×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.
4

Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

(OP)
Some idiots are planting the idea that NO needs to be abandoned. Did they abandon Galveston? Did they abandon Miami? A review of the reclamation of Galveston 100 yrs ago, a much smaller community, would be instructional.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

I don't know whether NO should be abandoned or not, but neither Galveston nor Miami are below sea level.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

We have been playing with the Mississippi river for years.  The levees and "management" of the river have resulted in the destruction of barrier islands and marshland around the delta. The decision to abandon it may be moot.
It's not nice to fool with mother nature, we have, the piper may have to be paid.
So if we move it is it "New New Orleans"  or N^2 O for short?  

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

N2O = nitrous oxide

Nice!  A whole new spin for a party town.  I'm buzzed just thinking about it.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Just wait for the next New Madrid earthquake; at that point NO won't even be on the Mississippi anymore.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

If you want to live below sea level, join the navy.

Long term the site of New Orleans is not a viable place for a community. It is s shifting delta island that will sooner or later be washed into the sea.

The only question is how much money will it cost to delay this event and what is the benefit of spending that amount? If there is a positive return and this return is greater than rebuilding the city is a more stable plot of land then it should be rebuilt,. If rebuilding NO is the best use of the money then the community should be rebuilt.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Hey the doom and gloom global warming guys would suggest that NO will be permanently under water here in a couple years anyway, so might as well abandon it now...

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Here is a review of the reclamation of Galveston
http://www.1900storm.com/rebuilding/index.lasso

...with an interesting quote from that link:

"While Galveston received financial help from the county, state and federal governments, a large portion of the burden had to be carried by the city itself, at the expense of other projects."

Doubt if the the City of New Orleans can pay anywhere near a large portion of the multi-tens of billion dollars estimated cost to rebuild.

www.SlideRuleEra.net

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

The area of NO that was below sea level was STOLEN property.  This area should have remained marshes and swamps, and needs to be returned to the wildlife!!!!!

The only area with an exception to the above is the ports which should be rebuilt.  The area of NO above sea level should be free game to be rebuilt.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Does it make sense to rebuild portions of the city (the portions below sea level) where it isn't a question of 'if' but 'when' it floods again.  After all, hurricanes do happen in that part of the world with regularity, whether or not it is a peak year for hurricanes.

And, does it make sense to repopulate that portion of the city that is below sea level, or any part of a city subject to the ravages of hurricanes on a periodic basis with people whose socio-economic level don't permit them to have their own personal transportation with which to escape such jeopardy?

rmw

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Humanity as a whole does not seem to care whether or not it lives in danger of natural disaster or not.  I am not sure that there is any place truly free of the potential of natural disasters.  New Orleans is an important port and a economic "gateway" into the central part of the US.  The city will be rebuilt, perhaps as the "Venice" of North America.

Regards,

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Heard on the news last night that the Dutch are coming to save the day. They will be in NO to show them how to build Rotterdam style dikes. If they can't keep the water out, no one can. Build away!!

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

One big difference between how the Dutch build dikes and how the US builds them is that in The Netherlands the dikes are considered a national resource and not a state or local issue.

They are well funded and maintained by national resources and their design, constriction, operation and maintenance is not left to local interests but done by the national government and removed from local politics.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Not a question of if but when?
Is it the recomendation to wait for the next disaster or move now (while buyers can still be found?)
What do we advise the residents of LA with their houses built on an earthquake fault, on the slopes of crumbly mud hillsides where mud slides ae common and where fires are an annual event that wipes out many expensive properties.

Come to that, when is the next metero due? Oh, I forgot, we don't have a choice on that one.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.


As someone who lives in "Tornado Alley", I'll suggest that like wars, natural disasters serve to spur activity in local economies when they happen.  It is simply human nature to rebuild, it's human nature to be thrifty, and its human nature for sentiment to over rule facts and logic.  Not much strategic planning is put in to rebuilding efforts.  It's why you'll find new homes being put up on old foundations in tornado country.  As in "Why waste a perfectly good concrete slab?  ...and besides that, my children were born here!"

