Is it good to build back New Orleans, since it is below sea level? Don't the odds favor another disaster?

Question

Is the land below sea level
and surrounded by water?

Eventually, won't it just disappear,
no matter WHAT humans do?

Is it a good thing to spend
billions of dollars to restore?

Is it true that 2/3 of the
residents have relocated
and started lives in other
states?

Answer 1

New Orleans is my home. It was pre-katrina and it certainly still is now. Yes New Orleans is below sea level, but Florida and Italy are more below sea level than New Orleans. So why should we keep rebuilding Miami or Rome? New Orleans is, in my opinion, the most beautiful and interesting city America has to offer. If you have ever visited the French Quarter, you know it's a place to cherish. And eventually everything will disappear. We only have 30% of land in the world. So why should we save any of it? BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROTECT THE FEW LAND WE HAVE! New Orleans is a beautiful city that we need to milk for all it's worth. And as far as the 2/3 of residents leaving, yes there is some horrific amount like that however, there are so many people rebuilding and now settling here we are rapidly getting those 2/3 or whatever back. NEW ORLEANS WILL BE BACK AND BETTER THAN EVER!!! MEDIA EXAGGERATES!

Answer 2

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. Logically it is not. Yes, a disaster could happen again. By nature or by man. And then the billions spent wold be a sinker. But psychologically it should be rebuilt. Humans do not do well at letting go and moving on of a disaster. Some have never gotten pass Mt St Helen, or the Oakland fire storm, or any of the earthquakes here in Cali. Those who lost everything would be the most devastated, I think. It is the hope that one day they will be able to go back is what keeps them going. Like being an exile from your homeland, be it Iraq, Cuba wherever. You always have that longing to go back, to get back home. But is that enough to justify the cost? I would say maybe not. But if this government can waste trillions in Iraq and add to it weekly. I say they should at least spends some billions on actual US citizens.

Answer 3

About 60% of the former residents are back in New Orleans with many others wanting to go back. As long as the levees are rebuilt properly why not rebuild it? New Orleanians will usually prefer to live in their city in the swamp. Since there is a major port and business district, not to mention a rich cultural heritage, I feel like New Orleans is worth the trouble. If the Gulf finally comes up to meet the city, that will happen when it does.

Your speculation is about real people with real lives and is not a math problem you compute in school.

Answer 4

They can create something to make it better. It is below sea level but they can build ways around it like in the Netherlands. They have places below sea level but they have ways of keeping water out the residential areas. In case water still gets in, they have better ways to deal with it and not have that much destruction. Like this article says "they live with the water not against it".

The money can be use to improve this things and think ahead. The problems with this planning is that they think to solve something for the now and not for a future event like another hurricane.

Answer 5

I was in New Orleans last March before Katrina. I took a bus tour around the city and the driver told us that the government has told the city that it will not be here in 100 years and that it would be underwater. He told everyone that he would not be that surprised if it happened sooner. Yikes that was weird after Katrina happened to think of that.
I am not sure if they will ever rebuild completely as it would seem to not make much sense but then we are talking about the government so who knows.
I believe many of the people will never come back to live there.
Texas seems slightly unhappy about their new neighbours moving in. Time will tell but I am thinking New Orleans is definitely sinking....

Answer 6

It would be better not to rebuild. Most sensible thing to do.

That said, we know that some people will rebuild unless the government actually prohibits it.

If they are going to rebuild anyway, they should get some architects who will design a multi-level complex with parking garages on the first two levels. They'll be submerged eventually, but the rest of the building might stand for a century or two.

Answer 7

I think it's stupid. I realize that NO has a really rich history with a very diverse group of citizens, and I recognize the need to preserve that history and heritage. I just don't think it has to be in the same geographical spot. Why don't they just relocate the entire city to some place in Montana? It's not like the 50 people living in Montana will mind, right?

If they're going to reelect Ray Nagin and rebuild the city so that the same poor people will have to rely on the same government who let them down in the past...then they're asking for anything they get.

Call me crazy, call me cold-hearted. In 20 years time, you'll have to also call me right.

Answer 8

New Orleans had it coming. And so DO alot of places up & down the East Coast & along the Gulf of Mexico. As long as people insist on building their lives along the waters edge, disasters are GOING to happen, sooner or later.

Answer 9

Most of the Netherlands's is below sea level and they have drained he water and built dikes that keep storms in the north Atlantic Ocean out!

Answer 10

Yeah, the refugees are locked up in prisons outside of LA. They ought to make them bastards go home. If every last one of them drowns, it sure won't be any loss.