| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2005 07:42:53 PM · #1 |
I know many are probably sick of Katrina threads but I did find this article interesting and thought others might too. Sorry if this was posted somewhere else already.
Don't Refloat
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 07:49:59 PM · #2 |
I can't say I disagree with leaving New Orleans to be the lake it wants to be. Re-location may be the best opportunity many of the displaced and disenfranchised have.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 08:54:29 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I can't say I disagree with leaving New Orleans to be the lake it wants to be. Re-location may be the best opportunity many of the displaced and disenfranchised have. |
I agree. I think, too, that by the time the city gets 'fixed' people will have already gotten settled in somewhere else and won't want to move again.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 09:32:55 PM · #4 |
Just think.....do you honestly think that those homes around the center of New Orleans are livable once the water is gone. How about the clean up? That rotten water and it's contents( oil, gas, raw sewage, sea water (salt), human remains, need I go on?) are embedding deep into the wood. There is no way to be fully be free of that swamp, unless those homes are destroyed and rebuilt, same with the soil. When times comes, and If the Government thinks that it's safe to live back in those homes, which they will....I'd think twice. You never know what health problems will be lurking around the next 20-30 years.
And too, this artical makes many good points. Many questions to ask.
Message edited by author 2005-09-09 21:53:13.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 10:03:37 PM · #5 |
| Just out of curiosity, how many people who think New Orleans should be abandoned have ever been there? |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 10:12:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Just out of curiosity, how many people who think New Orleans should be abandoned have ever been there? |
I've been there.
I don't think it makes sense to rebuild a city on land that is 10 feet underwater and sinking, and to boot is now infected with toxic waste. Many of those areas were initially swampland or lake and were landfilled in the first place.
I'm not saying the entire city should be abandoned -- the oldest parts of the city are the ones built on the high ground in the city. That said, for those who wish not to return to the city, support should be provided to facilitate that. Those who wish to return could be relocated to safer parts of the city, and the more flood-prone and/or uninhabitable sections of the city (such as the 9th ward) be evacuated permanently.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 10:32:26 PM · #7 |
Technically, what makes an area a toxic waste site?
How clean will NO have to be to be reinhabited? Any old part of any city in the US is probably rather toxic by today's standards.
In 3 to 5 weeks or so, the bodies will be picked up and the water drained, or mostly so. Then what? IN a less destroyed suburban middle class area the residents return to pick up the pieces, visit the insurance agent, go back to work.
Umm..there is no work other than cleaning up (as in bulldoze it all and haul it to some landfill) and THEN the rebuilding can occur. So if only 50% of the buildings were insured, unless the feds decide to pay for the other 50% it won't be rebuilt by the current (or former) inhabitants.
For those living on welfare, they won't go back - no reason to, can't afford to - if they couldn't afford to evacuate they can't afford to go back, now can they?
If i was a middle class uninsured, i'd not go back - couldn't afford to. I mean, if we are looking at 3-6 months at a minimum, i'd have to get a job and put the kids in school, etc in my new home - after establishing a new life why go back? Could i afford to?
If i was fully insured, i might have the money to go back, but i'd still hve that 3-6 months of limbo living - i might not want to go back.
FEMA loans money to flood victims, it does not give it to them free. I assume there is some qualification requred so you'll pay it back. I know here in PA the floods last september (ivan and frances) brought FEMA to our 'hood. it took 6 months and local congressional intervention to get ANY loans.
However, logic plays a very little role in politics or peoples decisions. I bet it will be rebuilt in some fashion, and the rest of the nation will be paying for it.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 10:51:17 PM · #8 |
Will they just demolish all the high rises in downtown?
I did read after 3 or 4 days the integrity of the buildings will be in question.
The Super Dome will be no more....I read it will cost 500 million to repair, that will never happen.
Its just is so sad. The history and culture of NO cant die, but it probably will. Makes me want to cry every time I think of it.
