Talk of the Town

By Ignatius

September 6, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

It would appear that Trent Lott’s home raising is taking priority at present. Maybe the administration will look at New Orleans once they have a porch to sit on and commiserate.

By John Dobbins

September 6, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

A little over 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson sent envoys to France to purchase New Orleans because the port was vital to the US economy. What was true in Jefferson’s day is even more true today, so not rebuilding New Orleans simply isn’t a realistic option.

Hastert was right on one point however, many sections of the city will have to be bulldozed. The buildings are a total loss in many flooded areas and will have to be razed before any reconstruction can start. This gives us an opportunity. After the 1900 Huricane hit Galveston Texas the elevation of the city was raised before it was rebuilt making Galveston far less prone to damage in future huricanes.

The lowest sections of New Orleans are along Lake Ponchatrain, and this is where the worst flooding occured. Instead of simply redeveloping these areas after the damaged buildings are removed this area should be raised with fill. The material can be obtained by dredging Lake Ponchatrain, the areas that are now well below sea level should be raised before reconstruction starts.

This will raise the cost of rebuilding the city, but it will also help avoid a repeat of the flooding we have now, and insure that any flooding in the future will be far less severe. We don’t need to be penny wise and pound foolish in rebuilding New Orleans. Elevation is the best protection against hurricanes and raising the lowest sections of the city will be an investment that will reduce any damage in future hurricanes.

By KMJ

September 6, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

At this point, I don’t know what’s more depressing. Seeing the images that continue to come from the hurricane-ravaged areas, or the constant finger pointing from the right, from the left, from the black, from the white, from the rich, from the poor, and from the celebrities. It’s easy to lay blame, but much harder to actually be pro-active and DO something. Giving money is easy for those with it, but what else are they doing? I’m much more proud of those Americans I see who have opened their homes and their hearts to fellow Americans in their time of need. While money will go a long way to help rebuild what was, human kindness goes farther, and will be remembered much longer.

Should it be rebuilt? and by ‘it’ I’m not just referring to New Orleans(other areas were hit remember), yes, as long as the lessons from today, and the past are learned, and applied. But Mother Nature is always going to be there, she can be brutal, as we’ve learned.

By raceman94

September 6, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Are you crazy? Maybe…Most people are nowadays. I seriously don’t think it’s a good idea. If people think that hurricanes are going to keep getting worse and worse, another one is bound to wipe out The Big Easy again. Imagine doing all that building only to get wiped out again. Talk about a waste of money.

By Nancy

September 6, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Of course it should be rebuilt. How ridiculous of anyone to suggest that it not. I am a conservative and am proud of this administration but am embarrassed by Mr. Hastert’s comments. He has undoubtedly been taken out of context, as the press is wont to do, and may have been suggesting that the city, as it was formerly positioned, should be repositioned higher but not in a different location.

The French Quarter, to name only one historical district, has too much cultural and historical significance for it to be arbitrarily bulldozed. Unless the water infrastructure is so far gone that it cannot be repaired or sustain life, the City should be rebuilt. We would no more abandon Boston’s or Philadelphia’s history to the wrecking ball than we should New Orleans’.

By Mike

September 6, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Why would you want to rebuild below the Garden District which is below sea level? Any part of New Orleans built after 1927 should not be there, plain and simple because another, and perhaps a much larger, hurricane will surely hit the city. As bad as this storm was, it could have been worse. Now is the time for replanning the city. If you do rebuild, and people choose to live in what history and nature has now shown us to be a most vunerable area to live in, then deal with your choices and don’t point a blaming finger at the US Government for not helping you. You have been warned.

By Donna Outlaw

September 6, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

I am dismayed at the comments of some that New Orleans should not be given federal money to rebuild. Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi have been given federal money time after time, hurricane after hurricane; Los Angeles could fall into the ocean from an earthquake and “The Big One” could happen at any time so why did we use federal money to help them rebuild? New York is going to be a target for terrorists from now on so why use federal money to help them rebuild? ETC ETC ETC! And the person who sent in the Vent “I knew the Louisiana Purchase was a bad idea” - No one in Louisiana was amused. I lived in the Carrollton, GA area for 15 years and had two children there and Georgia is my second home but Baton Rouge will always be “my hometown” (although I was born in New Orleans) and there are too many reasons to list why New Orleans should be rebuilt better than ever. In fact, it’s insulting that the question even came up in the first place!

By M. Murray

September 6, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

“New Orleans” is already gone. All that remains is the concrete, wood, and steel shell it once lived in. “New Orleans” left before Katrina hit and the levee gave way… “New Orleans” is dead. The idea of bringing it back to life, and if so WHERE, are two very big questions. It’s not just a matter of putting the homeless in 200,000 trailers for three or four years, it’s also a matter of convincing employers to rebuild and rehire; and that —more than housing the homeless— is something DHS, and FEMA, and Bush, and the “former” Major of the city, and the present Governor of the state of Louisiana have no say over. The question the Speaker asks IS valid. We (The People) just MAY decide that we can’t, and shouldn’t try to bring “New Orleans” back from the dead. I have a growing feeling that Baton Rouge will be the “New Big Easy” and the ports of Galveston and Mobile will absorb the shipping that once went through the Ol’ Nar’lins. The question IS a valid one. And since it will cost ALL of US a lot of time, effort, and money to “resurrect” this place we once called New Orleans, it’s one we should ALL consider from every aspect. Pro AND Con.

By Tracey

September 6, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

Of course it should be rebuilt. If something terrible happened in Atlanta - say, a terrorist attack - would you want the city rebuilt?

Anyone who doesn’t think the city should be rebuilt has never been there. New Orleans is more than just a city, it’s part of history. Its culture is unique.

By Craig

September 6, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Of course New Orleans will be rebuilt. If it was Savannah would we be discussing this? I do agree that as many areas will have to be razed, this is an opportunity to properly engineer the area and raise the elevation so that future hurricanes will not pose such a dire threat. Sounds trite, but if we can put a man on the moon then certainly we’re up to this.

By RWH

September 6, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

New Orleans, a city that is rich in all culture. It remains a city that just can’t disapear for good…it is reason why it is there. How do you rebuilt the city, not of the same materials that has stood there for years gone by. It will take a good many men with degrees planning it structures and infrastructure. It cause the main element of the city of grave taskings. The oceans that creates winds must not be another if, but a way to change how and when. The city can come back, but not the same way it is now built now.

By Paul Hamilton

September 6, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

I definitely agree that if steps are not taken to raise the city up, then why rebuild it. This is just like the tsunami, people living right on the waters edge, destroying natural barriers that help protect against mother nature. If you live on the gulf, you are at extreme risk to hurricanes. This is not a secret! Imagine how much flood insurance will cost now. Now that a hurricane has done this much damage, flood insurance will be so expensive to live in new orleans that 99% will not be able to afford it. If the sea level problem is not fixed this horrible tragedy will at some point repeat itself.
I also believe better evacuation methods need to be implemented. There needs to be a way to help evacuate people, especially those that need help getting out BEFORE the storm hits. Anyone would decided to ride out the storm in an area prone to flooding, needs to have their butt kicked. I think alot of people paid with their lives because of either not being able to get help evacuating or stupidity.

By James

September 6, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

I’ll help rebuild New Orleans if Kayne Wayne will move there, on the waterfront and he agrees to ride out another CAT 4 storm.

By Bob Casey

September 6, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Definitely rebuild - just some place that is AT MINIMUM above sea level and likely to stay there. Rebuilding anyplace below sea level wouldn’t be wise OR economically viable. Most of the “underprivileged” seem to like Texas just fine, anyway, so far.

By Tammy

September 6, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

New Orleans should be rebuilt. However socially and economically it should be changed. New Orleans has wonderful culture and history, but after seeing how its inhabitants responded I know something had gone terribly wrong.

By Funk Gee

September 6, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Sure - rebuild the city. But not with taxpayer’s money. What are we gonna do? Put the entire city on stilts? Lets see how much private money goes into the city. I’ll bet its a token amount. The city is below sea level. When you play with fire you might get burned.

