, the total number of troops in the National Guard have been shrinking over the last few years due to a few years of recruitment shortages.
The second thing to remember is that numbers alone aren't the whole story. One has to consider that those soldiers trained in the kinds of specialties that are going to be needed over the next month, such as transportation, medical support, military police and aviation are more likely to be in demand in Iraq and therefore are more likely to be on their second and third rotation over seas.
The final part comes in the form of equipment. The National Guard and Reserves have always been subject to hand-me-downs from the active duty units. When something big happens and large numbers of AR/NG units are deployed, they often do so with equipment gathered from non-deployed AR/NG units in order to be at full strength. So large amounts of AR/NG equipment that could be used in this emergency are going to be sitting in the desert right now and won't be getting back any time soon.
In the end, I'd put the actual effectiveness in terms of soldiers and equipment of the current Louisiana National Guard at around 30-40% of what they were prior to Iraq.
Nah. Better blame the people who are pissed off that they are taxed too much.
I have a fundimental problem taxing people in North Dakota and Virginia to pay for protection for people who built homes below sea level.
We (all taxpayers) WILL be paying for all this now. It is going to cost us MANY billions to fix (although still a bargain compared to Iraq.)
This reminds me of a Sam Kinison comment: "Why ship food to the Ethiopians!? Ship the Ethiopians to the food." In this case, why not move New Orleans to where the Lake was that was above the level of the city, which has now migrated to downtown New Orleans?
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
Maybe it's just because I live Uptown, where devastating flood waters have not yet appeared (but may soon, due to the 17th St. Canal levee breach), but I say joke on.
Speaking as a Californian, I am happy my taxes are paying to help out the folks in Louisiana and Mississippi. And should disaster strike where I live -- which it will, given enough time -- they'll help me out as well, and we'll all end up better off.
Now, that said, I'd hope that the rebuilding effort takes this disaster into account and that whatever replaces the devastated areas will be built such that it comes closer to withstanding another big hurricane. (Obviously it's impossible to build a city that'll survive unscathed if the storm is big enough.)
The federal government spends billions on a lot of stupid things I feel are a total waste of my money. This isn't one of them.
And why the HELL can a war outside the US affect the STATE'S national guard? Those are supposed to be for the state's defense, not wars in other countries!
Not a sentence!
While I understand that a hurried evacuation is a highly chaotic situation, and there were undoubtedly many foolhardy people who simply decided not to leave, I fail to understand why everybody that wanted to go couldn't have been shifted. Certainly, I would hope that if *I* was in a place where everybody who could drive out was told to evacuate, every possible effort would be made to provide some transport to those who didn't have their own. Heck, if I were evacuating and somebody needed a lift out of there, I'd certainly throw away any crap I was carrying to offer them a ride. Goods are replaceable, people's lives aren't.
Or am I grossly misinterpreting the situation?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The Dutch probably have the best aquatic geologists on the planet. We could certainly use their expertise in drying the place up. The Norwegians have more cruise ships than any other nation, and they could be leased to provide temporary housing (FEMA has a few ships for this purpose, but they usually house FEMA employees). The Italian engineers who manage pulic works for Venice would be very helpful in this situation. We could do it without their help; we could do it easier with their help.
I'm one of those people who complain about 100+ million dollar sports teams who force taxpayers to build stadiums for them from taxdollars, but there would be 10000+ people who would be SOL without the Superdome. I'm sure people would have scoffed at the idea of funding the dome because "it might come in handy in a natural disaster" but it has definitely saved alot of lives.
Has George finally decided to go back to work yet? I noticed that he was still traveling around on his wartime PR tour today. He mentioned Louisiana for about a minute or two... and then he moved right back to freedom, terrorists, and some other redundant talking points.
Considering the dead bodies on roof tops and attics, a destroyed major city, and the danger of a potential recession, you'd think the guy would be trying to do something more significant.... or at least trying to LOOK like he was doing something significant.
ehh.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004
Let the Bush bashing begin, at least, according to some.
Funding for work on New Orleans' flood prevention system slowed to a trickle in 2003, and many people (long before Monday) claimed that was due to the Iraq war. Did GW bet that he wouldn't need the money for New Orleans levees, and decided to shift it to the war instead?
