You Can't Always Get What You Want...

...But you should always ask a few question's first, just in case you can.

So Republican Dennis Hastert gave himself a political shitstorm yesterday when he made comments about the fact that since there would be federal funding involved in rebuilding NOLA (New Orleans Louisiana), there should be a discussion about how they should rebuild it even though he never said that NOLA should never be rebuilt. The reactions on the 'net were fierce. At least he got the discussion that he wanted.

Leaving aside the probably not-so-good timing Hastert's words, I would just like to pose a few questions and comments about the rebuilding of NOLA.

Obviously, I have no cultural, historical, personal, etc. connection to the city itself. I understand its cultural, political and economic significance to the US (French Quarter, probably economic engine of Lousiana, major port in the US). However,

1) Is there an area upstream where parts of the city could be rebuilt so that there would be a greater distance (and land, hence a buffer) between the city and any hurricane coming off the coast? Could the residential areas be moved further inland while keeping the ports closer to the mouth of the delta? While I don't necessarily advocate use separation, if it's not economically viable to also move the ports inland, then at least when a major storm breaks, less people will die.

2) Could major landmarks like the French Quarter, the universities and the Superdome be run with negligible economic effects if you moved parts of the city away?

3) Insurance companies are going to be emptied after Katrina. Which begs the question, if most of the city is rebuilt in similar fashion, what will be individual rates and city-wide rates like? What will the differential be? What are the economic impacts? Will they even insure that area?

4) I was talking to Matt about this tonight and he mentioned that a natural disaster like this should not happen to an advanced nation like the US. It should have had the capacity to minimize the damage and lives lost better than it has. We wondered aloud about why it couldn't have evacuated the whole population (even those that couldn't do it themselves). I had never heard of such a thing...until tonight. Typhoon Talim hammered the coast of Fujian province yesterday. While the economic and infrastructure damage probably won't be as significant, it was reported that they evacuated 500 000 from the province and 291 000 from neighbouring Zhejiang province. They evacuated 800 000 from 2 provinces? How could the US not have evacuated more of the city, which has a population of 500 000 in the city proper and another 5-700 000 in the neighbouring areas?

5) Just because other US cities rebuild areas afflicted by disasters (e.g. Californian homes from wildfires, LA, San Francisco, etc.) over and over, does it mean that NOLA should be rebuilt over and over? A bridge jumping analogy comes to mind. If many parts of the city are a lost cause, it means they will have to rebuild from scratch anyways. Here's an opportunity to reduce the risk and the damage+life toll when the next one hits. Why not take that chance or at least, while the cleanup's happening, have someone study the feasibility? I'd like to invoke the precautionary principle now. With many of NOLA's poor afflicted, couldn't this be a big opportunity for major public housing projects, or at the very least, provide them with a fresh start? And as for other parts of the US, I totally agree. If you've been living in an area where parts of the city is being destroyed by fires, tornadoes, etc. then follow New Orleans' potential lead and prevent people from building where you know shit's going to happen. It's not a hazard anymore, it's a risk: you know what the probability is of it biting you in the ass, and evidently, it's pretty high.

6) How does one think city planning would solve this problem? As much as I'd like to believe that planning is a panacea for everything, I don't think planning could solve it. It's not a planning issue, but one of geography. There doesn't seem to be a lot of space to build to begin with, so I can't see how NOLA can be planned so that it doesn't become a lake unto itself again as it is right now.

7) And what makes people think that building higher and stronger levees will solve the problem? NOLA's IN A BOWL! And it's getting deeper by the year. The levees and barriers themselves are heavy, so those are sinking too. marshes were being destroyed and while there were projects to bring them back, Katrina took care of those nicely. It seems like they want to make NOLA into a fortress to keep out nature...and reality.

8) Some have remarked that they would never ask New York or Chicago to relocate...but those cities have lower probabilities of a major naturally recurring weather events hitting them, especially when their geography is absolutely less precarious than New Orleans. If someone invokes the couple hundred feet tidal waves from The Day After Tomorrow, they're fired.

9) Others mention Netherlands and Venice as examples of safe cities on a delta-like coast. Netherlands again don't have hurricanes barrelling down at them every couple of years. Though if sea levels do rise substantially from climate change (and that's not definite), it'll be interesting to see how they respond. As for Venice, they're realizing their problem but they have no real solution yet. If the unthinkable does occur and Venice is force to relocate, what would Americans and New Orleanians (?) think then?

10) I'd like to reiterate once more how so many parts of the geography+historical human influences on the geography has added to the damage that Katrina did. When a city's below sea level, bounded by a major river, a lake much larger than the city itself, and receding wetlands that buffered against storm damage because of a channelized river that shunts sediment used to replenish the delta into the ocean...well, let's just say the house has you on odds. I mean, I'm surprised and I'm sure a lot more people are grateful that such disasters haven't been a recurring thing.

I don't know what the answers are or will be, but they should at least be able to ask hard questions and not bury their heads in the sand and think if they rebuild again, everything will be alright.