By edge770

September 6, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Absolutely NOT! New Orleans has been known to be nothing but trouble for a long time, whether it be economic, infrastructure, crime/graft or other areas. This should serve as a warning to all those living in “high risk” areas, that the feds will not bail you out if you live in these high risk areas. If you want New Orleans to return, it must be done with private funds only. This is not racism or class warfare. This is the truth and fact of the matter.

By Bill Godshall

September 6, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Although I lived in New Orleans for 15 years as a young adult, I do not consider myself a true New Orleanian. New Orleans will be rebuilt, by New Orleanians themselves if no one else. Nothing short of radioactivity from a nuclear disaster will stop the rebuilding and reoccupation of this unique city.

By IGHR

September 6, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

New Orleans and the Gulf Coast must definitely be rebuilt. I agree that when the city is rebuilt that, if possible, it must be raised from below sea level so that at least the insurance to live there will be affordable. I also hope that great effort will be taken by everyone involved (displaced citizens who return, political leaders, corporations, etc.) to address and improve upon the hellish quality-of-life issues in the city (drug infestation, crime, violence, extreme poverty) that clearly reared their ugly head in the lawnessness, disorder and suffering in the aftermath of the hurricane. New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are way too important culturally and economically to America to not rebuild and if it is done correctly the upside (new jobs, wealth creation, economic, cultural and psychological benefit of coming back from something so unspeakable) would be immeasurably off the charts for the region and the nation.

By freddi

September 6, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

It is disgraceful that this is even a question. NOLA is no less important to this country than any other city that is in the way of potential disastor (natural or manmade). I am ashamed of the way our federal government has handled this disastor and ashamed that this would even be considered. If we had spent the federal funding that was requested by the Army Corp of Engineers to update the levee system in NOLA we wouldn’t be even be having this discussion. The lesson learned from this (I hope) is that as a country we need to be proactive rather than reactive. Since 9/11 we have squandered our resources as one of the richest nations in the world and have left ourselves vulnerable when we were supposed to be getting stronger. I hope they rebuild NOLA bigger, better, and stronger.

By Doug

September 6, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

The city is rich in history and culture, true; however, the fact remains that the city is and will always be at risk. As long as the river and the lake are right there beside it, the entire city is in a flood hazard. My recommendation would be to create a “New” New Orleans in a neighboring area not as much at risk, and relocate the businesses and services there, but at the same time, fix up the actual city itself as a tourist/cultural center.

New Orleans shouldn’t be left to fend for itself, but by the same token, there is going to be a noticable number of vacancies as far as businesses and private industries go…corporations are not going to put their profits, products, or people at risk in that city. Relocate the commercial and residential districts to a safer area, or build a new city, and then preserve the history and culture of New Orleans by rebuilding it into a cultural city…Mardi Gras will still be there, don’t worry.

By SteveSC

September 6, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

New Orleans will be rebuilt (possibly as a smaller city), one way or another, because of its natural position. It’s probably preferable that private money should pay for most of the reconstruction, but by the same token, all federally-funded flood insurance should be discontinued. Doing this would be a political hot potato in Florida and Texas, among other places, so it probably won’t be done.

By CG

September 6, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

I really do think they need to rebuilt the city. If you look at it now, you have so much you have to do. If you go in there now and try to fix anything it is not going to work. The simple fact, you will mildew and other problems. The structure of the house, building or church or anywhere will not work. So I would say rebuild the city and you have a prettier and beautiful city.

By ann

September 6, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

No…do not rebuild

By Brian

September 6, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

There’s no way the city should be rebuilt. They’ve already done major damage to the coast, wetlands, and Mississippi delta. You could still have a point of entry, but the city itself shouldn’t be rebuilt. How are you going to avoid another mess like this one … a strong hurricane will, eventually, hit New Orleans again. Higher levees aren’t the answer. Neither is raising the ground the city sits on by 10 feet prior to rebuilding it, as has been suggested by others. In the end a city is just thata … a place to live. If it disappears you just find another place to live. It amazes me that people get so sentimental over a group of buildings … regardless of what culture, history or tradition came out … it’s just a collection of buildings.

By SJM

September 6, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

I think that anyone that feels this city should not be rebuilt is heartless. This should not even be a question. This should not be about money. This should be about what is right. How do you not rebuild a city after it has been destroyed in this day and age. We have the resources and the means to do it so we should.
After the tsunami people weren’t saying, “Oh well since they chose to live in that area knowing the consequences we shouldn’t help them.” There was no arguing back and forth. There was no blame game going on. There were no excuses being made. There were no delays in getting the people help and actually helping. People all over the world did what they could to help and make that city go on as normal as possible.
I love my country yes, but I also realize the problems that it has. Hopefully one day everything will be as it should and we wont hesitate to help our own. Just as we dont hesitate to help those selected countries that we always have our arms open to in their times of need.
The response that America is giving to the victims is purely political. And anyone that doesn’t see it is blind. I am proud of the Americans that did step up to the plate and offer assistance from the very beginning. I am very sorry to say that unfortunetly our leaders do not fall in that category.

By Kevin

September 6, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

By Kevin

September 6, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

We should turn to the Netherlands for know-how on how to construct a means to control water. Most of the Netherlands is below sea level. In the 1950s and 60s, they spent billions constructing an underwater “dam” that adjusts flow based on ocean currents and water levels. New Orleans, however, was trusting a series of old-school earthen levees. We should rebuild, but use advanced technology and knowledge.

By Msteven

September 6, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

They can rebuild new orleans..the question is..who in their right mind is gonna wanna risk being drowned and floolded again? what bussiness are gonna risk losing employees and billions of dollars when surely there will be another cat 4 hurricane(several are already brewing in the atlantic as we speak) its was a high risk 100yrs ago. its even a higher risk today as the city is sinking. now with this great lost of life anyone would be foolish to live there ever again.

By John Dobbins

September 6, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

New Orleans is the nations largest port. It is where much of our exports leave the country, and where much of the oil we import enters the nation. The Port of New Orleans is vital to the US economy. The City is far more important to the economy of the nation than Atlanta is.

Rebuilding New Orleans isn’t just a matter of humanatarian aid. It’s place in the national economy makes rebuilding it a matter of self intrest. Those of you who want to leave it in ruins are cutting off your noses to spite your faces.

By Ed

September 6, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Strategic port facilities - yes. Rebuild everything else in South Dakota where it’s safe.

By Richard Arnold

September 6, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Whether New Orleans is rebuilt is up to the people who live and work there. Personally, I think the port area should be rebuilt and maintained and better protected in the future. However, I do not believe the greater American public should be forced to rebuild New Orleans with federal tax dollars. If New Orleans needs a loan, maybe. But if people want to live and work in an area that is below sea level, they need to figure out how they intend to do this safely and how they are going to pay for the safety besides having federal moeny do it.

Atlanta has a sewer and storm water infrastructure problem that can compare with the seawall problem in New Orleans (over $3 billion). The feds are not helping Atlanta rebuild its infrastructure and I agree they shouldn’t pay for it. People in SD, NJ, Utah or wherever didn’t make the problem so why should they pay for fixing it. The same is true for the problems in New Orleans. They have ignored their problems with the seawalls for decades and now they are paying the price. Living below sea level has consequences and for consequences you usually pay a price. Pay now or pay later but don’t ask the total U.S. citizenry to pay for other’s mistakes and desires to live dangerously.

By RM

September 6, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

The question should be….Are the people coming back? Are the businesses coming back? If no one is coming back, then why bother rebuilding it. If they do come back (I would say at least half the population and businesses), then build the city on sticks or higher off the ground since it makes no sense to repeat history again.

By luke

September 6, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Once the flood waters are pumped down, all displaced residents of New Orleans should be given 1 month to return to what is left of their homes and claim any possessions they want. After the 1 month period, every building that was partially/completely submerged should be leveled. Then the areas that are leveled should be filled in with at least 100’ of fill dirt. These new high ground areas should then be grassed and planted with trees and made into memorial areas for the multitude of dead. The only areas that should be rebuilt are the areas that received little, if any, flooding. What is gone is gone and can’t be brought back. Not one penny of tax payers dollars should be used to rebuild anything in an area that is below sea level. Common sense needs to take presedence over national pride. Everyone in the United States already knows what we stand for. I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of our country. We need to be smart and realistic and get things cleaned up as quickly and economically as possible.

