Hurricane Recovery

There's a real danger that political infighting and popular demand could easily lead to another disaster in New Orleans, especially as most experts are predicting a decade or two of increased hurricane activity due, not to global warming, but cycles of atmospheric and water temperature conditions as old as man himself.

The largest previous flood recovery and rebuilding effort took place, in of all places, North Dakota and Minnesota. ABC News apparently profiled it Sunday night and they have some sound advice for New Orleans.

Comments

[cathy]

i know this will be unpopular but i would not want to go back there until there were soil, water and air tests. It seems to me that New Orleans could conceivably be another "Love Canal". I also think that within the next ten years a good part of the city will be reclaimed by the sea because I can't envision where we would get the money to rebuild the city and rebuild the levees to standards that would hold in a hurricane that is a category 5 or better (yest i know the scale only goes up to five). As it is, I do not think that it is the government's responsibility to rebuild the city. I do not think that would benefit the city and its inhabitants and the american people in general. Donald Trump was interviewed on Fox news and he said it should be done by private business people with tax incentives and free enterprise zones and I thin he had the right idea. I don't think it would be good to set the precedent of the government rebuilding a city.

[*flo*]

We have several State Representives willing to turn in part of their state transportion funding for Katrina relief, Nancy Pelosi (ca-D) 70 mil, wonder how many followers there will be, looks like Tom Delay (tx-r) was not too impressed with this suggestion. With these different countries providing monies to Katrina relief, is this donation or loans?

[!]

I do not think the "city" of NEW ORLEANS shoudl be built back the way it was.
No one has a guarantee that another Hurricane like KATRINA will not hit again. Every single year they have hurricanes.
So you built it back and then as soon as it is completed here comes another one.
I know we need to be in that region because of the oil, shimp, fish , and imports and export business that gulf is used for and has been for years. But, so many people do nto have to live in "the city". I like the idea of what North Dakota and Minn. did after the river flood.
Its just not right that the government is responsible for rebuilding whole cites all over the place an we are the ones paying for it all.
I would not ever want to live in area prone to disaster after disaster like that. Like is to short to live in fear every year when the hurricane season comes.
This goes for FLORIDA, ALABAMA, MISSISSIPPI, TEXAS, LOUSIANA, NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA AS WELL. I live in Atlanta,Georgia and the only areas in GEORGIA we have near the coast are SAVANNAH, SEA ISLAND, & ST.SIMONS ISLAND AND I do not hear much about Hurricanes hitting that area. All coastal cites need to limit the number of people that actually live in those towns. In ATLANTA we get our share of flooding from the CHATAHOUCHEE RIVER AROUND HERE when we have effects of these storms. In our area I think we need more large man made lakes to handle the tun off. Most of the flooding occurs when the ribver backs up due to neglect I think on keeping the river dregged.
Anyway..(coastal towns) need only be tourist towns.
Just my opinion about this. :o)

[DeeDee]

Have many family and friends between GNO and BR and all are talking about moving out of state. They are hurricane weary. Post traumatic stress is state wide along the coast. These photos tell the story:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/multimedia/rita0924/

[TheAlamo]

As it is, I do not think that it is the government's responsibility to rebuild the city. I do not think that would benefit the city and its inhabitants and the american people in general. Donald Trump was interviewed on Fox news and he said it should be done by private business people with tax incentives and free enterprise zones and I thin he had the right idea. I don't think it would be good to set the precedent of the government rebuilding a city.

Posted by: cathy | Sep 26, 2005 1:52:46 AM

Amen to that Cathy. People should have had insurance, and any insurance company that did not figure their risk correctly will soon be bought out by one that did--and the claims will be paid.
Although I am sorry for the people that live there, this can be done better, and less expensively by the private sector.
Remember, the government has to collect $8 to get $1 to the market place.
And...the government produces..... nothing.

[*flo*]

People should have had insurance, and any insurance company that did not figure their risk correctly will soon be bought out by one that did--and the claims will be paid.
And...the government produces..... nothing.
Posted by: TheAlamo | Sep 26, 2005 5:27:31 PM

There are risk when living along coastlines, insurance companies are'nt stupid and to have property and not afford insurance, its unfortunate. Overbuilding right to the water's edge, a practice protected by federal flood insurance, is failure on all parts, personal, corporate on up to gov't level. According to US EPA the problem, sea level is rising more rapidly along the U.S. coast than worldwide, the aftermath of Katrina has taught us all, refurbish programs are broke and inept, among many other programs, however NO will be back, better then ever, and @ everyones cost....
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/NEWS01/509160335/1060