Rich
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 14:32
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,898
I wouldn't because the word's not in the English languageI would respond on point but you would accuse me of agruing.
Anniversaries, 09/11 and Hurricane Ike
- Thread starter Kryst51
- Start date
- Local time
- Today, 08:32
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,045
This is a reply narrowly targeted to Steve R and his comments about rebuilding New Orleans post-Katrina, plus the others who bypassed some of his implications.
Steve, first there are sections of the city that are not rebuilding very quickly if at all. Many houses are just now being razed to the ground, four years after the event. It took that long for some of the time-limits to expire on public notification and the attempts to find property owners. So it is hard for me to say that a lot of people are rebuilding in the worst flood areas.
I drive daily through one of the hardest-hit areas. I personally know folks who were rescued off of their roof while surrounded by 10 feet of water in cases. At least four families, none of whom are rebuilding, fall into my personal sphere of acquaintance. There are houses in this area, called the "Lakeview" subdivision, that are still unoccupied and not rebuilding or renovating. I believe their "public blight" clocks are ticking. Having said that, many others have raised their homes by three or four feet, some even by more. So the rebuilding isn't blind.
But here is the question that I always have to ask whenever I see any variant of the "why rebuild there?" question. Are you aware of the infrastructure of the USA that is invested in New Orleans? We rebuild because the city represents one of the busiest ports in the USA. Our roads and rail lines run to the docks. With the shipping traffic that we support, you have to ask if you can afford to relocate the infrastructure of so much shipping and commerce. Further, if you look at the riverfront property upriver from the city, that is taken up by factories and refineries and chemical plants that use their dock facilities for direct onloading or offloading (as appropriate). So you would have to buy them out to get river ports. Let's try other nearby ports to take up the slack...
Gulfport MS and Biloxi MS? Limited docking area because the geograaphy is wrong. Plus, they are also subject to Gulf storms.
Mobile, AL? They are better than either of the MS ports, but still have less docking area than New Orleans. Also subject to Gulf storms.
Florida? Their ports are unable to take up the slack and they are also subject to either Gulf storms or Atlantic storms.
Let's go the other way. Galveston? Look at what Hurricane Ike did. Got any other big candidates?
The whole point of building a port where you build it is because it is on a seacoast or inland up a large river. But in the Gulf, that exposes you to storms. Do you step away from the coast and do without the shipping? A lot of hungry people around the world depend on that shipping, since inbound goods pay for food elsewhere (through the economic chain) and outbound food directly feeds people elsewhere. What do you give up?
The population of the city is geographically spreading out onto the north shore of the lakes and the western area beyond the marshes, but the longer commute costs time, gas, and money, plus adds wear and tear to the roads. And stress to the drivers. Net result, they will seek places to live that are closer to their work. Which is .... the city of New Orleans. So they rebuild in a dangerous place and try to take precautions.
Let us not forget, either, that the city was managing OK until the levees on three of the major drainage canals broke and certain unwise decisions were made to allow pumps to stop in selected areas. The investigation of the levees has clearly shown that this was a man-made disaster because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has essentially failed in its role to protect the navigable waterways of the USA. (See, for example, the Navigable Waterways Act of 1975, and as subsequently amended.) The city and surrounding areas would have had some street flooding but not the massive disaster they actually had were it not for unwise decisions and failures by the USACE to inspect the work on the levees to assure compliance with specifications.
Why do we continue to inhabit the city? No place else to go, really, unless we want to abandon jobs, family, friends, and our homes.
I won't enter into a discussion of the insurance fiascos. Some of those are still in litigation and will take years to resolve.
Steve, first there are sections of the city that are not rebuilding very quickly if at all. Many houses are just now being razed to the ground, four years after the event. It took that long for some of the time-limits to expire on public notification and the attempts to find property owners. So it is hard for me to say that a lot of people are rebuilding in the worst flood areas.
I drive daily through one of the hardest-hit areas. I personally know folks who were rescued off of their roof while surrounded by 10 feet of water in cases. At least four families, none of whom are rebuilding, fall into my personal sphere of acquaintance. There are houses in this area, called the "Lakeview" subdivision, that are still unoccupied and not rebuilding or renovating. I believe their "public blight" clocks are ticking. Having said that, many others have raised their homes by three or four feet, some even by more. So the rebuilding isn't blind.
But here is the question that I always have to ask whenever I see any variant of the "why rebuild there?" question. Are you aware of the infrastructure of the USA that is invested in New Orleans? We rebuild because the city represents one of the busiest ports in the USA. Our roads and rail lines run to the docks. With the shipping traffic that we support, you have to ask if you can afford to relocate the infrastructure of so much shipping and commerce. Further, if you look at the riverfront property upriver from the city, that is taken up by factories and refineries and chemical plants that use their dock facilities for direct onloading or offloading (as appropriate). So you would have to buy them out to get river ports. Let's try other nearby ports to take up the slack...