By Jason

September 6, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

I am all for rebuilding N.O., but only after it is raised to at least sea level. Many cubic yards of fill dirt will have to be brought in. Maybe they could use the same contractor that the Hartsield-Jackson airport used.

By La girl

September 6, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Of course New Orleans should be rebuilt! Its full of history and obviously important to the nation’s economy. Part of the reason for the widespread flooding and damage was because the barrier islands and wetalnds that used to protect Louisiana are gone. Mostly because of erosion that was sped up by dredging canals for the oil companies and for gas pipelines. The state government has tried to get money to solve the problem which the federal government and oil companies have ignored. Now they will finally see why it is needed. Everyone in this country enjoys the gas and oil that come from that area and everyone should share in rebuilding the damage that was done to the wetlands and now the city of New Orleans.

By daniel

September 6, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

if new orleans is not rebuilt, first there will be hundreds of thousands misplaced. then there is the problem of all the oil products in the area that need to be refined. after that new orleans is the largest exporting port in the united states. if it is not rebuilt the whole economy could collapse because people cant get their goods exported.

By Mike

September 6, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

The lawyers have sealed the fate of New Orleans. As the result of lawsuits and insurance claims about mold, NO insurance company will insure a house or building contaminated by flooding. No matter what steps are taken, even strippng bare to the frame, the potential damage to foundations after this much time renders almost every building uninhabitable.

Sadly, in today’s world the potential of lawsuits will keep businesses out of the flooded areas. The only solution is to raze, cover, and start again.

By Charlyne Statham

September 6, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

At this point I really don’t have an opinion as to whether or not New Orleans should be rebuilt; however, I do feel that the focus at this point should be on the people have been affected by this tragedy throughout the gulf coast area.

What can be done to aid these people should be given top priority at this point.

By NJF

September 6, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

The city of New Orleans has a long, interesting and storied history…This recent disaster will undoubtedly become a part of an even longer, more interesting and more storied history. It will take the city a long time to recover from this, but as the economic engine of Louisiana - and a major cog in the national economy - rebuilding just makes sense…So does making the much needed infrastructe improvements that the state and local governments have been asking for for years to replenish the state’s evaporating wetlands, and that likely would have minimized the destruction that we’ve witnessed over the past week. Folks will eventually go back to New Orleans and a hundred years from now its residents and school children will learn about how their city was destroyed but came back to be one of this country’s most exotic and vibrant cultural centers.

By deedubya

September 6, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

John Dobbins seems to be the only person on this forum with an intelligent, insightful opinion.

By Leroy Smith

September 6, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

This whole New Orleans diaster may just break the whole country. To even consider rebuilding a destroyed city, that is 10 foot below sea level is insanity. Move New Orleans, leave the French Quarter. The farmers and ranchers on the Mississippi had to move 5 or 6 years ago, so should New Orleans. As a taxpayer, to rebuild would be the biggiest and dumbiest thing our federal government could do.

By CD

September 6, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

The city’s been there for over 300 years. There needs to be a city located because of its important geographical point next to the end of the river and ocean. Half of the gas and oil used by the US runs through it, and it’s a great port area. If the levees are built properly and evacuation plans for hurricanes are actually implemented, the city will be no more dangerous than any other city next to the coast.

By Kelly

September 6, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

I agree that we should look to the netherlands for how to improve New Orleans’ chances against hurricanes. The Netherlands have not only taken measure to protect against the water, but the country is actually growing from the land reclaimed from the sea every year.

By LEW

September 6, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

The cost and benefits should be carefully evaluated. Residents can relocate where there are jobs and existing housing. Many of these people had little or no insurance and will not be able to rebuild. If feasable, preserve historical areas that survived and re-build the port…beyond that…if it’s below sea level, let the lesson be learned.

By GT

September 6, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Who should pay for rebuilding is an altogether different question. Just ask yourself, if Atlanta was gone tomorrow would you want to see it rebuilt? Then we will all know what the outcome will be. New Orleans will be rebuilt, better and stronger than ever.

By William

September 6, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Of course New Orleans should be rebuilt—with whatever federal money this “compassionate conservative” government can “spare”.

This is like saying San Francisco ought not to be rebuilt when they have massive earthquakes.

Or perhaps a better one: A large part of an entire nation lives below sea level: The Netherlands. You folks ought to check out the Dutch papers over there and see what they’re saying about the federal mis-handling of all this. It’s an eye-popper, but you need to be able to read Dutch/German.

By L. Brown

September 6, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Before they rebuild they need to elect new local and state officials that care about their citizens. All the problems they have had regarding rescue and supplies has been because of their present ‘leaders’ and their ‘bubba’ mind set government. Saying that, yes rebuild but rebuild safer and smarter and without the selfish, no account bureaucracy.

By Jennifer

September 6, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Rebuild it above sea level and be smarter about the levees and evacuation points. If those actions are not going to be taken, then more than 100% it should not be rebuilt. Why would you put people through this twice in one lifetime? People are focused on history. History is in the past. Be concerened about the future the city has, if any and take it from there. And this time if the city is rebuilt, cut out all the vodoo and hexes and all the witch craft garbage……GOD wiped out Sodom and Gamora b/c of the infidelities and witch craft and HE can do the same in the 21st century, please don’t mistake that…….Take heed to that warning and forget all others b/c that warning will properly direct you.

By Aulesia

September 6, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

This is an accident that was going to happen. I dont think the city should be rebuilt in the same area. We have lots of other area like Montana,Idaho with plent of land, but the concern would be the Port Area that made New Orleans. But I wouldnt rebuild in the same area—no matter what type of Levies they used. It could happen again—waste of time and energy…People just Relocate and start over. It could be done. Start over and start anew in another area.

By Jennifer

September 6, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

And a city thousands of feet below sea level should not have been a major port of any kind, oil, shipping, etc…..Whoever made that decsion made a bad one. Do we need a port in the Gulf? Yes…One below sea level? No…Not when losing it will cause this much confusion and turmoil.

By Samantha

September 6, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Rebuilding New Orleans has its pros an cons. The pros being that with all the rebuilding comes many jobs and of course there is the historical value. Cons being that another storm, more powerful, will once again tear it down. Give everyone a check for their property’s worth (that is what property tax records are for)and let them decide. The cost alone for sheltering and feeding them along with moving them from here to there will cost much more, not to mention the emotional and physical torment they all are going through. God bless them all.

By DB

September 6, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Also, you must keep in mind that the Netherlands never experience hurricanes. This will happen again no matter how much levee technology is available.

By Dave

September 6, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

The important question is not IF New Orleans should be rebuilt, it’s definitely HOW it should be rebuilt.

And simply, it should NOT be rebuilt below sea level. The historic areas are actually above sea level, and should remain as much as possible.

The areas below sea level? No way, no how. Those areas need to be filled, brought to 15-20 feet ABOVE sea level, and built upon this embankment. Expensive? Yes. Very similar to the fill that is being placed for the 5th runway at Hartsfield. But…it is wiser to spend a half-billion on fill now, rather than having to rebuild everything when the next “Big One” rolls through.

By DB

September 6, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

And the Netherlands are not sinking. Due to subsidence, N.O. is still sinking, so it is inevitable that any system will eventually fail. Also, hurricanes are expected to increase in frequency and strength. This is not a freak occurence.

By bubba1

September 6, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

I guess the questions is do you rebuild a city that is below sea level. I understand that this a is a great and historical city but would you build in a flood zone or on the San Andreas Fault line. Would you be willing to insure a house below sea level. If you could not get insurance like many americans wold you be willing to risk everything and bet that this will not happen again? Lot’s of questions…

By James

September 6, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

With a loud YES!!! Anyone that says otherwise is heartless. It doesnt matter how much it costs. It should be rebuilt. This time, lets make the levees withstand a CAT 5. Most of NO will have to be bulldozed, that is sad.. Make it better than ever. Make New Orleans the most beauitful, advanced, and wonderful city in the US. When the “open for business” I will be there..

By Cindy

September 6, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Yes and no. I don’t care how much rebuilding is done as long as the taxpayers don’t have to pay the bill. The federal government should only subsidize fixing the historical buildings that aren’t totally ruined. After all, the government needs the money to rebuild Iraq.