Looks like a bad bet.......
Wonder if Congress will look into this?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Au contraire. A good study from MIT about how hurricane wind speeds are 50% stronger in the past 3 decades, partially due to global warming (although I realize there is a 50% chance this study is false):
l
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.htm
I'm never been to New Orleans but I wonder if it would be possible to use a floodway?
Winnipeg (Manitoba's provincial capital - Canada) has the 47 km Red River floodway that has saved the city from flooding a number of times.
I have just quickly looked at some maps of New Orleans and the surrounding area - it seems to me that a floodway starting west of Lutcher and curving south around the bottom of the city would allow water from the Mississippi river to be diverted into a large reservoir or possibly connect the floodway directly into Little Lake and then out into Barataria Bay.
And No, I'm not talking about diverting the whole river - just redirecting water during potential floods. I think it still would be necessary to build dikes for other areas of New Orleans.
I've included a wikipedia link for the Red River Floodway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Floodway
One way to get more than one use out of a floodway - build it between a seperated highway( freeway) ie the floodway is in the middle of two multi-lane raised ground roads.
Like I said earlier - never been to New Orleans so maybe this idea is way off because of the geography and/or land use.
"Oil companies only sell what people buy. "
That is completely nuts. Oil companies, in particular Standard Oil created the fossil fuel economy, hand in hand with Ford and GM, who marketed it and suckered Americans in to buying in to it. It's created horrible urban environments like the ones in California, and nearly ever urban, suburban nightmare in the U.S. which make it nearly impossible to exist without owning a car. It created massive expanses of concrete where pedestrians are an endangered species and mass transit largely non existent. Most American cities have turned in hell holes where no one wants to live surrounded by a massive suburban sprawl. Ironically the quality of life in such an environment is horrible but people do it anyway. No one in their right mind would spend 2-4 hours a day commuting on traffic clogged and polluted freeways. I'll take life in the country or in a real city with subways, and corner markets you walk to any day. The karma of the American life style is nearly all bad and it will be world killing and unsustainable as the billions of people in China and India start buying in to it which they are.
Everything Americans do is driven by nonstop advertising and marketing campaigns. Most cars are a truly horrible place to invest money because, with a few exceptions, their value craters in a few years and the marketing machine starts telling you to mortgage your soul to buy a new one though its a horrible investment.
The oil companies have year after year artificially inflated gasoline prices to pad their profit margins, and then dropped prices just as the backlash develops. Chances are it will go that way this time too. Oil companies simply can't let prices stay at current levels indefinitely because everyone will start flocking to alternatives to their product. They might let it stay high just long enough for people to start investing in alternatives, then drop prices and put all those alternatives out of business so investors in them get doubly burned. Oil companies have for 100 years done nothing but manipulate America and the world.
"our AC running"
Air conditioning karma is just as bad. Its led to mass migrations in to places where people shouldn't be living like the Southwestern deserts and the deep south. AC is why so many people are living in the path of devastating Hurricanes in the South and in the deserts without enough water in the Southwest. Florida was not a place you wanted to live before AC. AC fueled the massive growth in coal fired power plants which is one of the worst parts of the fossil fuel karma.
Computers I wouldn't judge so harshly. Its enabled communication and learning on an unprecedented scale. It give people something to do besides drive around in cars or vegetate passively in front of the TV. They have a down side but their karma is at least a wash.
"and saying that these poor people somehow where asking for it"
The poor people were unfortunate victims but a big chunk of the Louisiana economy, and the people living there are completely intertwined with and dependent on the fossil fuel economy. You can't drive far in Louisiana without smelling the stench of refineries.
