| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"PolicySpy" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2005 03:41:59 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
If the residence of New Orleans wants to rebuild the hurricane prone
land that is below sea level, then by all means do it... just don't
ask
the rest of us to pay for it.
Several cities have condemned old neighborhoods and built new neighborhoods.
Recently at the U.S. Supreme Court were cities not redeveloping targeted
areas but supplying to tracts to developers based on the developer's
requirements...The Supreme Court said that this was okay as long as it was a
successful development. (I would say that it is okay as long as the
condemned property was acquired based on its future value rather than
acquired based on its recent value.)
Now consider New Orleans. Here we may have re-development based on natural
disaster. How ? Well, the property in New Orleans can be popular and
valuable if not threatened by flood and if part of new and prestigous
development. In other words it might be economically feasible to fill
condemned neighborhoods for the purpose of new development. So rebuild the
dikes to previous construction but fill the neighborhoods to higher
elevation...
What happens to the original residents ? Hopefully, they get an insurance
settlement from the insurance company but then also have a residential lot
to sell to the city...
Is this what I favor ? Not necessarily but re-development rather than
re-building is fundamental that should be mentioned...
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Damouth" |
|
| Title: Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
05 Sep 2005 01:16:00 AM |
|
|
"PolicySpy" <PIntell@notmail.com> wrote in
news:9ZISe.6167$L86.5473@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
What happens to the original residents ? Hopefully, they get an
insurance settlement from the insurance company but then also have
a residential lot to sell to the city...
I think I read at slate or salon that 2/3 of the homes didn't have
flood insurance.
-Dan Damouth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PolicySpy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
06 Sep 2005 12:52:12 AM |
|
|
Is this what I favor ? Not necessarily but re-development rather than
re-building is fundamental that should be mentioned...
Okay the fundamentals emerge.
An inner ***** system around the core city increases flooding in the flood
areas and thus is abandonment of the flood neighborhoods...at least in the
long term.
A fill system in the flood areas like I mentioned would increase flood
pressure in the dry areas. Of course fill means demolishment of everything
in the flood areas...
Finally, strengthening of the dikes (or something like a double ***** system)
leaves everything just like it is...
Or finally, finally, repair of the dikes leaves everything as it is but
offers little hope for the future...
One interesting question is what percentage of severely flooded houses will
actually be lost or condemned...based solely on the flood damage ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PolicySpy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
06 Sep 2005 01:04:50 AM |
|
|
Okay the fundamentals emerge.
An inner ***** system around the core city increases flooding in the flood
areas and thus is abandonment of the flood neighborhoods...at least in the
long term.
A fill system in the flood areas like I mentioned would increase flood
pressure in the dry areas. Of course fill means demolishment of everything
in the flood areas...
Finally, strengthening of the dikes (or something like a double *****
system) leaves everything just like it is...
Or finally, finally, repair of the dikes leaves everything as it is but
offers little hope for the future...
One interesting question is what percentage of severely flooded houses
will actually be lost or condemned...based solely on the flood damage ?
Oh, can I be audacious ? (And did I spell it right ?)
New residential construction in the flood areas must be constructed on a
steel barge ? The house never moves it just floats if flooded...Of course
the power is still out, the sewer is backed up, the water pressure is off,
and the gas main is broke...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
07 Sep 2005 12:10:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 01:52:12 -0400, "PolicySpy" <PIntell@notmail.com>
wrote:
One interesting question is what percentage of severely flooded houses will
actually be lost or condemned...based solely on the flood damage ?
All of them.
-- Rob
=============================
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RUSiriusA" |
|
| Title: Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
04 Sep 2005 03:50:20 PM |
|
|
In article <9ZISe.6167$L86.5473@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"PolicySpy" <PIntell@notmail.com> wrote:
If the residence of New Orleans wants to rebuild the hurricane prone
land that is below sea level, then by all means do it... just don't
ask
the rest of us to pay for it.
Several cities have condemned old neighborhoods and built new neighborhoods.
Recently at the U.S. Supreme Court were cities not redeveloping targeted
areas but supplying to tracts to developers based on the developer's
requirements...The Supreme Court said that this was okay as long as it was a
successful development. (I would say that it is okay as long as the
condemned property was acquired based on its future value rather than
acquired based on its recent value.)
Now consider New Orleans. Here we may have re-development based on natural
disaster. How ? Well, the property in New Orleans can be popular and
valuable if not threatened by flood and if part of new and prestigous
development. In other words it might be economically feasible to fill
condemned neighborhoods for the purpose of new development. So rebuild the
dikes to previous construction but fill the neighborhoods to higher
elevation...
What happens to the original residents ? Hopefully, they get an insurance
settlement from the insurance company but then also have a residential lot
to sell to the city...
Is this what I favor ? Not necessarily but re-development rather than
re-building is fundamental that should be mentioned...
It could become the new Venice.
Leave the "core" of the old city and rebuild that section once the water
is drained out. Build a levee around that... leaving a Venice-like
district for the tourists.
The rest of the city should NOT be rebuilt... plow it under.... create
"wetlands" and re-manage the balance between strom-surge and flooding.
Basically letting it go into the Gulf of Mexico, which is where it is
headed eventually.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PolicySpy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
04 Sep 2005 04:26:10 PM |
|
|
Leave the "core" of the old city and rebuild that section once the water
is drained out. Build a levee around that... leaving a Venice-like
district for the tourists.
The core of the old city ? Is there a new city area ?Because the French
Quarter and the downtown business district had very little flooding and
needs very little rebuilding. The only areas to that can be rebuilt (or
re-developed) are the ones severely damaged by flooding...
You're probably refering to a new ***** for the areas that had light
flooding...and yeah that is a standard plan.
But with complete neighborhoods wiped out why not just fill the
neighborhoods with dredge from the lake ? Really, Holland has done this...
.
|
|
|
| User: "RUSiriusA" |
|
| Title: Re: Why rebuild New Orleans? |
04 Sep 2005 04:35:07 PM |
|
|
In article <NCJSe.6198$L86.3496@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"PolicySpy" <PIntell@notmail.com> wrote:
Leave the "core" of the old city and rebuild that section once the water
is drained out. Build a levee around that... leaving a Venice-like
district for the tourists.
The core of the old city ? Is there a new city area ?Because the French
Quarter and the downtown business district had very little flooding and
needs very little rebuilding. The only areas to that can be rebuilt (or
re-developed) are the ones severely damaged by flooding...
When you say "very little flooding"... you must not forget the toxic
mold problem... the damage to foundations... the humidity destruction of
walls... etc... etc...
You're probably refering to a new ***** for the areas that had light
flooding...and yeah that is a standard plan.
But with complete neighborhoods wiped out why not just fill the
neighborhoods with dredge from the lake ? Really, Holland has done this...
Holland had their own "Katrina" in the 1950's when their dykes broke
during a svere nor'easter storm. Many hundreds died... and it was winter.
The Gulf has been slowly claiming the out-wash from the mississippi...
the detruction of the natural wetland didn't help either. Hurricanes
just speed-up the process of re-claiming by the sea.
Bigtime re-routing and re-evaluating will have to be done to channel the
flow of water as it interacts with the sea. More 'canes are on the
way... and the season has just started.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