By Chip

September 6, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

My family visited New Orleans for the first time just 4 weeks ago. The city hosted the AAU Junior Olympic Games with over 20k athletes. The city was a wonderful host. The people, the food, the history…..unforgetable! Not rebuilding New Orleans…unimaginable! The levys must be raised and the city must be rebuilt…bigger, stronger, and wiser.

By Robin

September 6, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

God created New Orleans, and God destroyed it. And in his time, he will tell when to rebuild it. Watch and Pray.

By msg

September 6, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Do not rebuild NOLA!Bulldoze everything, relocate current businesses and rsidents.Baton Rouge is poised and ready to take over. I am sick and tired of spending tax dollars on lost causes. It is absurd to try to build a city below sea level, as NO is. And now, when the predicted disaster has occurred, the residents of NO want everyone else to pay for the consequences of living below sea level. Personally, NO was always and still is a cess-pool in every possible way.

By gary mcfall

September 6, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

THey need to consider rezoning the areas that flooded the worst to limit the amount of residential housing being built. Turn the low lying areas into parks or green spaces. Build casinos and bars and hotels. Things that can be easily evacuated and left beind. Build the residential areas north and create a better public transportation system to get people to and from work and for better evacuations. This should be looked at as an opportunity to rebuild a delapadated community and aviod the mistakes of the past. The same could be said for many coastal areas that are regularly battered by mother nature. We should fix problems, not rebuild them.

By chantrice

September 6, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

I agree what if it was Savannah.Or what if that was your hometown. I could not image not at least trying to restore what was lost. Coastal Areas are at high risk for things of this nature but a bad tornando or other nautral disaster could come thru Atlanta and we could all be homeless also. Many of us should think about that before we speak of throwing a city away. And for those of you that feel that culture and history is not important. Throw all of your your family albums in the trash. It is not just a city lost, but a way of life for many. Rebuliding could bring back jobs and income for people in our city with no home and no where to go. It is kinda of interesting how we could think about that for this city. I wonder why?

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

September 6, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

If we do not rebuild New Orleans because of a natural disaster, why should we continue to rebuild homes and businesses in Florida and California or the rest of the Gulf Coast?

The Hurricanes of the past have leveled businesses and homes alike in Florida alone. I watched as homes literally fell off cliffs in California. We watch homes rebuilt after tornadoes each year, some have been destroyed more than once or twice.

I’m confident that something can be designed to help alleviate the problems with flooding in New Orleans. If money is the only reasoning behind the quest to “Not Rebuild�, then maybe we should redirect some of the funding going into our space program. I think we could solve New Orleans problems a lot faster than we will ever get to living in space.

There are many creative thinkers out there, now here is your opportunity.

By PB

September 6, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Rebuild, however take a new approach and look to rebuild homes and buisnesses in area’s that are not as prone to flooding and hurricane damage. If my tax dollars are used to place homes in harms way again I will not be happy!

By Dan Bollinger, Sr.

September 6, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

It should be rebuilt just as Radium Springs was rebuilt in Albany after the flood. Historic resources are important, until they are a burden on the federal budget. Then they become a liability. to paraphrase the lovely Mae West, I would say to beautiful New Orleans, “hang on folks, it’s going to be a very bumpy ride.”

By Mo

September 6, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Is anyone taking into consideration what the ecosystem and the environment will be like after all of this! Mr. Clean can’t mop that up. The question should be will this place ever be suitable for humans to live there again. I don’t know about you, but hometown or not, I wouldn’t want to live in a radioactive hotbed. All types of health issues will definitley arise from that “toxic soup” of sewage, gas, chemicals and corpses that flooded the streets. Unthinkable “junk” has seeped into the soil, the water table, as well as every structure in that city. I’m all about preserving history and hometown pride, but safety comes first!

By E.G. Salomon

September 6, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

This is just me, but before considering rebuilding the city or not, wouldn’t be logical to first come up with preventive measures or redesign the city itself in order to avoid a catastrophe like this to ever happen again?

If solutions are found and are doable, then by all means rebuild the area; if not, by all means be reasonable about it.

After all, you know what happened to the man who built his house on sand…

By James

September 6, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

The text quoted below, is an accurate copy of the beginning of an October 2004 National Geographic article, “Gone with the Water”.

The complete article can be viewed on National Geographic’s web site.

It was a broiling August afternoon in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Big Easy, the City That Care Forgot. Those who ventured outside moved as if they were swimming in tupelo honey. Those inside paid silent homage to the man who invented air-conditioning as they watched TV “storm teams” warn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing surprising there: Hurricanes in August are as much a part of life in this town as hangovers on Ash Wednesday.

But the next day the storm gathered steam and drew a bead on the city. As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.

The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level more than eight feet below in places so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.

Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.

When did this calamity happen? It hasn’t yet. But the doomsday scenario is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.

By Walt Morrissette

September 6, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

First Fill-In the bowl to bring it up over sea level, then build on top of that. It would be senseless to recreate the doomsday scenario by building below sea level all over again.

By LeVerta

September 6, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

I think that they need to leave well enough alone and not rebuild a city that can be destroyed again by another hurricane or tropical storm. The people need to start over with fresh memories. This was a horrendous experience for everyone and the location of the city being below sea level makes it an hazardous situation waiting to happen. Invest the money into families rebuilding somewhere else. There are more cons than pros in this situation. Historical or not, New Orleans is located in disadvantageous position, the levees couldn’t hold this time and levees are not going to hold with the next storm or hurricane either. Hundreds of lives have been destroyed by loss of lives, loss of jobs, loss of homes, etc.

By Vivian

September 6, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

New Orleans should be rebuilt after the levees have been improved but with much more control over where building takes place. No buildings within 0.5-1.0 miles of the ocean would be a good start.

By Jamal Washington

September 6, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

New Orleans should just be industrial area. It is too unsafe to have people living there.

By Justin

September 6, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

No, New Orleans should not be rebuilt. Federal monies should be made available to turn the area into a new National Park. Since most all homes are ruined in the area, they will have to be rebuilt.

The US government knew that these people lived in danger and therefore should pay them fair market value for their home (pre-hurricane) in an attempt to help them purchase a new home in a new location.

With that money, the government should assist everyone with purchasing a new home in the area of their choice, within reason. By within reason, I mean they should not be given funds to move from a trailer to a mansion.

Unless a case can be made by engineers and scientists that New Orleans can be rebuilt and successfully withstand a category 5 hurricane in the future, then I see no other viable option that saves lives.

By Ralph

September 6, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

To RWH:

“WHAT???”

By Jerry Schull

September 6, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

Dumb question if you ask me. Of Course!

A better question would be:

Will the Corp of Engineers build a levee system to contain a CAT 4 or 5 Hurricane? The morons built the current levee system to match “Betsy” (CAT 3) which occurred 40 years ago and wiped out a good portion of Southern La. This time before New Orleans is rebuilt, shouldn’t they committ to a levee system that will contain a CAT 5 or better?

By Anthony Young

September 6, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

I’m certain New Orleans will be rebuilt, but not for the common people. We shall see profit driven capitalists invest in “Urban Renewal” type projects where high rise condos and exclusive neighborhoods will replace properties formerly owned by African Americans. This tradgedy is an opportunity your typical greedy, uncaring American capitalist lives for. Watch and see.

By GW

September 6, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

We should not confuse the PORT of New Orleans with the CITY of New Orleans. The PORT will be operational by early next week and again contributing to the economy. The CITY will be underwater for weeks/months and continue to be a “drain” on taxpayer’s wallets for years. The PORT will not need to be rebuilt. The CITY should not be rebuilt with many BILLIONS of public money - but it will be. And it will be destroyed again within 10 years. Those clamoring loudest to rebuild the CITY do so because they have no concern about spending someone else’s money.

By Michael

September 6, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

Of course it must be rebuilt. New Orleans is far too important to the national economy to just abandon. It will take billions of our tax dollars, but we just don’t have another choice. Having said that, we have to assure that it is rebuilt to standards far superior to what they had to before. Suffering another devastation like this is not an option, not in 21st century America.

By Stonewall

September 6, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this

Best opportunity for large scale urban renewal since Sherman visited Atlanta.