@de_machina
Agreed, blaming it on Bush, Republicrats,whatever, is a joke but they will get away with it. Just now, as I am watching CNN, yet again the mayor of New ORleans is blaming a lot of their problem on 'coastal erosian (loss of marshlands) and the failure of the federal guvment to fix the problem. Not only has the mayor spouted this line but most every LA congresscreature I"ve seen on TV the past few days has spouted the same line. That the federal govment has been shortsighted and it is THEIR fault for not spending 10's of BILLIONS of dollars somehow fixing the marshland problem and for also not fixing the levys (dikes) surrounding New Orleans or updating the pumping system. Before I get jumped on for makign shit up I HEARD a number of (mostly Democrats but some Republicrats have made similar noises) LA congresscreature types ramble on about all this on live TV. IT's one thing to hear it from the congresscreature but it really burrs my ass when the reporters just stand there and suck this shit up and never challange the assholes making the assertion it is all the federal guvments fault. What I'd like to know is just how anyone could rebuild the hundreds, hell thousands of square miles of marshland below New Orleans. Mother nature did a fine job using the mighty river before we diked and routed it to death. Until we rip up New Orleans and south and let the river ebb and flow as she had before it was forced to follow a standard route the marshlands will continue to deteriorate. In the meantime a great many willl get high political points by continuing to blame all their problems on the federal govment for not spending money on their problems which, it must be said, is based on being fucking stupid in the first damn place. It is time to move on, let the old New Orleans die in peace and build a newer, better New ORleans on higher ground. THere is no need to repeat being stupid by building afresh in a goddamed swamp that is sinking into the sea every year that goes by. Duh. HEy, maybe build NEW New Orleans on top of Baton Rouge. Yeah, why not.
Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
What else was the government supposed to do to save the stragglers from their own stupidity?
Provide proper transportation and shelter? Most people staying in the city had no cars and were too poor to pay for hotels (which increased their prices for more profit). It is entirely logical they had no other option than to stay in the city. Don't call them idiots, not every American has the possibilities you apparantly have..
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
Wow. This comment reminds me of what the mayor of nawlins said earlier: "This is our Tsunami." Wow. Think about that a second. By the time all this is over less than 200 people will have lost their lives compared to over 100,000 in southeast asia. I wonder how many of those villagers had insurance? Or job skills and the financial ability to relocate? Whiners! Damn straight! Where's our relief money from Thailand?! Frickin idiots...
Anyway, there's a great opportunity to dramatically change the city now. Raising the city, and possibly moving it should be considered. If you're going to make a dramatic and painful switch, then you have to do it now. Of course moving/raising the city is an incredibly expensive and painful process. The devastation from Katrina is estimated at 1 trillion. To rebuild the city higher, it would cost even more. 2, 3, 4 times more? I honestly don't know, but it would be much much larger.
Doing anything else reminds me of the scam where rich people buy beachfront property, get flood insurance from the federal government, and every few years a big storm comes along and wipes out their house, and then the taxpayers have to pay to rebuild another house in the exact same spot. There's no excuse for this kind of idiocy.
I believe that's not allowed anymore. I think, in the Carolinas at least, you can expand you buildings on the barrier islands, but if your buildings are destroied, you can't build back, and no new construction is allowed.
Well...the thing is...this has already been happening. I was born in N.O. and my family spent most of their lives there. But ever since the 80's N.O. has gone downhill...its traded its big port contracts for a bunch of drunk tourists. Already a brain drain was happening, and the economy was going downhill. This will just increase the effect....its so sad.
They will rebuild my hometown as some damn Las Vegas copy. Jump in head first with the vice and glamour to pay for all the damage. And all the decent folks will continue to move away. I miss my home state, but now it seems I might never be able to go back and make a decent living...
Open Source Sushi
First off, federal disaster aid gets spread around. It does not all go to hurricanes. That should be enough of a counter, but for the sake of argument I'm going to pretend what you base your point on is true.
Assuming that what you want happens, and federal aid for disaster relief becomes a thing of the past, what are the effects? You seem to assert that people will simply not wish to live with the risk, so they'll move. That might apply to a relatively small number of people with the means to move, but what about everyone else, the people lacking not only the means/education/whatever to pick up and move, but also most in need of aid after a disaster?
Let's pretend everyone will be able to move after a cutback in disaster funding, for whatever reason (my guess is a gov-funded program, which kind of defeats the purpose, but whatever). Where will they all go? What will happen to where they move? The black exodus from the south in the 50s had a pretty profound effect, and the actual number of people who moved was tiny compared to the number that stayed. What happens when everyone moves?
