The big disgrace I ‘m seeing is that we didn’t have the smarts or compassion to get food and water to people immediately. Until the immediate crisis is dealt with, what’s the point in thinking about the future of the city? It just wastes energy that could be going into rescue and relief.

The laws of physics are also sinking London and put parts of the Netherlands below sea level. It puts most Gulf States in the path of the next Katrina. Come now, we are thinking, reasoning people. We can come up with solutions. Had the scientist of the 19th century thought this way, we would have never discovered quantum physics. They thought they knew all there was to know, save a few unresolved issues, but today we have television, radar, and laser because of the probing minds of a few. We have not solved all the world’s problems, but that is no reason to give up and move an entire city.

On a more pragmatic level, you mention eminent domain, but you give no specifics as to how. Thus far eminent domain has been used on a small level. This is more than a million people. Where will they go, who will take them? The land must be purchased (as usually done) from people, but it does not end there. Do you not think that we’ll need to provide home loans, relocation expenses, and other aid? The media has been all over the fiasco that currently this the nola disaster, do you not think they’ll cover this? Further, the port (at the mouth of the Mississippi) must be rebuild or near there. The workers of the port cannot be stopped from leaving near where they work.

Perhaps, I am an optimist, but I believe we can build anywhere we want. Thus far we have a space station orbiting the earth, cities existing below sea level, cities existing in tsunami prone areas, and cities existing on the edge of tectonic plates. Why can nola (if properly funded) not exist? This city is important to us economically, historically and pragmatically.

*we’re* not committing it to a watery grave, the laws of physics are doing that. The only variable is how much money, if any, do we spend fighting against that inevitable end.

The land-ownership issues are easy to handle. The government is either going to spend billions of dollars *rebuilding* or it can spend much less money *buying the land via eminent domain*. Turn the entire area into a protected/historic wetland, and that entire issue vanishes. You *can’t* build there any more, and you get compensated so you can go live somewhere else.

Perhaps, Bill is not arguing this, but his arguments apply here as well. 20% of nola’s residents live below the poverty line. Those who do not have a car had no means of leaving nola considering the cheap transportations out of there (greyhound) stopped service on Saturday, which is the day the hurricane ramped up from a weak category to the killer 5. For those who did have a car, they could not necessarily afford the cost of gas and certainly could not afford the cost of hotels. It is one thing to tell people to evacuate, but those who could not should have gotten some sort of assistance out of there. Certainly, the elderly and sick should have been bussed out.

In terms of rebuilding nola, we definitely should look at the failures of the past and how to approach the future. This is the 5th busiest port (I believe) in the world. Much of the goods imported and agriculture exported to and from the heartland go through here. We need a port near or at the mouth of the Mississippi. The reason nola’s port has been so successful for the last 200 years is location. There is also the pragmatic issue of how to relocate millions of people and handle land ownership issues. Finally, culteral and historical issues weigh in. This is the birthplace of jazz, and a city that essentially kept us from coming under British rule in 1812. Do we want to condemn this city to a watery grave?

But I do think that it’s important to have the discussion about rebuilding. And it may seem callous to have it now as people are struggling to survive and recover. But I think it would do a serious disservice to those very people so harshly affected by this disaster to NOT consider alternatives. In the end the discussion about rebuilding or relocating needs to consider at it’s heart the long term health and well-being of those very people who could not afford to escape nature’s destruction. To delay a discussion about improving the long-term outlook for those people does not do them any good.

I want to note that (at least in my blog) my issue was never “why did people choose to live there”, because that’s something you’ve got no control over, to a certain extent. If you’re poor and live there, you can’t move. The people who are “stuck” in that area right now aren’t the rich, it’s the poor who couldn’t afford to leave. That part, I “get”.

My issue is simply that *rebuilding* on the flood plain is stupid, and won’t get any of my charitable contribution money. They’re homeless now, and that’s a tragedy, but if I’m going to give them money, it’s going to be tied to the “and go move somewhere that’s not guaranteed to sink into the ocean so we don’t have to do this all again some other time” qualifier.