By S

September 6, 2005 05:39 PM | Link to this

1st: to Cindy—sweetie, why should our tax dollars go to Iraq before they go to us? I thought the purpose of American tax dollars was to help America. Other than for our troops our money neads to LEAVE that nation. 2nd: executives already knew that putting a business in New Orleans would be a risk. They did it before and they will do it again. 3rd: the government knew that Louisianna needed money to protect their citizens and land. the government didn’t care then and they still don’t care now. all the government cared about was that the place was still functioning at the time. now they are being forced to act like they care. 4th: the city was rich yes. but most of its people were poor. have you all forgotten that the cost of living for the city was extremely low. labor was cheap and where there is cheap labor there is even more hard labor. the residents couldn’t afford to move to other areas. they couldn’t afford flood insurance. and lets not talk about the public education system for the state as a whole. its hard to believe that so many top colleges are located in that state.

By Funk Gee

September 6, 2005 05:41 PM | Link to this

Where’s all this money to rebuild supposed to come from? Insurance companies will pay up and then not write policies there ever again. The federal gov’t will do the same. The state and city governments can do what they want. It seems foolish to buck the conventional wisdom and put mega assets at risk again.

By Robbie Barger

September 6, 2005 05:41 PM | Link to this

New Orleans should not be rebuilt. Before the hurricane the city had problems. The biggest problem is that the city itself lies below sea level. Flooding will always be an issue. There’s no reason to rebuild a city that could be washed away again. All the money and donations collected thus far and in the future should be used to get the citizens of New Orleans back on their feet and relocated to another city to get on with their lives.

By Patrick

September 6, 2005 05:41 PM | Link to this

Build it…And they will come!

By D-Ice

September 6, 2005 05:45 PM | Link to this

Interesting idea not rebuilding.

For those who posed the “what if” about Atlanta being destroyed by a terrorist attack; if the city was polluted with radioactive crawdads, dead bodies, or fecal matter it might be a consideration to move it to somewhere closeby rather than starting over at 5 Points.

Rebuilding it below sea level reminds me of the King in Holy Grail who built his kingdom 3 times on a swamp before it stood.

Do what you want. I’m currently out of work, so it ain’t my tax dollars. Also, if there are under-sea level areas in New and Improved Orleans, don’t let gov’t leeches like me live there.

BTW, liked the Port comment.

By Catherine

September 6, 2005 05:55 PM | Link to this

Businesses are going to be looking at this from a financial/risk perspective. New Orleans is even more vulnerable to hurricanes since Katrina swamped the barrier islands and deteriorated the dunes and beaches. Once New Orleans is drained, it will be sitting next to a lake filled with chemicals and sewage. But New Orleans is going to be rebuilt because its residents wouldn’t have it any other way. I doubt people are going to want to wait for better levies to be built or the city to be raised since they are not even willing to wait for the city to be drained in a way that won’t destroy the environment. Living in New Orleans is a gamble. Only those who can afford to lose their homes and jobs should be making that gamble. I don’t think the government should be helping to put low income people in that situation.

By jeffrey

September 6, 2005 06:02 PM | Link to this

To ask the question should New Orleans be rebuilt is like saying should the american flag ever be raised again.New Orleans is America and the city means so much to African Americans every where.Atlanta and New Orleans are the most important cities in America. Atlanta for civil rights and New Orleans for Music and the culture between the slaves and indians in the 1800’s.The Indians provided shelter and love for the slaves who we’re treated with the most vicious and cruel hospitality ever in history by european slave masters, who themselves we’re expelled from Europe for being the worst of the worst.My cousins have been playing jazz in New orleans since the 1800’s and gave me my musical gift through there bourben street sessions. I love New Orleans with every drop of my very soul. New Orleans is my spirit.

By George

September 6, 2005 06:05 PM | Link to this

Yes, rebuild it. But make it different. Make it America’s Venice. Build it so only steel or concrete foundations are below sea level.

And let the Mississippi deposit its silt in the delta … to give protection from the inevitable future hurricane.

By Sean

September 6, 2005 06:24 PM | Link to this

The U.S. cannot afford to lose another city of character. New Orleans, like San Fran , Boston, New York, etc is full of history and interest. Having said this , it must be done responsibly with forward looking ideas to disaster prevention, raising the level of the city, creating massive spillways and canals, to insure a flood free city. Actually it may turn out to be better off in the long run.

By R-Dawg

September 6, 2005 06:36 PM | Link to this

It would be ridiculous to simply rebuild. I complicated plan involving some rebuilding is the only fiscally responsible solution. I mostly agree with Dave and gary mcfall. I also think the news has spent a good deal of wasted effort reporting this situation though. I have not yet seen a map of new orleans, with the flooded areas highlighted, and statistics. I do not fault Dennis Hastert for saying the city should be bulldozed. A good portion of it should be bulldozed, and rebuilt elsewhere. I can’t imagine how raising the land could be either efficient or economically viable, but if it is, go ahead. I have to assume bulldozing is going to be the best way to deal with a good deal of the land. Anyone who thinks you just have to rebuild because of the historical or economical value, you are forgetting the fact that all of the value has been completely wiped out of the areas that need to be bulldozed or rebuilt.

By Richard

September 6, 2005 06:40 PM | Link to this

New Orleans is a great city, just as any other city in the great United States…would we not rebuild Washington DC?

By Tony

September 6, 2005 06:43 PM | Link to this

No, New Orleans should not be built back the way it was before the Storm and Flood. This catastrophy demonstrated why people should not live below sea level. Unfortunately the American tax payer is going to foot the bill for the City and States incompetence over the years. By the way, why isn’t any one talking about Mississippi or Alabama? (He who screams the loudest, huh)

By Chan

September 6, 2005 06:56 PM | Link to this

Absolutely!!! Rebuild it!!!!!

By Bob

September 6, 2005 07:11 PM | Link to this

Yes but the city must be relocated inland. A new city should be built which can be completed in 2 to 3 years. The historic areas cane be reopened, but allow no one to live within the flood plane areas.

By Terrance

September 6, 2005 07:14 PM | Link to this

If rebuilt who will live there? The thousands who were stranded and have have horrible memories of dead bodies and the horrible smells. If New Orleans was rebuilt would you move down there?

By Susan

September 6, 2005 07:19 PM | Link to this

I work at Georgia Tech and I ran into a family of victims from Jefferson Parish today. They told me that they would re-build New Orleans, although it would take more time than the last.

If anyone again suggests bulldozing New Orleans because it’s so vunerable in a hurricane zone, I say to bulldoze ALL of the multi-million dollar houses on both Florida coasts - and in the Carribean, too.

Now is the time to step up and help the folks from LA and other places to re-build their cities, communities, and lives. If someone told me they didn’t want to re-build Atlanta after “Hurricane” Sherman, I would have hit them in the mouth with my hammer.

By Julie

September 6, 2005 07:21 PM | Link to this

The Big Sleazy’s own government (nagin, blanco) didn’t care enough about it to prevent all the damage that was caused by Katrina… Why should the federal government pay to rebuild it?

By EM

September 6, 2005 07:37 PM | Link to this

I am always amazed at the ignorance in this world. Each time I read these forums it gets worse. I cannot imagine a person saying that New Orleans should not be rebuilt. Whether it is below sea level or not should not justify not rebuilding a city that is home to thousands. Each of you that can so admantly state that it shoud not be rebuilt should think about how you would feel if your valued home, city or country was destroyed and people took the same stance. Those people lived in New Orleans because it was / is their home and they are proud of it - yes we should rebuild the city. As the more intelligent have stated, measures should be put in place to prevent such tragedy happening again - like reinforcing the dams, put in better dams, etc. If you people haven’t noticed are having so many natural disasters because God is not pleased with us - we are so selfish and self centered.

By KL

September 6, 2005 07:41 PM | Link to this

Consider making the low-lying areas near the levees into public space - parks and such - and only place housing where there are elevations. Add a lot more pumping capacity, and perhaps even some more runoff culverts to direct water away, faster. I loved N.O. and hope to go back again… when the people of N.O. can, too. Absolutely appalling the lack of execution for a disaster of this magnitude, given the various forecast & projections that had been made in the past about just such a situation. Perhaps now President GAS, er George Bush will put some of that oil money to good use by helping the citizens of the Gulf region. Goodness knows they’ve been screwed enough.