Personally, I don't think the upper classes will move, or the lower classes, or really much of anybody. People would stay, a disaster would (agreed, inevitably) come, and some people would come out of it better than others - which would seem fairly similar to how things are today. The difference is that everyone would come out worse. I'm not going to pretend to know the future, but it seems to me that this might be something of a drain on the economy of many southern states, which already doesn't compare favorably to much of the country, which could conceivably cause some less-than-satisfactory changes to how the south interacts economically with the rest of the country. I know, slippery slope argument, and I'm hardly an economist, meteorologist, or geologist, but these things should at least be kept in mind when making decisions that affect a huge number of people.
Anyway, these are just some crazy left wing ideas. You know, that big things might have effects.
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
Maybe this might be the very chance to maybe do what could be the greatest engineering project of the 21st Century: replace New Orleans and carve out a new, safer outlet for the Mississippi River.
It could be breathtakingly expensive (maybe as much as US$3 trillion in 2005 dollars), but it may be worth it if not only do we get a city that will be far less flood-prone to both the rising Mississippi Rive and the the occasional hurricane, but also a completely new, state-of-the-art shipping port that could be the biggest and most advanced in the world.
What it gets spent on is irrelevent. That it doesn't really get spread around is the issue. It's basically a money transfer from good places to live to bad places to live.
Assuming that what you want happens, and federal aid for disaster relief becomes a thing of the past, what are the effects? You seem to assert that people will simply not wish to live with the risk, so they'll move. That might apply to a relatively small number of people with the means to move, but what about everyone else, the people lacking not only the means/education/whatever to pick up and move, but also most in need of aid after a disaster?
I think I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean to suggest individuals pay the risk alone. That's impossible, and not how things work. I was trying to suggest that the people in the area pool their risk. In other words, on the state and county level. I don't think it's a radical idea to suggest that the people of Florida should pay for Florida's risk.
Anyway, these are just some crazy left wing ideas. You know, that big things might have effects.
You know the world's coming to an end when a liberal is pointing out the notion of unintended consequences! :-) (But I guess you know the world's still in it's place when it's with regard to the unintented consequences of killing a huge government transfer program.)
Anyway, who said I was right wing? I just knew people around here would think my idea was. Remember when being left wing was about being fair to the working class and not wasting money that could be spent on UNavoidable problems? Do you forget in all of your vicarious generosity that the tax money for these huge federal transfer programs comes from the middle class? Do you realize that to a certain extent there are poor people in Virginia paying taxes to rebuild the property of rich business owners in New Orleans?
I know the mental image you have is of a rich guy paying for the clean up, but there just aren't enough of them around to pay for EVERYTHING. Most of our tax money still comes from average joes like me, and quite few below average joes who really can't afford it. A tax that you don't benefit from is ALWAYS a regressive tax since a poor person can less afford to lose a dollar than a rich person can afford to lose a thousand. So if saving the working class some tax money by having a more intelligent location of our population isn't really left wing, I don't know if there are any good wings left to be had.
But you're absolutely right: I have no idea if this can be done without unpredictable consequences. But can't that be said about any change? I guess I'm just more progressive than you.
African hunting and gathering tribes survive by working 3 to 4 hours a day. The rest of the time they sit around chatting, or dance around their campfires. They're not subsidized in any way whatsoever; they don't even trade with their neighbors, except for unnecessary luxuries. So if you're working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, you're obviously a big, fat chump!
(I'm not making this up, by the way -- they said it verbatim on today's episode of Going Tribal on the Discovery Channel.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic le_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.
Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming....Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."
In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.
No, here's what needs to happen: The government needs to give as much tax relief as it can to everyone, so that those displaced by this disaster can use more of their own money to start helping themselves, and the rest of us can use our own money to help the victims as we see fit. In order to give tax relief without going even further into debt, the government will have to cut spending. And that is exactly what needs to happen. We as a society can't have our cake and eat it too. We have to reduce spending in certain areas in order to have enough money to fund all of this reconstruction.
