<p>Please take a moment to visit this link and sign the petition asking for honest and effective storm protection, up to a Category 5 level, for New Orleans and other population centers, and coastal restoration and conservation.</p>
<p>Done! For DH, DS and me. Thanks, tabbyzmom. I had been meaning to contact representatives re this, but hadn't come up with the "message" so this makes it easy.</p>
<p>I'm downhearted to the max about Tulane Engineering :mad:, but I'm still a NOLA supporter.</p>
<p>Thanks. Just sent the message.</p>
<p>Done & Done</p>
<p>I think that the country should first determine whether the cost of providing N. Orleans Category 5 levee protection is possible and in the best national interest from a budgetary standpoint? Or, should the country take advantage of an unfortunate opportunity to rethink the scale of a rebuilt New Orleans?</p>
<p>Yes, of course. Let's just let the city go under while pouring endless cash into other countries.</p>
<p>Sorry, but that won't fly in this house. The Netherlands can do it. (Yes, they don't have Cat 5 hurricanes, but have you seen the storms on the North Sea??) So can we. Why can't people see that?</p>
<p>interesteddad - these are important questions you raise. Rebuillding New Orleans does, indeed, imo, involve questions of rebuilding "as is" vs. rebuilding in such a way as to restore protective wetlands, etc. etc. etc. The exact level to build the levees is also certainly going to be debated. The Netherlands will be, as ctymom~ says, a blueprint. I just think that a "flood" of support - even if we don't address the issues you raise right now - is critical. Washington needs to regain the sense of urgency and support re restoring the Gulf Coast. We need the "will", then we can fine-tune the "how."</p>
<p>interesteddad - New Orleans is not only worth saving, but it must be saved. We are the leading import and export site for the entire midwest. Ripples will be felt heavily throughout the nation if our city is not resuscitated. New Orleans will not be saved if the federal government does not help us out financially.
Of course I am very passionate about this as a metro New Orleans resident....and If New Orleans goes under, Tulane goes under.</p>
<p>On second thought, interesteddad, the New York Times said it much better in their editorial Sunday:</p>
<p>Death of an American City
Published: December 11, 2005
We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum.</p>
<p>We said this wouldn't happen. President Bush said it wouldn't happen. He stood in Jackson Square and said, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans." But it has been over three months since Hurricane Katrina struck and the city is in complete shambles.</p>
<p>There are many unanswered questions that will take years to work out, but one is make-or-break and needs to be dealt with immediately. It all boils down to the levee system. People will clear garbage, live in tents, work their fingers to the bone to reclaim homes and lives, but not if they don't believe they will be protected by more than patches to the same old system that failed during the deadly storm. Homeowners, businesses and insurance companies all need a commitment before they will stake their futures on the city.</p>
<p>At this moment the reconstruction is a rudderless ship. There is no effective leadership that we can identify. How many people could even name the president's liaison for the reconstruction effort, Donald Powell? Lawmakers need to understand that for New Orleans the words "pending in Congress" are a death warrant requiring no signature.</p>
<p>The rumbling from Washington that the proposed cost of better levees is too much has grown louder. Pretending we are going to do the necessary work eventually, while stalling until the next hurricane season is upon us, is dishonest and cowardly. Unless some clear, quick commitments are made, the displaced will have no choice but to sink roots in the alien communities where they landed.</p>
<p>The price tag for protection against a Category 5 hurricane, which would involve not just stronger and higher levees but also new drainage canals and environmental restoration, would very likely run to well over $32 billion. That is a lot of money. But that starting point represents just 1.2 percent of this year's estimated $2.6 trillion in federal spending, which actually overstates the case, since the cost would be spread over many years. And it is barely one-third the cost of the $95 billion in tax cuts passed just last week by the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion. All that money has been appropriated as the cost of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. But what was the worst possible case we fought to prevent? </p>
<p>Losing a major American city. </p>
<p>"We'll not just rebuild, we'll build higher and better," President Bush said that night in September. Our feeling, strongly, is that he was right and should keep to his word. We in New York remember well what it was like for the country to rally around our city in a desperate hour. New York survived and has flourished. New Orleans can too.</p>
<p>Of course, New Orleans's local and state officials must do their part as well, and demonstrate the political and practical will to rebuild the city efficiently and responsibly. They must, as quickly as possible, produce a comprehensive plan for putting New Orleans back together. Which schools will be rebuilt and which will be absorbed? Which neighborhoods will be shored up? Where will the roads go? What about electricity and water lines? So far, local and state officials have been derelict at producing anything that comes close to a coherent plan. That is unacceptable. </p>
<p>The city must rise to the occasion. But it will not have that opportunity without the levees, and only the office of the president is strong enough to goad Congress to take swift action. Only his voice is loud enough to call people home and convince them that commitments will be met.</p>
<p>Maybe America does not want to rebuild New Orleans. Maybe we have decided that the deficits are too large and the money too scarce, and that it is better just to look the other way until the city withers and disappears. If that is truly the case, then it is incumbent on President Bush and Congress to admit it, and organize a real plan to help the dislocated residents resettle into new homes. The communities that opened their hearts to the Katrina refugees need to know that their short-term act of charity has turned into a permanent commitment.</p>
<p>If the rest of the nation has decided it is too expensive to give the people of New Orleans a chance at renewal, we have to tell them so. We must tell them we spent our rainy-day fund on a costly stalemate in Iraq, that we gave it away in tax cuts for wealthy families and shareholders. We must tell them America is too broke and too weak to rebuild one of its great cities. </p>
<p>Our nation would then look like a feeble giant indeed. But whether we admit it or not, this is our choice to make. We decide whether New Orleans lives or dies.</p>
<p>tabbyzmom - I have sent that editorial to each of my Senators and Representatives in Washington, to let them know that it expresses my sentiments exactly and that there are people all over this country who support the restoration of New Orleans. Thank you for the post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
New Orleans is not only worth saving, but it must be saved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think anyone disagrees with that as a general principle. But, "saving New Orleans" doesn't mean that you rebuild it with exactly the same vulnerabilities or that you rebuild it with some pie-in-the-sky CAT 5 protection for the entire metro area.</p>
<p>For example, do you try to surround Plaquemans Parrish with Cat 5 levees? Is that really cost effective?</p>
<p>Given that much of the city has effectively been leveled, it makes more sense to step back and take advantage of an opportunity for a rational development plan. I actually thought the staged plan floated a couple of weeks ago made sense as a general outline.</p>
<p>It isn't pie in the sky. It's a city in the United States of America.</p>
<p>It honestly seems that simple to me, especially when we DO spend as much doing what we do for other countries as we do. Would you have the same questions about helping people on the east and west coasts rebuild time after time? It's done, and few question that. Is it because they aren't poor? There is no permanent fix available for those places, yet the government continues to bail them out time after time. Why not New Orleans, where it is possible to do something real, even if expensive, about it?</p>
<p>You all know what a big supporter I am of Tulane, and I love New Orleans. But, I do not think it is heresy to suggest that the rebuilding be better thought out than the initial building and development.</p>
<p>Like most cities in the US, New Orleans and the surrounds just grew the way it did over a long period of time. Give these unique circumstances that essentially allow for a real re-thinking for the future, I see nothing wrong with trying to come up with a plan that is more protective for all.</p>
<p>Just my $0.02</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not New Orleans, where it is possible to do something real, even if expensive, about it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not convinced that it ** is** possible to provide the level of protection you suggest for all of New Orleans. Maybe on paper, but not in the real world.</p>
<p>The 17th Street and London canals failed at well below their nominal design limits. The actual water levels never reached the levels predicted for a direct hit Cat 3 storm. The failures were clearly the result of human error in the design, construction, and dredging of the canals -- errors that are multiplied across the entire levee system. In the final analysis the money spent on the levee system over the last 40 years didn't buy a lick of additional flood protection that was in place when Hurricane Betsy hit.</p>
<p>I see little reason to believe that similar degrees of human error wouldn't be repeated in a rushed patch job of the levee system. As a practical matter, getting the levee system up to a point where it provides real Cat 3 protection is an enormous task. And still does not address the fact that N. Orleans is still sinking.</p>
<p>I'm not a city planner and I'm not familiar enough with N. Orleans to offer specific recommendations, but I'm fairly certain there are low-lying areas of the city that should NOT be rebuilt. And, frankly, there's no particular need to rebuild every area as the population is unlikely to return to pre-Katrina levels anytime soon.</p>
<p>I, too, am one of the proponents of returning NOLA to it's original Crescent City configuration. I read that everything that was built after 1878 (I hope the date is correct) flooded. Everything needs to be studied thoroughly to avoid the mass suffering we just witnessed. Perhaps some unoccupied and restored wetlands in the city's limits are in order.</p>
<p>I also believe that there will be time to rethink the building of the city. Just having housing in place for people to occupy doesn't address the issues of employment and education. There are many evacuees in our area of Texas that have no intention of returning to their low paying service industry jobs and failed NO public school system. That's at least at this time. Perhaps if a thoughtfully rebuilt New Orleans offered better jobs and public schools, they would reconsider.</p>
<p>My son's roommate from last year won't be returning to Tulane. His parents, both who had high paying professional jobs, lost them after Katrina. The economic rebuilding will have to occur over time. I fear that just throwing money at the city will create a flash in the pan effect.</p>
<p>NOLA is a great American city and it deserves to survive. It also deserves the planningto make it thrive.</p>
<p>Rebuilding NOLA exactly as it was in July 2005 is probably not a wise thing to do. For one thing, levees or no levees, in about 20 years it will be an island - literally - if something is not done to stop the loss of wetlands. What do you do when the interstates leading to the city are underwater?
The real problems are twofold - 1) Where to start? Getting the city back on its feet is a complex, interconnected relationship - people are going to come back if there are no jobs, schools, homes. Jobs, schools and homes cannot recover if there is no insurance written. Insurance companies want to know there is some protection 2) Mustering the political will to make the tough choices that may be necessary to develop some stability - take the heartbreak and fallout from Tulane's decisions as an example, then apply it to whether or not people are going to be allowed to rebuild their homes on land that belongs to them (even when any reasonable rational person would say they have no business putting a structure on that land if the individual cannot afford to replace the home without insurance), you begin to get a feel for the political implications of these decisions.</p>
<p>I'm not much of a fan of centralized control (look at FEMA's performance) but this is a situation where some sort of czar or blue ribbon panel with real authority, may need to guide, ?mediate some of the decisions. I wonder what Cokie Roberts' mom Lindy Boggs is doing? She's only about 90, but I bet there's plenty of wisdom and toughness there!</p>
<p>Make levees - not war! (new t-shirt being sold here)</p>