By kurt edwards

September 6, 2005 08:06 PM | Link to this

Yes.

Our heart, history, healing place(s)- hospitals,hang-out spots —>Charleston, SC is also, like New Orleans, BELOW SEA LEVEL.

I grew up approx. 35 mins. northwest of Charleston, and we’ve survived many hurricanes…

The one thing that was non-negotiable is the determination to rebuild.

Give help.

Momentum follows.

By Bonnie

September 6, 2005 08:21 PM | Link to this

Miss. isn’t getting 1/10th the help, aid and publicity as is NO. Outsiders, churches, and the like are providing the majority of the supplies in Biloxi and Gulfport area. NO has it all and still all they can do is gripe. I’d love to know how many of those people ever paid a penny in income tax?? They should be appreciative but no, all they can do is complain. It is sad for everyone that this happened but spread the goodwill and help to other places besides NO, or at least put a little of their plight in the spotlight.

By Phil K

September 6, 2005 08:23 PM | Link to this

NO! Building a city under sea level is not good city planning. If we really need this port than re-build the port, the French Quarter, and the Superdome.

We will miss the food, Mardi Gras, and Jazzfest…

By David

September 6, 2005 08:54 PM | Link to this

I say build it back on a limited basis. Shrink the city down to a smaller size which can be protected with a smaller ring of levees. These could be built inside the current levees, giving the city two layers of protection.

Inside the smaller ring leave what is left of the historic sections intact and let businesses build in the rest if they are willing.

Anything below sea level should be off-limits to residential development.

Future floods would then be easier to avoid and damage would be limited to commercial properties. There would be no problem with residents being stranded inside the city because they would no longer live there.

By Donna

September 6, 2005 09:28 PM | Link to this

Federal money should go to people who lost their homes and/or businesses. They could spend it where they wish. No federal funds should be spent to rebuild — NO. If anyone wants to spend private money to build there, fine. If those who chose to live there don’t wish to protect the city from flooding, fine. But never again should federal money be spent to rebuild for people that choose to live in harm’s way. They have very ably demonstrated that they expect others to pay for their foolishness.

By Annie

September 6, 2005 09:31 PM | Link to this

It is not a question of if, but when will New Orleans be rebuilt. The people of New Orleans will rebuilt no matter what is decided by the goverment, that is their nature. Yes, the areas below sea level should be raised and the levees should have been rebuilt and made stronger years ago. The U.S. can not afford to loose the history or spirit that is New Orleans and New Orleans alone.

By Chip

September 6, 2005 09:36 PM | Link to this

As Better Than Ezra said, “God, save the King of New Orleans…”. For the people that have put it down, GO TO HELL!!! You have obviousvly never been to the city and have never expierenced it cultural signifigence. As a lifelong Atlantan this would be a major disgrace to the south. It should be rebuilt and we should support all efforts to do so.

By Mombera

September 6, 2005 09:44 PM | Link to this

Ok, let me get this straight - we didn’t have the money to reinforce the levee (which was the cause of this whole debacle) but we will somehow have the money to rebuild the entire city? Where is this money going to come from? Sounds like more of that “Voodoo” economics that daddy Bush spoke about.

Foolish Americans. You think you have a credit card with no limit.

By Jennifer

September 6, 2005 09:47 PM | Link to this

Julie, honey, you really don’t know what you’re talking about….

The problems that Blanco and Nagin faced were put into place way before you and me were even a twinkle in our daddies’ eyes.

For DECADES the legislators and leaders of Louisiana have fought tooth and nail for funding to save the coastline (the buffer between the city and the storms) and protect the city. And for DECADES the government has chosen to fund space exploration and other things.

The coastline of Louisiana is the coastline or YOUR Gulf of Mexico. Please try to remember that we are the UNITED STATE OF AMERICA. We all chose to form our little countries in to one big one so we could pool our resources when one of us got hit real hard. And in return, we’d give back. Yeah, so Kansas will have to pull from deep to pay for New Orleans. But New Orleans generates so much cash flow for Kansas that it’s in Kansas’ best interest.

Look at it this way….this country bought the mouth of the Mississippi River from the French. Then they fought the Spanish for it, then they fought the South for it, then they fought the British for it. Why? Because the Port of New Orleans is very important to the nations economy. Now, if we have the port then we need people to operate it. Voila! A city is born. Where there is a port there is a city. New York, New Orleans….usually a great one.

You don’t want your federal tax dollars to pay to rebuild a member of your family? What, then, should they go to? Only you? Then why be a part of the United States of America??

By Susan

September 6, 2005 10:36 PM | Link to this

If the powers that be decided to bulldoze the parts of New Orleans that aren’t totally destroyed, I, along with a lot of others would have to chain ourselves to the historic buildings and sites!! If you have never visited New Orleans you don’t realize how fabulous it is! When my husband and I first drove in to the French Quarter on our first visit there, I said “yuck, this is so dirty and gross, I hate it”, it wasn’t two hours later and I was in love. We were quick to take his parents there when they visited us in Atlanta, excited to show them the fabulous new place we had found!! It will come back better then ever…what’s money anyway..haha!

By Diane

September 6, 2005 11:05 PM | Link to this

Rebuild it somewhere else! Go North. I think we can figure out the best for everyone. We don’t need to leave everyone hanging or dispersed around the country. What’s New Orleans….a cultural historical tourist sight, sure, it can be rebuilt…but not there. Put it somewhere else, North. There is so much land in Al, Miss, LS. People can rebuild there, why can’t it be organized? An organized civilization. Bring the best music here. Use the gov’t money, insurance money to rebuild the best NEW NEW Land, Form a new area that can be low-cost for those in need, bring the everyone back together, make it a real tourist attraction for the economy like it was. Since the Port is so important to our economy, let it be just that a Port an industrial port. The port does not need to be pretty.

By Marc

September 6, 2005 11:13 PM | Link to this

OF COURSE we should rebuild New Orleans. This city has contributed so much to our society in the way of music and culture. It is truly a gem.

The people of New Orleans would have it no other way…

By jerome

September 6, 2005 11:31 PM | Link to this

I think that on Monday night vs. the Eagles, each Falcons fan should purchase and wear anything with the Saints logo to show support for our best rival. I will be wearing one for sure.

By Charles H.

September 7, 2005 12:07 AM | Link to this

I just sit and think about the magnitude of repairs and work needed to make this city even halfway livable again. After draining all the water, and PERMANENTLY fixing the broken levees, not just with sand bags. The sewer system hopefully is not destroyed and just needs to be drained. All buildings, streets and sidewalks which didnt get washed away need to be cleaned of all the bacteria which will require the sewer system be operational to carry it away. All the destroyed cars, equipment, trash need to be hauled SOMEWHERE, but WHERE?? Power, gas need to be restored. The amount of manpower, money and time its going to take. Its just overwhelming to think of everything that needs to be done BEFORE homes and businesses can even be considered to be started on. I dont think bulldozing high rise buildings is the answer.

By George

September 7, 2005 12:26 AM | Link to this

I was born and raised in Jefferson Parish and cut my teeth throughout the City of New Orleans - coffee and begnets at Cafe du Mond, Preservation Hall, Uptown Bars near Loyola and Tulane, Sunday picnics in Audubon Park along the river, running on the levees, and lots of Popeyes Chicken, red beans and rice on Mondays, gumbo, bbq shrimp, and jambalaya. I abandoned the city for an education at Tech and graduate school at UGA. But New Orleans is still home and it always will be.

I think we’re asking the wrong question here. New Orleans will be rebuilt - its in too many folks’ souls. The real question is how it’ll be rebuilt after they knock down what remains of my friends’ and family’s houses.

And its not just an engineering or housing problem. How do you rebuild a city when the land it taxes isn’t worth anything for the next few years? How do you create a city government that is transparent, fair, and not corrupt? How do you rebuild an economy when so many jobs are lost? How do you get tourists to come back? How do you recreate the marshes that would have retained and distributed much of the water that flowed too easily into Lake Ponchatrain and put too much strain on the levees? How do you retrain and provide for the many that had very little and yet lost everything?

Every one of these questions are almost impossible to answer, but they will be answered. And all of you should expect to help pay, just like we’ve all helped rebuild Florida and North Carolina time and again so we can have wonderful beach vacations.

