[almostdiva]

The N.O. redevelopment plan was announced and released yesterday. Here in the Philadelphia area, it only got cursory mention by most of our media outlets. Didn't matter if they were TV, print or electronic.

Some of the highlights (as reported here) include:

• an extremely ambitous plan for a light rail system throughout the city
• A 4-month moritorium on new construction in some areas
• mixed-use development for some areas in the 'floodplain"

To my knowledge, plans for the levies and flood walls were not adressed in this document. What's up with that? Does this mean the city and state have to duke it out w the Army Corps of Engineers?

What do folks in the area think of what's been released to date, and was it correctly reported up here (haven't had time to go online to an local, Louisiana papers or sites to get the actual document...).

Rebecca

[Ninong]

Rebecca,

It's an extremely lengthy document and it is my understanding that it is being released over a period of several days.

I believe levees are under federal control but local supervision. It's a crazy arrangement but that's sort of the way it works. The federal government, through the Army Corps of Engineers, is responsible for levees and other water management issues on the Mississippi river. The local levee boards supposedly inspect and maintain the levees. This is a joke. When I was a kid, there were levee board inspectors even in parishes that didn't have any levees -- patronage jobs.

Getting back to the plan for the redevelopment of New Orleans, it's controversial and visionary at the same time from what I have read. I really have no opinion on it at this time. There are provisions that make sense but there are provisions that will infuriate certain people. They are calling for allowing the various destroyed neighborhoods a period of a few months to form their own neighborhood associations to determine exactly how many of the residents are interested in returning and rebuilding their homes.

Here is where some people are upset with that provision. If you tell the people in Lakeview (94% white and middle class) to organize and come up with a plan for saving their neighborhood, they would be more able to do something like this than say the people who lived in the lower 9th. ward (98% black and lower income). Most of the people who lived in Lakeview relocated nearby and many of them still have their previous jobs. Most of the people who lived in the lower 9th. ward are now scattered all over the country and most of them are now unemployed.

I don't know how I feel about this plan. I guess if I still lived in New Orleans I would have an opinion. In fact, my last house (a condo) in New Orleans was located in New Orleans East, an area that was flooded. I sold it in 1977 when I moved to California.

I can understand the feelings of the people who don't like this plan, but I'm not sure it's a bad plan just because of the obvious consequences. I don't know what plan would have been better. To tell you the truth, every time I think about this whole mess, I get a headache. It's a problem that does not lend itself to solutions that will please everyone. It could be that certain low-lying areas of the city should not be rebuilt. That's what the plan implies but that's the part that is the most controversial. The people who think they are getting the short end of the stick are mostly lower income African-Americans. I understand their point but I don't know what, if anything, would be better. Don't overlook the fact that the city government is predominantly African-American and has been for the past three decades since Dutch Morial replaced Mary Landrieu's father as mayor.

[almostdiva]

I agree that parts of it might be crazy ambitous (ie the light rail system). I was curious to learn more about the neighborhoods where people need to gather their (scattered) neighbors to prove that the neighborhood is still viable. I heard a woman on NPR last night who lived in a very damaged area (not the 9th ward and not Lakeview -- I'm trying to remember) whose house is still there, but has heavy damage from flooding talking about her frustration with the plan because her neighborhood looked under the new one to be designated for park/open space.

It's going to be tough, no question. And I'm sure some choices will be very unpopular. I'd love to see NO get a light rail system -- might as well try, since so much has been damaged. But i'd be curious to see how they would come up w the local match. Unless UMTA (Urban Mass Transportation Admin, part of DOT) has really changed their new construction formula for regional rail new construction (it's been 10 years since I was in urban planning), the locals have to put up 40% of the money. 60% comes from the feds.

It ought to be interesting...

I think Dubbya sounded like an idiot yesterday, standing in the garden district talking about what a wonderful place New Orleans is to bring your family and how much improvement has been made. Which I'm sure there has been -- in certain areas, but he city is nowhere near back to being "normal".

Guess we'll have to stay tuned for updates, huh?

Rebecca

[fishgeeksrus]

Well I say...

They should take everything that was destroyed in Mississippi and dump it into New Orleans and start over.

Andrea

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by almostdiva

I was curious to learn more about the neighborhoods where people need to gather their (scattered) neighbors to prove that the neighborhood is still viable. I heard a woman on NPR last night who lived in a very damaged area (not the 9th ward and not Lakeview -- I'm trying to remember) whose house is still there, but has heavy damage from flooding talking about her frustration with the plan because her neighborhood looked under the new one to be designated for park/open space.

Gentilly?

It ought to be interesting...