The scope of destruction aside, there are a great many individuals, businesses, and industries looking to profit off of the reconstruction of New Orleans.  

Another point:  Insurance companies will reinsure those living in the flood plain.  You know why?  They'll be able to charge significantly higher premiums to the citizens who remain to insure against an event that probably won't reoccur in scale for another 40 years, i.e. Hurricane Camille, before Katrina.

I'd suggest to you that the decision to rebuild is not one of common sense, or geology, or science, but rather one of emotion and above all else: economics.

And how often do we square up against those two very factors in our engineering jobs?...  

Familiar foes to me, at least.


RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Abandon all as the policitians are all for themselves and not the people on this planet.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Abandoning some 6000 square miles of territory is not likely.  It is going to take time (years) to rebuild the whole area of which New Orleans has become a symbol and perhaps a rallying point.

Area inhabitants are still trying to get the basic needs of food, water, shelter covered before they can even address economic problems.  (Current jobs consist of people being paid to empty debris out of cleared houses).  A friend recently returned from volunteering in one of the parishes under the auspices of FEMA (they told him to mask FEMA on his credential as they are still not very well liked there).  He did a presentation upon returning and the picture is still a bit grim.

Most areas were still without power where he was located.

Some 19000 tons of debris were being removed from within the parish but they still had no real place to dispose of it so they pile it up near the parish borders.

Homes are still being cleared a process complicated by snakes etc, that begin taking up "residence" inside homes and businesses.

Respiratory problems are prevalent due to molds, and dust.

Local emergency services have been working virtually nonstop for 3 months.

The big problem seems lack of cogent planning on the part of councils and leaders.  They are still in a state of shock.

The area will be rebuilt, perhaps a more appropriate term might be re-settled.

Regards,

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

I understand that Katrina made Cat. 5 offshore but was down to Cat. 4 when it made landfall.
Just for comparison, look at some of the stats for Mitch. It doesn't make a lot of the lists stateside because many (most?) of the lists are restricted to hurricanes that strike the U.S.
The death toll of Mitch in southern Honduras, several hundred miles away from the center of the storm is estimated at 7000 or 8000 souls. Original estimates were "More than 5000, Less than 10,000." Whole villages and the inhabitants were obliterated by flash flooding. In the capital city, Tegucigalpa, buildings were flooded to the third floor.
Hundreds of miles to the North East, the island of Guanaja was hit on Monday with a Cat. 5 hurricane.
Tuesday it was hit again with a stronger Cat 5 hurricane.
Wednesday it was hit again but the storm had dropped below Cat. 5.
Thursday it was hit for the fourth time, but by a mere tropical storm.
I personally know many people who rode out the storm in Guanaja. There were a number of locals with wind speed indicators. The anecdotes about wind speed can be summed up with the statement that "The local wind speed instruments invariably failed in the range of 240 to 260 MPH."  
If a hurricane such as Mitch had hit Louisiana, New Orleans would probably been flooded while the hurricane was many miles away, possibly the other side of Cuba. As bad as Katrina was, a lot of people have seen much worse just a few years ago.
If a hurricane such as Mitch ever visits New Orleans, I am sure that the area will be resetled rather than rebuilt.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

New Orleans won't be abandoned.  If people think about it logically, over say 300-400 years - this was a bad one, probably the worst, and depending on your political view could have been worser or better.  But the human spirit is a resilient sort, and the accompanying stubborness good or bad, is part of that spirit.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

(OP)
It's funny how some folks adapt to bad conditions. When I lived in Cincinnati many years ago, the riverfront amusement park had a tall pole marked with flood levels. It was as though they took perverse pleasure out of their annual spring flood.

(Some tolerate the hurricanes, others tolerate the tornadoes, SW unbearable desert heat, heavy lake effect snow, etc.) Central Michigan has a lot going for it; two cold months, two hot months, and the rest of the time generally nice weather. It's nice to be able to chose your locale after retirement.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Back to the original posting.

