Stop the Funeral.... New Orleans ain't dead.

One of the things that has really annoyed me about hurricane Katrina
coverage is how the press continually reports on the worst case scenario,
over and over again to the point where people begin to believe that it must
be true.

There were people saying it would take over 3 months to pump out the water.
Now it turns out that this will take weeks, not months. Yesterday there
were 36 pumps working. Today there are over 70... and 100 more are being
brought back on line. Most of the city should be dry by October 2 (three
weeks from now) and the job could be totally done by October 18.

The number of expected fatalities has been grossly exaggerated. One nut
predicted 50,000. The Mayor of New Orleans said 10,000. Then the press
reports that FEMA has brought in 25,000 body bags. The truth is that so far
154 people in Louisiana have died. I am sure that number may go much, much
higher... but nowhere near the dire predictions that were made by some
people.

"New Orleans has been destroyed". Huh. Truth is that at one point, 80% of
the city was flooded but much of that was with less than 2 feet of water.
The French Quarter and downtown sustained very little damage. Within 10
days the water had receded (without pumping) so that only 50% of the city
was flooded... and now that the pumps are starting up, the level is dropping
rapidly.

How many times have you heard people say that New Orleans will be a "dead"
city? People won't be able to rebuild because of toxic waste, sewage,
insurance companies, yadda, yadda, yadda? Baloney. There may be areas that
will take longer to clean up. There may be people who won't come back. It
will take time to rebuild but there is no way that New Orleans is going to
be "dead".

Power to parts of downtown has been restored... as it has in many other
areas. City Hall has running water. Yesterday the rail link to New Orleans
was supposed to be complete.... rail service is important to bring repair
materials to the city. Mail delivery has started in some areas. The airport
will open to commercial traffic on September 19. The Port of New Orleans
will open to commercial traffic sometime next week. Cleaning crews are
already busy in the Superdome, Convention center and on the dried streets
in the business district and French Quarter. Last night I saw some business
owners working in their stores in the RiverWalk Mall.

New Orleans ain't dead by a long shot. http://tinyurl.com/a2zzm

George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com

The Mother of All Group Cruises 2 - http://www.moagc2.com/
May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm

New Orleans ain't dead by a long shot. http://tinyurl.com/a2zzm


"Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" - Mark Twain

"Odysseus" wrote

"Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" - Mark Twain


Just saw on CNN that five New Orleans hospitals are open for business...
electricity, water, staff... 500 beds available and open for business.

Pumping station #6 which is the largest pump is about to go back online.

Oh... and a friend told me that the airport will now open for commercial
traffic on a limited basis on the 13th instead of the 19th as I had thought.
Commercial cargo traffic started today.

The main wastewater treatment plant will be running tomorrow.

And there is even talk about the Mardi Gras celebration in 2006.
Impossible? I sure wouldn't bet against it.


--
George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com

The Mother of All Group Cruises 2 - http://www.moagc2.com/
May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm

All really excellent news. I think the original estimates for pumping
out the water, electrical being back on, etc. was based on the
manpower they had there at the time. They have since gotten many
helpers from many states.....all good.

June

"George Leppla" wrote in message
...

"Odysseus" wrote

"Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" - Mark Twain


Just saw on CNN that five New Orleans hospitals are open for
business... electricity, water, staff... 500 beds available and open
for business.

Pumping station #6 which is the largest pump is about to go back
online.

Oh... and a friend told me that the airport will now open for
commercial traffic on a limited basis on the 13th instead of the
19th as I had thought. Commercial cargo traffic started today.

The main wastewater treatment plant will be running tomorrow.

And there is even talk about the Mardi Gras celebration in 2006.
Impossible? I sure wouldn't bet against it.


--
George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com

The Mother of All Group Cruises 2 - http://www.moagc2.com/
May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess -
http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm

George Leppla wrote:

One of the things that has really annoyed me about hurricane Katrina
coverage is how the press continually reports on the worst case scenario,
over and over again to the point where people begin to believe that it must
be true.

George - I agree completely with your post. What I can't understand is
the articles posted that say New Orleans should just be abandoned. It's
amazing to me that this would even be considered. Sure they've been
through a very devastating experience, but I fully expect it to be
cleaned up and that most of it's citizins will return at some point. And
I look forward to being a tourist there at some point in the future.

John

WolfpackFan wrote:

George Leppla wrote:

One of the things that has really annoyed me about hurricane Katrina
coverage is how the press continually reports on the worst case
scenario,
over and over again to the point where people begin to believe that
it must
be true.


George - I agree completely with your post. What I can't understand is
the articles posted that say New Orleans should just be abandoned.
It's amazing to me that this would even be considered. Sure they've
been through a very devastating experience, but I fully expect it to
be cleaned up and that most of it's citizins will return at some
point. And I look forward to being a tourist there at some point in
the future.

John

Before everyone gets too excited, you should take into account that
virtually all of the single story residential buildings flooded will
likely have to be bulldozed flat. There basically will be nothing in
them worth salvaging. Any money for rebuilding will probably have to
come straight from the feds, as insurance won't be picking up much. See:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f3301e74-22...00e2511c8.html

So the big question will be: is it worth doing massive building in a
zone that could get flattened again next year? If you do rebuild, it
would make sense to provide a multi-layered defense (not just single
levees) that are sized to take a category 5 storm. This will take up a
lot of real estate that is currently used for residential purposes. How
many hundreds of billions of fed dollars will people be willing to put
into a rebuilding project that can be destroyed at any time?

