Rebuilding New Orleans

Paul F. writes in again with an interesting message. Please read. I've been given over to ranting about the Katrina response. Here's a somewhat different perspective:

I just spent the weekend camping with a large group that included friends displaced from New Orleans as well as a NOAA representative. There are two Katrina-related topics on my mind that I don't want to address right now with victims of the hurricane and am very curious what opinions could come from a forum such as yours. First of all, this is all horrible, horrible, horrible so please don't think of me as insensitive but I just want to take a step back and look at the big picture. By the way, my friends are fine - they got out ahead of the storm. The main level of their house is 10 feet up and they hear the water is at 7-8 feet there. They just don't know about the looting situation. Plus, he runs a construction company there and is looking at lucrative times ahead. Their tenant, however, lives in their basement and has lost everything.

The first topic is the media coverage. The human interest coverage is captivating but I'd like to know what you and your circle think about it. It seems to me that TV coverage is presenting "soda straw" views of the situation and it's difficult to glean a comprehensive perspective of the situation. For instance, have you heard much mention of the success stories in emergency preparedness? With excellent weather forecasting and an advance warning system, the vast majority of the residents (what, 90%?) were successfully evacuated from harm's way. Compare that to the tsunami disaster. I don't mean to be insensitive to the refugees but I just spent the weekend drinking beer with an old friend who, if he had lived in another part of the world during such a disaster, he'd likely have been killed. By the way, after being pessimistic towards the management of environmental impacts I found myself defending the process in conversations this weekend (I'll spare you that).

The other topic that I'd like to hear about from your profession is the rebuilding of New Orleans. Hastert is a boob for making such remarks from the floor at this time. And I see your anger in your Clinton vs. Hastert posting... and so hesitate to bring this up. But, put it this way, what role do you think the government should play in rebuilding N.O. in a sustainable way? I have two concerns. The first is that this may happen again in N.O. (not even factoring in global warming) and will there be adequate risk analyses and cost benefit analyses for rebuilding the levies, for example? Will there be adequate resources to provide protection for greater than a 100-year event? Should Federal funds be availed to encapsulate the city from a 200- or 300-year event? My second concern is that the city will be rebuilt piecemeal and, therefore, inadequately. Some neighborhoods will certainly be rebuilt, say the French Quarters, but other poor areas are likely to be abandoned at least for years. The existence and juxtaposition of both rebuilt and abandoned neighborhoods may impact the feasibility of rebuilding a thriving N.O. Is it reasonable to think that a new Hilton will be attractive to tourists half a block away from a disaster area that doesn't even have resources available to bulldoze the ruins? So should the Federal government have a role to provide some ballast whether through process or funding? At what local, state, Fed level will the (essentially new) city be planned? In other words, perhaps there are blocks within N.O. that should be abandoned and turned to green space - shouldn't every parcel be managed responsibly, whether rebuilt or not, to ensure the future of the city as a whole?