I believe Louisiana is the poorest state in the nation. If it's not dead last, it's in the last three.

New Orleans is one of the poorest cities in the nation. Four decades ago it had a population of approximately 675,000 (within city limits) but about one-third of those people relocated to suburbs and ex-urbs and even to other areas, like Houston, where there was more oportunity. Unfortunately for New Orleans, the one-third of the population that moved away was not the lower income folks. This resulted in the city's demographics changing from one-third African-American half a century ago to two-thirds African-American in 2005. It's not the racial component that is the problem, it's the income levels of the people that remained that is the problem. The city's tax base was drastically reduced over the past three or four decades and that resulted in a shortage funds to maintain infrastructure. And New Orleans has been struggling with a tremendous drug-related crime problem for the past couple of decades.

Most of the city's income comes from two sources -- tourism and the port of New Orleans. Virtually all of the Fortune 500 companies that used to have headquarters in New Orleans have relocated to Houston or Atlanta in the last thirty years. Louisiana is the only state in the nation with the property tax system that it has. This is what we inherited from Huey Long. There is no other state that exempts as large a percentage of property from taxation. So, since they don't get much from property taxes, they have very high sales taxes, which, of course, are regressive and affect poor people much worse than property taxes would.

No politician can touch the homestead exemption and expect to be elected or reelected. That's the third rail of Louisiana politics.

I think Dubbya sounded like an idiot yesterday, standing in the garden district talking about what a wonderful place New Orleans is to bring your family and how much improvement has been made.

Yesterday? Just yesterday? On Day Five after Katrina, he rolled up his shirt sleeves for the cameras and joked that New Orleans was the wild place he came to get drunk before he became a mature person at the tender age of 40. OK, he actually said something about New Orleans being the place he came to enjoy himself -- "occasionally too much!" Wink, wink, smirk!

Yesterday Bush called New Orleans "a heckuva place to bring your family." What?!? This has about as much truth to it as when he said, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." Less than 150,000 people live in New Orleans today. Entire sections of the city are virtually untouched except for the cleanup of the streets themselves. Entire sections of the city still have no utilities -- no electricity, no water and no sewage. It's these neighborhoods that are now being given four months to organize themselves and to present a proposal to the local government setting out their plans for redevelopment. This is a cruel joke, if you ask me. It's obvious that some of those neighborhoods are totally destroyed and will have to be bulldozed; but this way they can blame it on the local residents themselves. See, we left it up to you guys to decide if you wanted to rebuild and you just couldn't get enough of your neighbors together to come up with an "acceptable" plan. Tough to do if 80% of the residents are scattered across the country.

BTW, FEMA revised their estimates of the number of people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita upwards by one-third today. They now say that 2 million people were displaced. They said it was difficult to come up with accurate estimates previously because we've never had an entire major American city evacuated before.

I don't know what will work for New Orleans. I know that the city and the state are both broke. I know that there is very little revenue flowing into city coffers right now. I know that the state's revenue has been severely reduced. I know that the city fired more than half their payroll already. I know that many employers are no longer in business. I suspect that at least 200,000 former residents of New Orleans will never return. I know that if another storm equal to Katrina hits them again eight or nine months from now, they will probably flood again.

[icemark]

Originally Posted by Ninong

I know that if another storm equal to Katrina hits them again eight or nine months from now, they will probably flood again.

I would almost bet on there being another storm within the next 48 months and with it being of even half way to Katrina's strength that NO would flood again.

[Poseidon]

I say cut and run... It just seems like a BAD idea to rebuild a city below sea level that sits ON THE COAST! Below Sea level in NEBRASKA, or IOWA? Okay no problem, but NOT on the flippin' COAST!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

I say cut and run... It just seems like a BAD idea to rebuild a city below sea level that sits ON THE COAST! Below Sea level in NEBRASKA, or IOWA? Okay no problem, but NOT on the flippin' COAST!

Of course, you do realize the flaw in this suggestion, don't you?

By that reasoning, we should not have built Los Angeles or San Francisco or Seattle because all three of those cities will experience catastrophic earthquakes! It's only a matter of when, not if. Extend the timeline and we shouldn't have built anything within 500 miles of Yellowstone because it will eventually erupt in another super volcano.

We should not build anything on the entire Florida peninsula because, given enough time, it will all be under water again, as will all of southern Louisiana. This could happen in less than 200 years!

Chances are good that the New Madrid fault will break again within the next couple hundred years, so maybe we should evacuate St. Louis and Memphis?