Only a small fraction of the cost to rebuild Galveston was federal dollar- mostly to build dikes to protect the army forts and  shipping facilities.

As far as spending federal dollars on NO, it could be argued that most cost effective way to assist the residents to rebuild their lives should be determined,and that dollar value be the cap for total federal assistance to NO. Voluntarily relocating persons to other parts of the US and finding them jobs may be considered as an important part of the most cost effective method.

It can be argued that the US taxpayer has no moral obligation to rebuild NO just to prove we that can make the same mistake twice. The economic, social, cultural and environmental viability of NO has to be proven by the people of NO themselves, just as the people of Galveston did in 1900. If its not viable , why pour good money after bad ?

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Let's see, now...

National debt: 8.21 terra dollars
Deficit in budget proposed by our conservative Republican President: More than 430 giga dollars (Not including another 80 giga dollars in "emergency" spending for another 6 months of the folly in Iraq)

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense for the US government to print off a few billion $20 bills to rebuild an essentially uninhabitable place... NOT

Political suicide? We could only be so lucky...

--------------------
Bring back the HP-15
www.hp15c.org
--------------------

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Various governments are to some extent responsible for the problem, by raising the river (by channeling it with dikes and thereby extending its mouth more than a hundred miles into the Gulf) and by sinking the surrounding land (by selling the right to pump oil and salt out from under it).  

Anyone who's flown into NO realizes that the native state of the surrounding land is ... bird habitat.

And the native state of the Netherlands is ... fish habitat.

They differ in other ways, too:

1. the pigmentation of the populace.
2. the strength of the regional economy.
3. barriers to entry.

I find (1) a little unsettling, especially for its correlation to (2), but the difference may be rooted in (3).

You can't just show up in the Netherlands and take root there; you must have a job first.  No such restriction applies to NO, or anywhere else in the US.  It would be un-American.

The other side of the coin is that the various governments have already spent all the money they ever had or could get, several times over, so more money is not available unless everyone's money is further diluted, and taxed.

At the same time, we have a problem with, uh, unofficial agricultural imports.  If the traffic were recognized and taxed, money would be available for raising NO to any arbitrary level you like, or relocating the citizenry who chose to go elsewhere.

Now, the climate in NO may not be perfectly suited to all forms of agriculture, but poppies and hemp are hardy plants that can grow pretty much anywhere.  Surely they can grow in the NO area.  The distribution system is already in place; we'd just have to redirect some of the sourcing.

Call it in-sourcing.  Think about it; jobs aplenty, deficit reduction, trade imbalance reduction, and money to rebuild.

Yep, free enterprise could rebuild NO.










Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

My history book describes the founding of New Orleans by a couple of Canadian brothers working for the king of France.
The overriding consideration was to control trade and shipping on the River and into the heartland of what became the United States. It was the best place to control shipping, but a bad place for a city. Baton Rouge is a much better location for a city.
Rather than blindly replacing everything below sea level, what about using the money to compensate the victims, and letting them decide whether to reduild in New Orleans or in another place of their choice?
A smaller city on the area above sea level would be much cheaper to protect with levies.
As for industry, many years ago, no successful business man would build a factory in a swamp. Now it seems that the American way has become, build it in the swamp because real-estate is cheap in a swamp. Then lobby for government money to drain the swamp.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

waross;
New Orleans history is fascinating. The territory   was named after King Louis and his wife Anna, or Louis y Anna, pronounced in english as Louisianna. Real estate speculation in a corporation that was founded to market the territory led to grossly inflated land values, and these values collapsed after the french public finally realized they were buying swampland. The financial collapse  ultimately led  to the French revolution.

After purchased by the US, all sorts of criminal activity flourished there  including running contraband without paying import tarifrfs,  slave trading, and into the 20th century gambling and prostitution. The jazz that developed in the early 20th century had its roots in the musical entertainment supplied at these remote houses of ill repute.

RE: Abandon NO? That would be political suicide.

Maybe we could grow sugar cane there in order to meet our president's energy goals by making ethanol.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources