Published on September 2, 2005 By just john In Current Events
It has been posed that rebuilding the City of New Orleans is not a good idea. The fact that New Orleans is flooded has nothing to do with a broken levee. New Orleans is flooded because of many years of coastal erosion. We do not have the natural land barriers that were in place even 50 years ago.

The Mississippi river has been rerouted and the natural sand and silt is not being deposited where it should be. The plant life on the floor of the barrier islands and marsh lands is also in very bad condition due to the rerouting of the Mississippi river. This entire area is in jeopardy because of the most over engineered river in the world.

If you don't know about the landscape, you are simply speaking from your ass. I was born in Louisiana and I currently reside here. I visit New Orleans at least once a year. It is a dirty city full of poor, stupid people. I love it. For me it's not the people, it is the culture and the history. This is my history. I am of Acadian decent. This city is part of who I am.

There is no doubt, WE SHOULD AND WILL REBUILD!

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 02, 2005
There's no way they should rebuild problems they were working around before. It would be the height of silliness to rebuild a city on the coast below sea level that you have to constantly pump out.


FOr the last time, it is not on the coast! Brawley California is 37 feet below sea level! But it is not on the coast either. The Levee's, unlike he Dutch Dikes, were not holding back the sea.
on Sep 02, 2005
Doc, no offense, but look at a map. Look at that link and zoom out a few notches. They can call lake Borgne a "lake" until they are blue in the face, but in reality it is a bay completely open to the ocean. Lake Pontchartrain is a SALT WATER "lake", meaning it is basically an inlet.

No, there is no beach on Bourbon street, but new Orleans is on the coast. You want to call it an "inlet" that takes up most of the states lower border with the ocean, fine, but most of us call a line that borders an ocean "coast".

The flooded suburbs are right there on Lake Borgne, and there's no barrier between.
on Sep 02, 2005
I do not agree with it being rebiult just so that a thousand more can die the next time over because of the grand history of the city.

No talking out the ass here. Many of the reasons why it shouldn't be rebiult (at very least, small housing shouldn't be biult).

In fact, in your own post you state the very logic behind not biulding there. From erroding marsh lands to the city sinking itself.


Spend billions to rebiuld, the poor won't be able to afford the insurance (this place already scared insurers and even FEMA knew about the high risk), the city is still sinking, the marsh is still disapearing, the water table IS RISING...


Sign in on the New York Times website and look at the interactive map. Most of the high land are in well to do nieghborhoods:
Take A Look



I am sure specific areas will be rebult because there is money to be made, but those people who lived in the 5 feet below sea level areas will be waiting a long time for the infrastructure to come back, just for it to be torn down again during the next cat5 hurricane.

Google Map
3 bodies of water, one north, one south and one east. Did you see the section cut of this land? The Mississippi River at normal levels is about 2 or more meters above seal level. The lake to the north is about 1 meter avove sea level normally.

I am not being mean about this. From a construction point of view, economic, and insurance wise, how can you rebuild there? Finally, what about peoples lives?


I just don't see it.

on Sep 02, 2005
Spend billions to rebiuld, the poor won't be able to afford the insurance


Do you really think they had insurance to start with? Don't be silly.

The city does need to be restructured, but not without addressing the marsh land issues. There are many studies that have been done to find a solution. The major problem all along has been an issue of eminent domain. These people couldn't be displaced because someone would have to figure out what to do with them.

As sad as it may be the city of New Orleans needed something like this to happen to make way for a change.

I stand by my conviction that this city has a history that most are not aware of and it need to be preserved not allowed to be claimed by the Gulf of Mexico. If we allow this to happen it will only move the problem further inland. And, as you stated we would only be trading one problem for another.
on Sep 02, 2005
FOr the last time, it is not on the coast!


I kinda, sorta agree with you. Technically it is not on the coast. I have driven to the end of the land south of New Orleans. It's a long drive.
on Sep 03, 2005
Like I say "Lake" Borgne isn't really a lake, so I'd argue that the ocean is just a couple of miles south east. Here's a better map. The 'lake' to the north is saltwater, and that 'lake' to the east is open all the way to the ocean. It's bordered on the south by salt water as well by yet another 'lake'.

If what was on the north, east, and south were really bone fide lakes I'd agree, but a real land-locked lake wouldn't carry stormsurge from hurricaine coming in from the ocean. A rise in ocean levels raises ALL the water around New Orleans, so I don't see how you can get around calling that coast.

As an aside, what about the skeery "global warming" thing, too. IF scientists are somewhat true, and IF the oceans are going to keep rising, should ANY coastal city be considered safe unless they are built on higher ground?
on Sep 03, 2005

Lake Pontchartrain is a SALT WATER "lake", meaning it is basically an inlet.

No it is not.  And we have salt water lakes around richmond, but it is not coastal.

2 Pages1 2