Should New Orleans be rebuilt, or abandoned? Why?

Answer 1

New Orleans has been re-built numerous times in its history. That is like saying should have we re-build San Francisco after the great fire. Or Chicago.

New Orleans, is home to many of my friends. The gulf coast is home to a lot of my family. It happened before. The govt rebuilt it. That is where the "ward" areas came from. The issue is not money nor resources it the political red tape. The city could have already been rebuilt 90% at least.
The strain that New Orleans refugees has put on the country is sad. Granted most of the people were poor lower income families that remained trapped. At no fault of theirs, per say. The mayor had the Buses to ferry people out. But he sat on his laurels. The Federal and State govt have a lot of explaining to do.

When a family of 4 (my cousin) can not get aid from FEMA because they are teachers with BS degrees. Something is WRONG...They made to much money to apply for aid. WTH...Lost their jobs...SCHOOL WAS GONE...Lost their House, their cars, their pets, etc etc... Total ruin...But they got no trailer..ETC.

So, Yes, rebuild the city...it has historical record.



EDIT:::

I see all this about relocate the city: Who is going to give up the land. And where is a good spot to put it? Where it is is fine!!!

50% of all the major cities on the gulf coast are at or below sea level. You cant just up and move a city. That has never been done in history. I can see it now: City of New Orleans relocates to North of Ponchatrain....The other cities are going to have to make room... New Orleans was put where it was because of its access to the Mississippi river.. AKA TRADE PORT


Thanks

Answer 2

Why do I have a feeling it will be rebuilt (IN TIME) after much land is condemmed and bought cheap and become much more upscale?

I just looked up on www.factcheck.ord and found
Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees

Bush administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war."

He continues:

By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Then there were additional cuts at the beginning of this year before Katrina hit

Answer 3

Rebuilt

Answer 4

I think New Orleans should be rebuilt, not necessarily as a residential site, but maybe some "attraction" for people to be able to remember the events of Katrina as part of history, their lost loved ones and their former homes.

Answer 5

It should be demolished and rebuilt as a national trash bin. The city would take trillions to rebuild and many many years. Plus the other cities and towns that we hit by that hurricane. The place is a wreck. Screw it. New Orleans will never be the same. To many deasesies and the amount of families that will be on welfare are just going to increase. GREAT!

Answer 6

The residents of New Orleans already did abandon it after the hurricane. Unlike other areas where the community stayed to help one another rebuild. There were busses to pick up the residents so that they could help. One person showed up.

Answer 7

It makes no sense to have a city below sea level. Unless you divert the waters around the city, it will happen again. It is a shame that so many lost their lives or homes from this disaster, but, we need to learn from this. There is alot of higher ground where a new prosperous New Orleans could be built. The downtown area was pretty much left alone. keep that area and build new housing on higher ground to stop the inevitable from happening again.

Answer 8

That is up to the residents of New Orleans. I don't have a problem with rebuilding it as long as it isn't my tax dollars paying for it.

I will say this, if they do rebuild it and another hurricane comes along and wipes it out I don't think it should be the responsibility of the rest of the United States to rebuild it again.

Answer 9

Yeah, I probably would want to see it re-located before being rebuilt, definitely out of harms way. That State did suffer tremendously and should be able to enshrine their memories.

Here a thought:

Try giving that area to the drug dealers
gangsters
pedophiles
rapist
crooked politicians
corrupt cops
Mayor Nagin
FEMA - Main Office
Presidential Vacation home
etc......

Answer 10

Mornin Paul. If they insist on rebuilding, they need to be smarter than to build it 6 feet below sea level again. That's the only requirement I would have. Stupid engineering design, no matter how you look at it. That is akin to building a submarine with screen doors. As to if it should be rebuilt, well, I guess that's what we humans do instinctively when a natural tragedy strikes. We rebuild. It may be a form of regaining our nerve when we have been faced with something as harsh as nature.