Message edited by author 2005-09-09 22:52:51. |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 10:57:09 PM · #9 |
My sister lived in New Orleans (and some of the surrounding suburbs) for several years, and my parents and I would drive down there every few months to visit. I will never forget one particular visit when I was about 11 years old. We were all walking down Bourbon Street around 7:00 pm, headed to the club where my sister was singing...and there he was - the most beautiful drag queen I had ever seen. Well, he was actually the ONLY drag queen I had ever seen. I remember telling my parents how pretty I thought he was, and asking my mom why that man was wearing a dress, and she mumbled something about "people are just a little different here, dear." ;)
I still remember the sights, the sounds, the tastes, the smells...it was a really interesting, surreal, and magical place. I am so saddened that my kids won't be able to experience it like I did as a child, even if it's rebuilt in some capacity.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 11:50:35 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Just out of curiosity, how many people who think New Orleans should be abandoned have ever been there? |
Yes I've been there. However, I think that the core of NO should be saved for history sake, we need that port for exports, but, I don't think it would be a good idea to build again of homes that are 20 feet below sea level. I'm sure that after all this is over, that soil is saturated with waste and pollutants, If it goes untreated. If not treated then replaced. It will cost the state Millions to near Billions. How do you think they'll do that if they can't have better schools....we are just talking dirt, labor, ect, here.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2005 12:06:42 AM · #11 |
I wonder what I'll read in my grandchildren's History Books..."The Great Migration of 2005"...... just think about how this will affect sociological side of things. What if those who did manage to escape and decided to stay where they are. Prof_Fate has some great points. How will this effect other cities, towns, states, in regards of the rise of economical growth or crime. Who knows....it will be interesting to watch and work on to see how NO returns to America or not....If ppl return or not....You think 9/11 was a change in our society, did it? Really? Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2005 12:25:22 AM · #12 |
i honestly am surprised when i hear people talking about not rebuilding New Orleans. i realize it's below sea level and that puts it at risk for another disaster such as Katrina but the city has been around for awhile and has only experienced this situation once to this degree and once to a lesser degree with Hurricane Betsy.
should we not rebuild Biloxi and Gulport, too? they were completely demolished. what about all the coastal cities in Florida? did anyone question rebuilding Homestead, FL after Hurricane Andrew destroyed it? there will always be more hurricanes to threaten all the coastal cities.
did anyone ever have this discussion when the earthquake hit Northridge, CA? what about all the cities and homes that are built along the San Andreas Fault? there is just as much potential for death and destruction in these cities.
i just can't imagine that they won't rebuild New Orleans. even knowing all i now know, i would move there in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2005 10:33:04 AM · #13 |
For the most part, the 'abandon New Orleans' sentiments of the last couple of weeks seem to be expressed by 'Northerners' with latent sectional chauvanisms left over from the Civil War. They look down on 'Southerners' as being not quite as intelligent, not quite as industrious, and a lot more bigoted than themselves. New Orleans to them represents a section of the country and a culture that does not live up to their standards and is therefore not worthy of protecting and saving. The article which this thread is based on is a perfect example of this.
By the way, I am a "Northerner" myself; I live in Chicago. I do NOT look down on any other group of people or region of the country. |
|
|
|
09/10/2005 10:42:41 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
FEMA loans money to flood victims, it does not give it to them free. I assume there is some qualification requred so you'll pay it back. I know here in PA the floods last september (ivan and frances) brought FEMA to our 'hood. it took 6 months and local congressional intervention to get ANY loans.
|
One of the "qualifications" they gave in our area last year after Francis and Ivan was that to get the loan, you had to show proof of flood insurance. Made sense for some. For my sister who had to close down her riding stables (and is just now, one year later, getting them back up), a FEMA loan would have cost her more than it would have given. She lives on the side of a mountain that simply will not "flood." Her damage was from "run-off" from so much water and high winds.
I would imagine that from this day forward, flood insurance in NO will be unavailable or ungodly expensive.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2005 11:18:57 AM · #15 |
None of the areas like Homestead, Biloxi, Gulport, et al. are below sea level, with a levee keeping the Lake and River out. Being pumped constantly.