By Dave

September 7, 2005 01:02 AM | Link to this

I agree with the person that commented those saying do not rebuild have never been there. It’s history and vital ports are reasons alone to rebuild.

Unfortunately, large sections of the city must be bulldozed, but most of these areas were blighted and such an operation could lead to an urban renewal. I know this sounds insensitive, but it’s reality. Of course, the effected areas must be filled in with massive amounts of dirt before being rebuilt.

By Wendy

September 7, 2005 01:24 AM | Link to this

It’s not being in a hurricane zone that’s the problem. It’s that it’s a bowl-shaped city below the sea level. Mississippi got hit the worst, but they had a “normal” hurricane experience, so they are receiving less attention. Mississippi had the entire coast utterly flattened, but the water’s gone. As opposed to the toxic dump that is now New Orleans.

They can’t even think about rebuilding New Orleans yet. It is irresponsible to compare it to other coastal regions, because it has unique problems. It’s not about the “million dollar homes” elsewhere. If it cannot be effectively rebuilt such that recovery time is more reasonable, it shouldn’t be rebuilt at all. Because another hurricane is only a matter of time.

By drmemory

September 7, 2005 01:49 AM | Link to this

In ‘93 the Mississippi flooded many homes. As part of the condition for receiving federal aid, the flooded land could not be rebuilt. What do we say to those families who were forced to relocate? The reasoning is clear enough, it is not prudent to burden public budgets with decisions that have been proven to be questionable at best.

By JC Thompson

September 7, 2005 01:59 AM | Link to this

The port, the French Quarter, and all the remains above sea level should be rebuilt. As far as the poor, ravaged areas of low income housing that sits below sea level, why on earth would we rebuild there. The people that lived there before the storm can’t afford to rebuild. So its entirely on the shoulders of taxpayers. So as taxpayer, I vote to rebuild somewhere that isn’t quite such a stupid place to build. Lets try building above sea level. Yes I know New Orleans is to a degree an important city. Lets face the facts here though. The city has hardly grown at all in the past 50 years, and was full of lower income desparity. I think it’s former residents will find life much more prosperous in neighboring states.

By Lewis Lowe

September 7, 2005 02:55 AM | Link to this

I wrote this for my hometown paper. It looks like my worries are all too justified given the AJC’s asking of this question. I will add this… we constantly rebuild Gulf beach towns which have no economic purpose other than tourism and summer homes and little historical value (I don’t mean to offend anyone- I think the government should help folks in need when and where it can; just trying to stress a point). Now we have a great and historic American city with a vital impact on the economy and it needs our help. Are we really going to turn our backs on it?

There Must Be a New Orleans

By Lewis Lowe

I was going to write about my side of the story as an “evacuee� from New Orleans, but I don’t think it’s really that interesting and given the horror stories coming from the Big “un�Easy, I don’t think it’s appropriate. I may have lost a few material items- nothing that can’t be easily replaced- and had a major disruption of my senior year at Tulane University, but I left the city safely with my parents on Sunday morning and honestly, didn’t even hit much traffic on our exodus back to Hogansville.

No, there are more pressing things that I must get off my chest. I love New Orleans. I absolutely adore and admire the city. Few who grace its streets don’t feel the same way. It has more history and mystery than any other city in America, and it has a culture unique from anywhere else in the world. Where else in the world has Caribbean spice, European industry, native traditions, French elegance, and Southern charm been mixed so wonderfully? This is a city where the deceased are paraded and celebrated en route to their final resting place. There is something special about that.

With that being said, we cannot, as a nation, afford to lose New Orleans. I could spend all day and even all semester (which I have at home now due to that ugly monster named Katrina) making emotional appeals about why New Orleans must be rebuilt and why it is such a great place to live, but you would just have to take my word for it if you’ve never spent time there yourself. No, New Orleans is quite important from an economic and geopolitical standpoint as well.

Many fail to realize why New Orleans exists as a major city. Many say “why would you build a city under sea level?� and question the practicality of re-building a city already decimated and perpetually flood-prone. I have heard differing accounts of the advice given to founders Iberville and Bienville concerning the feasibility of building a city on present day New Orleans in 1718. However, it is safe to say that we now know much more about urban planning and engineering.

Regardless, New Orleans remains one of the biggest and most important ports in the U.S. We have all seen the gas spike as a result of it, but oil is only one part of it. It is one the biggest arteries for trade in the country. It drains the entire Midwest- the breadbasket for the world- and sends out its products to the rest of the world. 6,000 ships pass through New Orleans each year, carrying everything from grain to coal. There simply has to be a major port, and subsequently large port city, near the mouth of the Mississippi River. The New Orleans port facilities remain in-tact for the most part, now the problem changes to “will there be a city and its people to operate them?�

That is my biggest worry- that people, both in and out of New Orleans, will simply just give up on the Crescent City. Some politicians have already expressed reservations about rebuilding it, as well as some talking heads on the news networks. My first reaction is “they have obviously never been there,� but that is neither here nor there. There is no doubt that some people will never return to the city given the fact that they have nothing left, but I still hope and pray for the resiliency that has kept the city thriving as long as it has. Yesterday I met a man at my church who had been staying in Hogansville after fleeing his home in Jefferson, LA, a near-by suburb of New Orleans. He was just about to head back to his home, which he felt sure did not sustain much damage. He said “I don’t want to leave New Orleans. I love the city. I’m not going to let a hurricane tell me where to live.� His words gave me confidence and hope; let’s just hope his attitude prevails over everyone.

Deep down inside of me, I have confidence that New Orleans will survive this tragedy. It simply has to. But in the meantime, I see some of my friends leaving and giving up on Tulane, and subsequently New Orleans, as a place to go to school. This is no time for the weak. New Orleans is going to need strong and committed people to help it rebuild. There is going to much talk for years to come about this disaster and the subsequent response, and honestly, I feel silly bringing up my concern when people are still being rescued and we don’t even have a good idea of how many were killed as a result of Katrina, but it must and will be addressed. As I sit safely and securely in my home amongst caring friends and family (which I thank immensely for their love, help, and concern), all I can think about is the lyrics of the song “Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans?� becoming a real possibility. I pray to God that I never truly know that feeling.

By PMT

September 7, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

Some options for building on/near the coast:

By Tom Briggs

September 7, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Nostalgia motivates me to at first say that we should rebuild New Orleans. Furthermore, we as Americans like to think that we can overcome any obstacle and solve any problem. Unfortunately, in this case the cost of rebuilding the city and building up the levees to prevent another event of this type is just too great. If we as taxpayers are picking up the tab, we have the right to ask people to rebuild on higher ground.

By Bobb

September 7, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

In simple terms it is a matter of doing a cost/benefit analysis: Does the cost of rebuilding and maintaining New Orleans against future disasters outweigh the benefits? Is it easier and less costly to relocate the residents? Will businesses come back? Can other ports in the area absorb the traffic and do the same job at the same price or maybe lower? Will anyone want to take the now very obvious risk of living and doing business there? If you were an insurance agent would set up shop in New Orleans? Who is going to pay for all this anyway?

In human terms, well, people are prideful and stubborn and aren’t going to let anyone or mother nature tell them what to do - otherwise they wouldn’t be there in the first place. San Francisco rebuilt. Chicago rebuilt. Other coastal cities and towns have been leveled and rebuilt. Far away Asian cities we read about way back on page 20 somewhere get leveled by earthquakes and rebuild Heck, the world rebuilt after WWII.

This country goes to pieces every time a street sign gets knocked over but then finally settles down to business. New Orleans will probably be up and running a lot sooner than anyone thinks. That doesn’t mean it makes any practical sense, but then what fun is that?

By Naimah

September 7, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

Yes the city should be rebuilt. There are millions of people displaced and living in atriums and convention centers. America will spend millions of dollars to keep soldiers at war to protect Americans so why cant America spend millions to protect tis own citizens. in regards to comments about celebrities…I think that their presence is important. They have the money, so in America they have the say so. since they have the money and the power why not put them in the spotlight to raise awareness and call our elected officails to do the jobs they were elected for.