Hurricanes can do extensive damage even to coastal cities that are not below sea level. Maybe we should have a ban on all building within 50 miles of the coast from Brownsville to Cape Hatteras? And let's not forget the very real danger from a major tsunami that would wipe out cities along our west coast and our east coast. The Seattle area in particular is very susceptible to this risk thanks to the thrust fault there. All of the east coast is at risk of a major tsunami from landslides on islands off the west coast of Africa. In this instance, we're talking about a tsunami with a height of well over 500 feet.

Tornadoes seem to cause a lot of damage in Tornado Alley, maybe we should evacuate people from north Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc. where tornadoes are so predictable?

Besides, most of The Netherlands is below sea level and they manage quite well.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by icemark

I would almost bet on there being another storm within the next 48 months and with it being of even half way to Katrina's strength that NO would flood again.

The federal government paid for a study that said that New Orleans would flood (10'-15' of water) if even a Category 3 hurricane hit it at just the right angle. That was just a few years ago. The feds laughed at the study that they funded. Or, to be more precise, they laughed at the scientists who made those predictions.

Amazing thing about that study, the computer projections published in that study almost exactly predicted what happened in Katrina. The Bush administration rejected the findings of the study they paid for because they didn't want to increase funding for the Corps of Engineers. In fact, they reduced the level of funding from what it had been in previous administrations.

P.S. -- In the past fifty years, the oil companies have dredged canals through the coastal wetlands allowing saltwater to infiltrate deep into the wetlands killing them off. The Corps of Engineers has built canals and the intracoastal waterway to facilitate the rapid movement of seawater inland. Barrier islands that should not be built on, have been developed. When I was a kid in the 1940's, the hurricanes were slowed down and a lot of their energy was dissipated in this natural coastal area that acted like a sponge. Much of those coastal wetlands are gone now.

[Poseidon]

Okay, lets all move to CHARLIE'S house in Montana!

Of course I know that my suggestion is not politically correct, or even remotely close to what will actually happen. I just believe that KNOWING all the danger a rebuilt NO would be in, places unacceptable risk on the people, money, and other resources. I'll bet cities like LA and Seatle would NOT be planned in the geographic locations they are in todays society. At least I would hope not, with all the information we have available, shouldn't this be an opportunity to plan a BETTER NO, just move it somewhere else. You could move up the river and be above Sea Level right? My LA geography is seriously lacking, but why rebuild where a storm can just FLATTEN you? With the increases in tropical storms, MAJOR ones at that, why risk it? It is only a matter of time...

It always only a matter of time isn't it? Eventually some other country IS going to get nukes, eventually CA WILL fall into the Pacific, eventually FL and LA will follow Atlantis in to the sea.... Heck eventually the Great Lakes of MI will empty... but why DARE mother nature to come back?

[Ninong]

I hate to tell you this, but they're still building very expensive new housing developments right on top of known faults in California. And that's within the past 20 years. If you go back forty or fifty years, there are individual buildings that sit directly on top of the Hayward fault. And I'm sure you can say the same for the other major faults, too.

When I lived in the Bay Area, I remember all the fuss that was kicked up when they tried to get approval to build some expensive homes within a few hundred yards of a major fault line in an undeveloped area. They finally did get approval. The truth is that there are so many fault lines along the California coast that it's almost impossible to avoid being within a few hundred yards of one or more major or minor fault lines.

[Poseidon]

I guess if someone WANTS to live on a fault line, then no one should stop them. It sounds a lot like natural selection!

[charlie]

Okay, lets all move to CHARLIE'S house in Montana!

I hate to tell you this, but I'm within 500 miles of Yellowstone!!!!
Plus it's too cold for some people here

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

I guess if someone WANTS to live on a fault line, then no one should stop them. It sounds a lot like natural selection!

Well, after repeated bashings by mother nature it seems that words of Bill Maher apply literally to this people. What he said is that it is a nature's way to tell people to "Get off my property!" and I tend to agree with him...

[The Grim Reefer]

I don't think anything should be rebuilt that is in a flood plain until they decide what is going to happen with the levies. NO needs to be rebuilt to some extint because it is a vital port but that doesn't mean you have to build stupid.

[romunov]

Entire sections of the city still have no utilities -- no electricity, no water and no sewage.

When did we switch the topics to Iraq?

About the building under the sea level not being ok? Well, the Dutch got no problem with being below the sea level, although they're not in a hurricane path.

[Ninong]

Sacramento is another major American city whose levees are inadequate. It may not be threatened by hurricanes but it is surely at risk of severe flooding.

[The Grim Reefer]

The thing that gets me is people knew about the levy system and didn't have flood insurance. I am not talking about the people who couldn't afford it either, people who chose not to have it and now they whine about what happened. Seems like a lot of the poor people who lived there have decided to use this as a way to start a better life for themselves elsewhere. One slight positive outta this whole mess.