It does make sense to restore the French Quarter (which is a natural
flood redoubt anyway), get the tourism sector going, make sure the
refineries and port are working because these provide the city and its
residents with income. It may not make sense to put a lot of low income
housing in a highly vulnerable location. Of course, these people have to
go somewhere, and they have to have jobs. The big question will be, where?

Chris

Chris Hall wrote:
Before everyone gets too excited, you should take into account that
virtually all of the single story residential buildings flooded will
likely have to be bulldozed flat. There basically will be nothing in
them worth salvaging. Any money for rebuilding will probably have to
come straight from the feds, as insurance won't be picking up much. See:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f3301e74-22...00e2511c8.html

So the big question will be: is it worth doing massive building in a
zone that could get flattened again next year? If you do rebuild, it
would make sense to provide a multi-layered defense (not just single
levees) that are sized to take a category 5 storm. This will take up a
lot of real estate that is currently used for residential purposes. How
many hundreds of billions of fed dollars will people be willing to put
into a rebuilding project that can be destroyed at any time?

It does make sense to restore the French Quarter (which is a natural
flood redoubt anyway), get the tourism sector going, make sure the
refineries and port are working because these provide the city and its
residents with income. It may not make sense to put a lot of low income
housing in a highly vulnerable location. Of course, these people have to
go somewhere, and they have to have jobs. The big question will be, where?

The tourism sector hires bunches of low income folks, in hotels, in restaurants,
and the like. It's not a highly paid industry and there do need to be workers.
The question is, of course, where will these lowpaid working poor live if we
don't rebuild greater New Orleans. A French Quarter and Garden District with
no taxi drivers, no waiters, no busboys and diswashers, no bartenders, no hotel
maids, no bus drivers, no tour guides, no desk staff won't have much tourism.

Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because
tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is
tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are
there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low
income housing.
--
Julie
**********
Check out the blog of my 9 week Germany adventure at www.blurty.com/users/jholm
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Juliana L Holm wrote:

Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because
tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is
tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are
there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low
income housing.



You are absolutely right, but it may not make sense to put this housing
in the bottom of a bowl that can fill up again at any moment. In fact,
it may even happen THIS year if any sort of hurricane comes by before
Dec. (still plenty of time left in the hurricane season). The services
provided to the tourism and convention industries need to be provided by
a work force and they will be low income. If they are located elsewhere,
then a massive upgrade to the transportation infrastructure would be
needed (the city is notorious for traffic choke-points). If the low
income housing is in N.O. proper, it will probably need to be much
higher density with localized flood defenses. My point is that you can't
just say "let everyone return" without the high expectation of getting
an instant replay of the Katrina disaster, this time after spending a
huge amount of money for nothing. Since the feds will probably have to
pay for almost all of the rebuilding, they will likely have to have some
say in the matter. I seriously doubt that the population of N.O. (other
than military or construction crews) will approach pre-Katrina levels
any time soon.

Chris

Chris Hall wrote:
Juliana L Holm wrote:

Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because
tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is
tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are
there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low
income housing.



You are absolutely right, but it may not make sense to put this housing
in the bottom of a bowl that can fill up again at any moment.

This is true, but you didn't say they shouldn't build low income housing
in the bowl; you said they shouldn't build low income housing.

I am not, personally sure what to do here, and can only say that I don't
expect anyone to make any decisions any time soon.


In fact,
it may even happen THIS year if any sort of hurricane comes by before
Dec. (still plenty of time left in the hurricane season). The services
provided to the tourism and convention industries need to be provided by
a work force and they will be low income. If they are located elsewhere,
then a massive upgrade to the transportation infrastructure would be
needed (the city is notorious for traffic choke-points). If the low
income housing is in N.O. proper, it will probably need to be much
higher density with localized flood defenses. My point is that you can't
just say "let everyone return" without the high expectation of getting
an instant replay of the Katrina disaster, this time after spending a
huge amount of money for nothing. Since the feds will probably have to
pay for almost all of the rebuilding, they will likely have to have some
say in the matter. I seriously doubt that the population of N.O. (other
than military or construction crews) will approach pre-Katrina levels
any time soon.

Chris

--
Julie
**********
Check out the blog of my 9 week Germany adventure at www.blurty.com/users/jholm
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Juliana L Holm wrote:

Chris Hall wrote:


Juliana L Holm wrote:





Be very clear. The working poor lived in New Orleans at least in part because
tourism created these jobs and they needed to live near them. If there is
tourism then people to staff tourism are needed in the area. If people are
there, they need housing. They don't make much money, so it will be low
income housing.







You are absolutely right, but it may not make sense to put this housing
in the bottom of a bowl that can fill up again at any moment.



This is true, but you didn't say they shouldn't build low income housing
in the bowl; you said they shouldn't build low income housing.

I am not, personally sure what to do here, and can only say that I don't
expect anyone to make any decisions any time soon.




Um, here's what I actually said:

"It may not make sense to put a lot of low income housing in a highly
vulnerable location."

This means it doesn't make sense to put it where it already is, unless
you change the equation and make the location MUCH less vulnerable. I
did not say that low income housing should not be built. In fact, it HAS
to be built. But I suspect some of it will be built in Houston or San
Antonio or Baton Rouge and not necessarily in N.O. That would be the low
cost solution (i.e. a solution with a minimum of government subsidies or
outright ownership). Any N.O. "low income" housing will not be "low
cost" unless it is treated as being disposable (thereby leading to a
repetition of the current mess).

Chris