Now, once everyone has more of their own money back, I'm sure there will be some charity and humanitarian aid voluntarily given to the victims, but that won't be enough to fund the reconstruction. Well, you know what? If you're going to argue that I should help you rebuild your city because it's in my interest to do so, then I want a piece. If you want to rebuild your business, sell me some of your stock. If you can't raise enough money that way, and the insurance companies go bankrupt, then that means you lost your business. I know it's painful, but nothing can replace what mother nature stole from our society. Having the government take money from some states and giving it to others don't remove loss, it just transfers wealth. As others said, we can't mindlessly transfer wealth to disaster-prone areas, because that just means we will have more loss in the future, and if this disaster doesn't illustrate how terrible loss is, I don't know what will.
Also, we shouldn't bail the insurance companies out either. They charged people based on what they calculated the risk to be. If they messed up, then bankruptcy is how the market removes inefficiency. Once insurance companies realize that government won't bail them out in worst-case scenarios, they will charge people more in those situations, and that's what should happen. As others have said, people need to pay the real cost. Allowing them to pay a fake cost, because it's the supposedly "decent" thing to do, just invites people to make bad decisions that will result in more loss in the future.
What we really need to do is slowly get away from government and move towards personal responsibility. Right now, everyone is going to wonder, "Why didn't the authorities have a better plan for this situation?", because that's what we have set society up as. You're not supposed to worry about risk, you're supposed to let other people worry about it for you. Well, I don't think that's a good model. We need to realize that a worst-case scenario is something we all need to think about. Sure, we can depend on the experts to tell us what the best way to protect the city is in the future (i.e. move it to higher ground, or build better pumps, etc.), but whatever the proposal is, it's going to cost money. I'm saying, rather than tax people to raise this money, we should appeal to them and ask them, "How much do you want to give to our common defense against natural disasters?" And you let each person make his or her own decision. Depending on how much money the local population has and how concerned they are, the common defense may go under-funded or it may not. But either way, at least everyone will be aware of the choice they've made, and there won't be any surprises down the road. There will be disagreement among the locals no matter what the outcome is, and some may decide that the majority of people are just taking on too much risk, and they will leave. That's fine, each person must make their own decision. But in the current situation, we just allow the government to take our money and spend it how they see fit, and we get mad at them when they don't make the right choices. Well, they can never make the "right" choices because only we know what each of our personal values are.
Okay, New Orleans was built at sea level, only to subside under the weight of the built environment. Why, then, didn't anyone take action to raise the city back up before the inevitable occurred? The idea isn't as crazy as it sounds. Chicago did exactly that between 1850 and 1880--raise its street level by up to 14 feet with vaulted roads and sidewalks, and jack up all of its buildings, inch by inch, to match. A building's occupants often weren't even aware it was being raised until they left work in the evening.
So how come wasn't this done in New Orleans? Lack of funds? Engineering problems? Structural instability?
Check out these pictures:
h otos_tc_afp/050830194101_mzffh1jl_photo1
9 13/w083049ajpg
"Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store in New Orleans, Louisiana."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/p
"A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday. (AP/Dave Martin)"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/1
So when it's a young black man it's called looting, but when it's a white woman it's called 'finding'?
What williamyf conveniently ignored, was the fact that Chavez, in 1999 actually accepted USA aid, machinery and engineers; but USA also insisted in deploying US Marines, something unacceptable for us.
Our offer to the United States is sincere. I don't know what George W. Bush will do, or not, but its not an offer to the USA central government, its an offer for the people, the organizations helping people, local governments, religious groups, etc.
This type of aid has been offered to the countries in the Caribbean who had been suffering the past hurricanes. We have helped with supplies and rebuilding in Jamaica, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, etc. We also sent people to Sri Lanka and India after the tsunami, along with monetary donations.
Let me return you the favor: if you ever come to Venezuela, look me up and i would gladly show you around, so you can see the truth by yourself.
Let me clarify that we in Venezuela have no problem with the people of the United States. What we have issues with, is with the current administration, because they have actively worked against our country. It is not a personal matter either, if Bush stopped attempting to force his vision of what a country should be, and started respecting our sovereignty, i'm sure normal relationships with the administration would be restored. As it is right now, they don't even accept talking with our ambassador in Washington D.C., despite permanent attempts and support from Democrats and Republicans in the US congress.
If you are interested in knowing more about Venezuela, let me suggest these links:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
http://www.vheadline.com/
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
I am stupified at the lackluster, apathetic, laconic, and ineloquent issuances of the man who may soon become the first mayor of a lake in history.