[Ninong]

Anyone's whose home is in a flood plain would have no choice in the matter if they had a mortgage on their property because the banks require you to carry flood insurance as a condition of the loan. I imagine that some people whose homes were free and clear may have dropped their federal flood insurance.

What is more troubling is the situation faced by many folks, especially those along the Mississippi Gulf coast who lived well inland, who do NOT live in a flood plain and who were advised by their homeowner's insurance agent that they should NOT purchase federal flood insurance because it would be a waste of money. There are thousands of people in that situation whose homes flooded. Now they are being told by the same neighborly insurance agent that their losses are NOT covered at all because their homeowner's insurance policy doesn't cover rising water, which is true. The same insurance company that sold you the homeowner's insurance is the one that determines whether your loss is due to wind or rising water. When I lived in New Orleans East, my State Farm agent sold me both my regular homeowner's insurance and my federal flood insurance and it would have been a State Farm adjuster who would have determined whether any losses were due to wind damage or rising water.

If there is any proof of rising water in your neighborhood, they automatically attribute all damage to rising water unless your roof blew away but the rest of the structure remained intact. If you lived on the Gulf Coast where the surge came in and your entire house is gone, they will tell you it was caused by the rising water and not the wind. This is why there are so many house fires following a hurricane. People with homeowner's insurance but no flood insurance have "accidents" where their kerosene lamp gets knocked over and burns the house down (to the water line). They usually wait until the water level in the street is at least high enough to prevent any fire engine from getting through. Following Hurricane Betsy in September 1965, there were houses on fire all over the lower 9th ward and St. Bernard as soon as the water started rising.

To complicate matters further, the local government authorities refused to allow thousands and thousands of homeowners to return to their homes for weeks in some cases. Even if they have both regular homeowner's insurance and federal flood insurance, they are finding out that their homes have mold all over the place. Most regular homeowner's policies now exclude mold damage regardless of the cause of the mold and federal flood insurance has never covered mold damage. In fact, if your water line is at say the 4' level in your house, the flood insurance only covers for repairs to the walls below the water line. So the fact that you have mold above the water line and even on the ceiling makes no difference, it's not covered. People who returned to their homes within a few days and ripped out the soggy drywall and insulation and aired out their houses, avoided mold. Those who obeyed the local authorities and stayed away for weeks are screwed.

There are probably thousands of lawsuits pending against the insurance companies. One prominent individual who is suing his insurance company is Trent Lott. He's suing State Farm because they told him that his home was damaged by rising water (true) and not wind (how do they know that unless they videotaped it during the storm). Anyway, they want to give him the maximum that a federal flood insurance policy can pay ($250,000) but Trent says he suffered $650,000 in damage. His house was on the waterfront in Pascagoula, MS.

If you read the insurance policies, the insurance companies are correct. Most people don't bother to read the fine print to see just how many perils are excluded. This is one of those conundrums that the courts will be asked to settle. Courts have gone both ways on this issue in the past. On the one hand you have tens of thousands of people who won't receive enough from their insurance companies to repair their homes or to pay off their mortgage balances. The bank will not sign off on the check unless the homeowner repairs all of the damage and if the homeowner decides to give up, the bank will apply the check to the balance of the mortgage and the homeowner will be left with nothing. On the other hand, if the insurance companies are forced to cover these catastrophic losses that they did not contract to cover, then they could be seriously damaged -- or so they will tell you.

And if the insurance companies are forced to cover rising water, then why would anyone buy flood insurance ever again?

[The Grim Reefer]

The FEMA flood insurance thing is a joke. People pay it just long enough to be covered during the rainny or hurricane season then drop it. First step should be for the government to get out of the insurance business. As far as I know if you are not in a costal area or a flood plain you can't even buy the insurance if you wanted to.

I think private insurance companies should be required to offer flood insurance for those who need and set the rates and terms. I bet they wouldn't allow people to carry coverage for 3 or 4 months and then drop it. If you want to live in a flood prone area you shouldn't expect others to subsidize your rebuilding costs through taxes. My mom lives in SoCal and I can tell you they don't get a break on earthquake insurance if they wish to carry it. She has been in the same house since 1960 and has never had and damage except for a plate falling off the wall. The first year they offered quake insurance it was 600 a year. don't know where it's at now.

Most of those homes with mold were a lost cause once the standing water had a chance to soak in. Had the government allowed people back in while there was still standing water around it would have ended up being a free for all with lawyers finding all sorts or reasons for people to go after the govt.