By PattiAnne

September 7, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Let’s wait for the U.S. Corps of Engineers to put before us a PLAN to manage the water before even discussing whether we, the general public, think we should rebuild New Orleans. I don’t believe one dollar should be spent on rebuilding until the taxpayers, who are supplying the billions of dollars, and the future residents of the new city are protected by the infrastructure to keep this from happening again.

By CeciliaW

September 7, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Of course they should rebuild! That’s what America is about - pulling together and making the best of any situation that befalls us. There is no “them” and “us” - it is WE the people.

By Mellllll2

September 7, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Why not? We seem to think its okay to go to another country, destroy it and then rebuild it, why not rebuild an American city destroyed by the hand of God?

But maybe we should question our arrogant thinking when it comes to building a levee system to hold back rivers? Rivers? Are we nuts? We need to quit imposing our greed on mother nature and use common sense as to where we build. It’s gonna happen again (it only gets worse every time).

By Dave M

September 7, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

Rebuilding is ridiculous. I’m sure there will be some die hards who go back because it’s “home” and I understand that sentiment. Still, we made the mistake once of investing 1.3 million peoples’ livelihoods in a city below sea level only to have it demolished by what everyone was afraid would eventually happen. The continual warming of the gulf waters makes this exact sort of catastrophe even more likely as storms can develop and gain significant strength just off the coast. Rebuilding is simply begging for this to happen again when we now KNOW the devastation in store for us. These are not the twin towers and this was not a terrorist attack. We don’t have to make poor decisions over again to keep our pride intact or prove a point.

By Pete

September 7, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

The city should be rebuilt. It’s my understanding that Haliburton would be part of the rebuilding efforts. Why not utilize vacant military facilities to house and train some of the evacuees. Since they are going to be there for 6 months or so, training efforts can be centered around constructions and other trade fields necessary to rebuilt the city. Train the evacuees and hire them at reasonable rates to rebuilt the city. Hence, they have a stalk in the game and jobs to support themselves in addition to rebuilting the city. This two-prong approach buids the city and also provide training and jobs for the region. I also suggest that they be compensated for training.

By NativeJohn

September 7, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

You ‘private funds only’ right wingers are way out of line. New Orleans has 10 times the culture, history, and tradition than most other large U.S. cities, ESPECIALLY ATL - unless you consider dollar-chasing to be Atlanta “culture.”

I agree with not redeveloping the lower-lying residential areas, however. That land could actually be released to the Army Corps of Engineers to use in regenerating wetlands, while housing is built in growing areas on the north shore of the lake on solid ground.

Regardless, the preservation of historic sections of the city and the safety of its residents is part of what Locke referred to as the SOCIAL CONTRACT. Republicans should look that up in an encyclopedia sometime, if the libraries have any left after budget cuts.

By Stephen

September 7, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

No doubt that that entire neighborhoods will have to be taken down. Many people will not return and with that some of the rich character of the city will be lost for better or worse. Many of the historic areas remain intact which will bring visitors back to the city. The thing should not be done in these neighborhoods is to build hundreds of places that resemble cheaply built Post apartments. The best historic architects should be used to design affordable housing for those who do return. Beyond the homes and businesses, new ways to keep the whole of the city safe from floods must be done. Sorry to say it will cost money that will be and should come from both public and private funds. Get ready,recovery is going to take a long time.

By tcm

September 7, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

New Orleans needs to be rebuilt. It is a vital entry to the Mississippi shipping lanes. Energy and goods used by everyone in the USA, and all over the world, must come through this port city. The cultural history should be important to everyone and the part that New Orleans played in the building of this country cannot be forgotten. The disaster of the Katrina flood happened because of 40 years of corruption and incompetence in the local leadership. The “City that care forgot” forgot to care for its infrastructure and people. Good people must step up to the plate and offer for public leadership in this city, and not run away to the “country.” I know, I lived it and I still love it with all my heart.

By Linda Barrett

September 7, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

I don’t believe that anything should be rebuilt that will be below sea level. Let’s make LA end where God intended to end - above sea level - OR - make it another Venice.

By Lamoine

September 7, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

As a farmer in the upper midwest, I have been pressured for years by “greens” and other leftist-liberal groups about returning my farmland to wetlands. The same should happen here. There never again should building or repairs allowed in any area below sea level. In fact, there should be a standard set how much above sea level building is allowed. And do not forget that if level of land is filled, there must be mitigation elsewhere, and I do not mean by eminent domain.

By Marion

September 7, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Definitely rebuild New Orleans and the other cities damaged in the storm. Natural disasters will ahppen and we need to be prepared fro them as best as possible. To say that a region of the country is NOT worth saving, preserving is ridiculous. We have the capital and intelligence to overcome this obstacle. An in-depth but detailed plan using engineers, scientists, planners should be put forth. Law suits, monetary concerns will only hamper things. For once this country needs to truly put up its backbone and let humanity not money be the driving force. And to those that say tear it down I ask the qustion - SO where do you put 500,000+ people many who are poor, no jobs, and many social issues? Who absorbs the cost of caring for them?

By Who Dat Say Dey Gonna Beat N'awlins?

September 7, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

As a New Orleans ex-pat living in Savannah, I can tell you, it’s obvious who’s been to New Orleans (more than once for Mardi Gras) and/or has friends from that area by reading the postings. The folks who know and love New Orleans and its people, (and thank the Lord there are so many of you), don’t just want it back, they need it. It’s a part of you. It’s the other side of life that you can turn to to make things carefree and fun again. It’s even a dormant part of those who would prefef to have another Cleveland instead of New Orleans. They just don’t know it’s there. Maybe they will realize it one day. I hope so because they will be a far better person for it. New Orleans has always been there for you, this time, it needs you.
This is an article from Chris Rose. This is such a strong article. It made me sad and happy at the same time and I hope you all enjoy it.

Chris Rose: Louisiana ambassadors say hello

Dear America, I suppose we should introduce ourselves: We’re South Louisiana. We have arrived on your doorstep on short notice and we apologize for that, but we never were much for waiting around for invitations. We’re not much on formalities like that. And we might be staying around your town for a while, enrolling in your schools and looking for jobs, so we wanted to tell you a few things about us. We know you didn’t ask for this and neither did we, so we’re just going to have to make the best of it. First of all, we thank you. For your money, your water, your food, your prayers, your boats and buses and the men and women of your National Guards, fire departments, hospitals and everyone else who has come to our rescue. We’re a fiercely proud and independent people, and we don’t cotton much to outside interference, but we’re not ashamed to accept help when we need it. And right now, we need it. Just don’t get carried away. For instance, once we get around to fishing again, don’t try to tell us what kind of lures work best in your waters. We’re not going to listen. We’re stubborn that way. You probably already know that we talk funny and listen to strange music and eat things you’d probably hire an exterminator to get out of your yard. We dance even if there’s no radio. We drink at funerals. We talk too much and laugh too loud and live too large and, frankly, we’re suspicious of others who don’t.

But we’ll try not to judge you while we’re in your town. Everybody loves their home, we know that. But we love South Louisiana with a ferocity that borders on the pathological. Sometimes we bury our dead in LSU sweatshirts.

Often we don’t make sense. You may wonder why, for instance - if we could only carry one small bag of belongings with us on our journey to your state why in God’s name did we bring a pair of shrimp boots? We can’t really explain that. It is what it is.

You’ve probably heard that many of us stayed behind. As bad as it is, many of us cannot fathom a life outside of our border, out in that place we call elsewhere. The only way you could understand that is if you have been there, and so many of you have. So you realize that when you strip away all the craziness and bars and parades and music and Architecture and all that hooey, really, the best thing about where we come from is us.

We are what made this place a national treasure. We’re good people. And don’t be afraid to ask us how to pronounce our names. It happens all the time. When you meet us now and you look into our eyes, you will see the saddest story ever told. Our hearts are broken into a thousand pieces. But don’t pity us. We’re gonna make it. We’re resilient. After all, we’ve been rooting for the Saints for 35 years. That’s got to count for something. OK, maybe something else you should know is that we make jokes at inappropriate times. But what the hell.

And one more thing: In our part of the country, we’re used to having visitors. It’s our way of life. So when all this is over and we move back home, we will repay to you the hospitality and generosity of spirit you offer to us in this season of our despair. That is our promise. That is our faith.