The nearly perfect vacuum where forceful, positive, and competent leadership in this time of ultimate crisis is direly needed is simply beyond expression--without the use of expletives too extreme to spell.
With all the dire warnings of just precisely such a catastrophic event, where the hell was realistic preparation? When even complete laymen were practically screaming in hurricane-related forums for New Orleans to be evacuated, when every computer model had New Orleans dead center in the crosshairs of a Cat 5 hurricane ambling across the Gulf, unwaveringly on course, where was the ordered timely evacuation?
How could there not be reserved for instant action all the necessary resources to effectively deal with the one thing that absolutely could not be permitted to go unhandled in any remotely similar situation: a levee break? And now he gets on television and complains that "the helicopter didn't show up"? His "reason": Oh, he says "too many chiefs calling the shots." Here's a news bulletin, Mayor Neptune: you're the chief who should have called the shots long, long, long before the disaster was flooding over your people.
Since his evacuation order came so late in the game, he then had to lead thousands of people into a vulnerable giant sardine can, like the Pied Piper--only to abandon them and go stay comfortably at the Hyatt.
And what does Senator Vitter say about Mayor Neptune Nagin? "Mayor Nagin's calm and control and command of the facts showed me that we have one of the best leaders in the country right here." And Senator Vitter's complete oblivion to all facts shows me that we have one of the biggest idiots in the country occupying a Senate seat. But as Mark Twain said: "I repeat myself."
Where is any effective preparation at all for this unprecedented, though repeatedly predicted, catastrophe? This is no Pompeii, where the idiocy was limited to building in the shadow of a volcano; this is a disaster for which actual effective preparedness could have produced a vastly different outcome. In fact, though later information may mitigate this, the prevailing information is that the levee break was pouring countless gallons of water into the bowl of New Orleans before Mayor Neptune Nagin even woke up to the fact. How's that for "control and command of the facts," Senator Vitter? I don't know where Mayor Neptune had his finger, but it certainly wasn't in the dike.
In any crisis, it's easy, and often reactionary, to point fingers of blame. Sometimes it's simply a vent of frustration and helplessness, something no doubt all of us feel in greater or lesser degrees. But there also is accountability for trusts placed in public officials. When they fail, their failures are real. When their failures result in untold mayhem and destruction to property and lives, they are accountable. This man has failed miserably to prepare. And, in the face of the consequences of his own failed preparation, he has not only failed to effectively lead, inspire, and devise workable solutions, he has taken to whining publically about "too many chiefs."
No, Mayor Neptune, the problem is one too few chiefs. The rest are having to take up your slack.
Indeed... have you seen this?
(Summary: News clipping showing a black man pulling food through the water, captioned 'A young man wades through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store...'; and another clipping showing two white people pulling food through the water, captioned 'Two residents wade through chest deep flood water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store...')
Yeah, that's what I don't understand. You have a huge millitary over there, they must have a million trucks. Why weren't they dispatched to evacuate the poor of New Orleans? Seems a lot harder and more expensive to move them out with helicopters now...
I can understand that there was little time. I'm both shocked and impressed at the US government response to the crisis. Impressed, because I realize that giving a mandatoy evacuation order in the US is something controversial and quite brave. Shocked because they apparently expected everyone to get on their own.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
New Orleans was built by morons who thought they could outwit Mother Nature. The city's time finally came due. Why should my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of every citizen in this country, go towards rebuilding a city that shouldn't have been built? It's going to literally take trillions (not billions) of dollars to rebuild the city. And what happens when another major hurricane strikes? We do this all over again?? We've already done enough damage by building flood levies along the Miss. River and choked off VALUABLE wetlands that not only could have lessened the damage of this hurricane but also keep the Gulf of Mexico healthy. We've allowed silt from the Miss to pour into the Gulf, choking off valuable wildlife and natural resources instead of letting it replenish the wetlands. It's time to reverse that damage. The city should remain permanently evacuated, the remains of buildings and infrastructure torn down, the levy system removed and let nature take its course.