Gulfport MS and Biloxi MS? Limited docking area because the geograaphy is wrong. Plus, they are also subject to Gulf storms.
Mobile, AL? They are better than either of the MS ports, but still have less docking area than New Orleans. Also subject to Gulf storms.
Florida? Their ports are unable to take up the slack and they are also subject to either Gulf storms or Atlantic storms.
Let's go the other way. Galveston? Look at what Hurricane Ike did. Got any other big candidates?
The whole point of building a port where you build it is because it is on a seacoast or inland up a large river. But in the Gulf, that exposes you to storms. Do you step away from the coast and do without the shipping? A lot of hungry people around the world depend on that shipping, since inbound goods pay for food elsewhere (through the economic chain) and outbound food directly feeds people elsewhere. What do you give up?
The population of the city is geographically spreading out onto the north shore of the lakes and the western area beyond the marshes, but the longer commute costs time, gas, and money, plus adds wear and tear to the roads. And stress to the drivers. Net result, they will seek places to live that are closer to their work. Which is .... the city of New Orleans. So they rebuild in a dangerous place and try to take precautions.
Let us not forget, either, that the city was managing OK until the levees on three of the major drainage canals broke and certain unwise decisions were made to allow pumps to stop in selected areas. The investigation of the levees has clearly shown that this was a man-made disaster because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has essentially failed in its role to protect the navigable waterways of the USA. (See, for example, the Navigable Waterways Act of 1975, and as subsequently amended.) The city and surrounding areas would have had some street flooding but not the massive disaster they actually had were it not for unwise decisions and failures by the USACE to inspect the work on the levees to assure compliance with specifications.
Why do we continue to inhabit the city? No place else to go, really, unless we want to abandon jobs, family, friends, and our homes.
I won't enter into a discussion of the insurance fiascos. Some of those are still in litigation and will take years to resolve.
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 14:32
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
The two are not imcompatible. A republic can be democratic although in practice very few countries are truly democratic. The electoral systemss usually favour the larger parties at the expense ofthe the smaller. For example the UK where to achieve a large parliamentary majority usually requires not more than 42- 45% of the vote.I will if you start posting facts not theories, the US is a Republic, not a democracy
ColinEssex
Old registered user
- Local time
- Today, 14:32
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 9,451
Just get a job elsewhere. Done it loads of times - it's a good way to broaden ones experience of life and different places instead of being stuck in one place and knowing nothing about outside your area, like many US posters here.
Families are a pain, friends are usually false and homes can be bought and sold.
Gotta be better than sticking around in a city that can flood at any time. Especially if the President cuts expenditure on keeping the levees up to scratch.
I worry about Americans who live in dangerous areas like Florida and their hurricanes, or in Tornado alley - plus, I heard that the price of houses on the San Andreas fault are much higher than normal because it's 'macho' to say you live on the fault. . . . . how wierd is that?
Col
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 14:32
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
Not much you can do about family but you choose your friends so take responsibility for your choice. Not always possible to sell your home in a depression or to find a new job so moving isn't always practical.
BTW as you are always keen on correct spelling it is Weird not Wierd.
I would hate to see you giving our US friends a chance to taunt you
To quote a dutch song:
Vriendschap is een illusie, Vriendschap is een droom een pakketje schroot met een dun laagje chroom.
Or rougly
Friendship is an Illusion, friendship is a dream, a lot of scrap with a nice but paper thin layer of chrome...
It has been my moto in life for a long time after royally beeing screwed over by people I considered "good friends".
Family is mostly around when
a) You dont want/need them around
b) They want something from you
Then when you need them, oops they are to busy ....
Talking about wierdness, we have Schiphol airport here near Amsterdam. There are some nice villages that you fly over as you land on or depart from Schiphol.
You guess what people complain about airplane noise? Those that have lived there for 10 years or less.
Guess how long Schiphol has been on that very spot, with the airplanes flying the exact same route?? 50 years or more!
offcourse they didnt wonder why the average house on the "schiphol route villages" is roughly 10% cheaper....
Or stuff like that, then they come and live there and there is this "new thing" called airplanes flying overhead???!!!
I think it is the same with New Orleans and other such area's... If I know I am moving to an area where I have increased risk of Flooding/storms/etc, I should not be complaining about it when the floods do happen.
Now the risk of flooding is present in 50+% of the Netherlands, which is why I have my personal doubts about staying, then again we have to pay "levee tax" to actually maintain the Levee's and such to keep the water away... so our government SHOULD be maintaining them and stuff.... making sure we keep "our feet dry"
Here is hoping the Netherlands stay "above water"