The interesting thing, a friend of ours moved to NO in June, evacuated back to here in Colorado. They will never move back. Houston was formed because of the Galveston hurricane at the turn of the century. So, I think alot of NO folks will stay where the have been moved or with united families elsewhere. So, maybe the rebuilding of flooded areas in NO may not be necessary.
Also, I read somewhere that the name "Katrina" means cleansing. I thought that was really something to think about. |
|
|
|
09/10/2005 11:36:23 AM · #16 |
Something to keep in mind when thinking about rebuilding:
We are General Contractors in Florida.
Before the hurricanes hit last year, there were already shortages and skyrocketing costs:
1) Plywood - being sent to the Middle East for rebuilding.
2) Concrete - not enough production and too much demand from developing countries.
3) Steel - refineries being shut down.
4) Petroleum products (such as asphalt shingles) Need I say more?
5) Skilled labor - Unwilling to work for market prices. Increasingly replaced by immigrants who work for much less, yet are often untrained.
6) Worker's Compensation Insurance (Which is a racket) - required to work legally.
Now think about restoration work as compared to building whole subdivisions. You have to convince the homeowner to move all of their stuff out and find a place to stay until the work is done. You have to demolish all of the damaged parts and try to piece the house back together while meshing new building technology and materials with old (many of which are no longer available). In the process you must address the issue of mold or expect to be sued in the future when it reappears.
Most houses in NO will have to be demolished.
Large, successful builders already have years worth of housing developments on schedule and have absolutely no reason to drop what they are doing and get involved in this messy business. The large builders also get dibs on the materials, so we smaller contractors have to wait weeks or months for supplies. I am currently waiting 6 months for roofing tiles to finish a job that started one year ago. The tiles they originally wanted are 12 months out.
Now the kicker: Insurance. IF they have insurance they have to determine what caused the damage. IF it was flood water and they don't have flood insurance they are basically told "Go f*%@k yourself." I can tell you that most people I've worked with have NO CLUE what their insurance covers. The insurance companies are overwhelmed. They bring in adjusters from all over the country. 2/3 of which will leave within a few weeks due to the stress. Many of these adjusters have no experience with this type of damage and are unacquainted with the building codes and regulations in another state. Most of our customers have met with 5 or 6 different adjusters and have waited months to even get a phone call. One year later, I am still working on behalf of my customers for settlements.
They base their prices on a system by which they call subcontractors and ask them how much they charge for each thing. This system is inaccurate and the prices are out of date. The adjusters are under great pressure to keep from paying too much, so they systematically lowball the homeowner (usually about 1/3 of actual cost). Many people accept the low settlements and then can't find anyone to do the work. To top this off, they only pay 10% Overhead and 10% Profit to the contractor. Yet the liability for a contractor is staggering. On non-storm related jobs, we average 50% O/P.
Good builders have many years of education and experience. They are required to have licensing, carry expensive insurance and maintain ongoing education. This is not a business that you can jump into. Good builders are already very busy, and the ones that do go over there will be snagged by the home and business owners who had good insurance and/or can afford to pay for the rebuilding.
So, in my mind, whether or not to rebuild NO is almost a moot point. Our situation was a drop in the bucket compared to what happened in the Gulf Coast and this place is still filled with abandoned homes and buildings that haven't even started to be repaired.
Where in the world do they think they are going to find the resources to rebuild the equivalent of a whole state? If these people were so destitute that they couldn't afford to evacuate, do you really think they had flood insurance? Basically, we would be talking about giving brand new houses to hundreds of thousands of people for free. How long will this go on before underpriveledged people across America decide they want one too? How many can we afford to give away now? And if we can afford it, why weren't we helping these people before? How are these people going to afford flood insurance in the future? The companies that are still in business are already raising their rates.
IF it can be rebuilt, the land will be filled and the property sold off to wealthy people for new subdivisions. This process will take many years. Then we are back to the same problem as before. Money trumps the environment.
Message edited by author 2005-09-10 12:46:58. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 06:23:29 PM EDT.