I'm sure there's enormous political pressure to rebuild this city, but like many places that learned their lesson after the great tsunami, there are just certain places that should NOT be rebuilt. And that includes the coastlines from Texas to Florida and beyond. It's time we stopped supporting frivolous and dangerous development. We have to pay each time a Florida beach is wiped out by a strom. Why? Because special interests demand it. It's time this maddness ends.
"When I took a riverboat ride, I saw thousands of homes over the levee that are clearly below water level. I couldn't help but think "what the hell are these people thinking?" These are brick homes with cars in the driveway, not shacks."
You were on the river. Which bank were you looking at?
"Look at the place on maps.google.com and learn what you're talking about before you post crap like this."
How about I just live in Saint Charles Parish for five years or so instead?
The "nice places" you were talking about tend not to be in New Orleans, I'd wager you were looking at the West Bank when you saw those homes. But even if you did find someplace decent-looking in Orleans Parish proper, they have a habit of ending very abruptly, much moreso than you'd expect coming from points further north (I grew up near Baltimore for reference). Most of those nicer neighorhoods are gated communities, and its a whole other world once you drive outside that gate. A few years back I helped the fiance of a friend move out of a nice little gated apartment complex in West Jeff, and pretty much from the gate looking out you could see the Friendly Neighborhood Crack Dealer.
I've also driven a bit around southeast Louisiana (specifically the third Congressional district), and many parts of the more rural parishes are similarly iffy. Sure, there are small towns/cities along the river, quaint little places you'd expect to see on a postcard from the beginning of the Twentieth Century, but it's also very easy to hop on a road leading away from US 90 and away from civilization. I was mostly driving between post offices, and I was in a number of delapidated old buildings that are smaller than the two bed/bath apartment I live in now. And they were both larger and in better condition than some of the houses they served. Even driving along River Road along the West Bank in Saint Charles Parish what you can see from the road changes quickly.
So you took a trip to New Orleans and got to see the tourist parts, the parts of the city that actually bring in money. You probably saw the riverfront as far up as the convention center, and maybe as far down as the aquarium. Or perhaps you took a more detailed tour and got to see a litle bit of the French Quater (IMO, the tourist-laden parts of the French Quarter, lined with bars, clubs, and strip joints support my arguments), some of the tree-lined stretches of St. Charles from a streetcar, maybe near the Tulane and Loyola campuses. But I doubt you took Poydras north of I-10. "Seeing the sights" of any city is designed to give you a pleasant experience, but is by no means useful for judging the general character of it. If you just stuck with the Mallthe memorials and the museums, you'd have no idea where Washington DC's crime rate came from.
1. The feasibility of either moving the port a bit upstream or doing a satellite port system should be explored.
2 and 3. Most of the affected areas of the Gulf Coast needs the normal post disaster rescue, cleanup and repair; which Americans are experienced and good at doing.
New Orleans is a totally different situation. Most of New Orleans is now either at the bottom of the newly expanded Lake Pontchartrain or on it's way to becoming marsh land.
I would support the US government buying some of the former New Orleans metropolitan area to create the New Orleans National Park and then cleaning up and reclaiming the area as lake, marsh and wet lands. The New Orleans National Park could also preserve the French Quarter and possibly other historicly important areas.
4. The role of the government during disasters is to provide immediate aid and to help clean up to prevent the spread of disease. I agree that the New Orleans refugees are in dire need and I fully support the US Government doing everything necessary to rescue people, and to provide emergency medical care, food, water, and temporary shelter. The government could also provide the New Orleans refugees either a one-way bus ticket to anywhere in the US or if they have a car, a $200 grant to buy gasoline. There are existing federal, state, and local programs to provide food and shelter for the longer term until the New Orleans refugees can be reabsorbed into the American population.
Unfortunately, you can count the remaining hunter-gatherer societies on the entire planet on one hand. They've been displaced or assimilated into oblivion. There's a recurring pattern of fear and disgust from settled folk when they see other tribes just wandering around.
I think the Raute of Nepal are one of the few exceptions, as their neighbors tend to respect them, but the government is forcing them to settle and give up their way of life, with justifications like the need to immunize against tuberculosis and other such things that require a stationary folk.
A shame, really, since hunter-gatherers demand less from their environment, and have more egalitarian societies than most of the rest of humanity.