![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Build it and they will flood
Okay, now can we talk about the wisdom of rebuilding a continually-subsiding city that can only be kept above water with the help of massive and expensive earthworks?
The Urban Land Institute have released their recommendations for reconstruction of New Orleans. You'd think they'd covered themselves pretty well against charges of classism and racism with language like:
Dare I suggest that the difference might be mostly economic? Do the stupid white people in California expect the federal government to pick up the tab for their folly or do they pay for it themselves? Probably a bit of both, but from what little I know the expenses are largely their own. If someone wants to use their own money to do something ill-advised, well, I can't stop them. But much of the reconstruction of New Orleans will come directly out of the Federal purse and, if you want to take my money to do something ill-advised, I not only can say no, but I feel I have a responsibility to.
I wish we could see a broader debate about the burden of responsibility between government and citizens in situations like these. Otherwise, every time there's a natural disaster of any size, people will point to the precedent of New Orleans and argue that they should be bailed out. There should be some clear criteria in place so we could say, for instance, "Reconstruction was Federally funded in New Orleans because the existence of levees maintained by the COE constituted an implicit promise of flood protection and, even then, only those neighbourhoods not at high risk to future flooding were rebuilt. You all built on a known floodplain without flood structures in defiance of Federal warnings, so suck it up."
What are the criteria in place in NOLA? I can't completely tell--and the clearest and most sensible ones being proposed are already in danger of being hijacked by narrow political considerations.
The Urban Land Institute have released their recommendations for reconstruction of New Orleans. You'd think they'd covered themselves pretty well against charges of classism and racism with language like:
"In contrast to the past practice of isolating, concentrating and stigmatizing poor and modest income families in public housing or other rent subsidized enclaves, New Orleans neighborhoods must be more inclusive," said panelist Tony Salazar, president of the west coast division of McCormack Baron Salazar in Los Angeles.Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? But of course not everyone is happy--or, in the words of an AP story:
The panelists recommended that affordable units be dispersed throughout the neighborhoods, indistinguishable from other properties and connected to neighborhood amenities. In addition, the panelists discussed interim housing issues, including the need for an ample supply of site locations, design issues, and the need to foster greater community acceptance through constant consultation and a dismantling schedule.
The proposal was controversial from the beginning: Focus resources on rebuilding New Orleans' less-damaged neighborhoods first and carefully study whether it makes sense to repopulate areas that were flooded the worst....This strikes me as misdirection. If it's a bad idea to rebuild on low-lying land that's extremely vulnerably to future flooding (and, thus, a repeat of the catastrophe that everyone already justifiably up in arms about), then it's bad idea, regardless of what's being done elsewhere. Mr King's argument seems to be, "We give money to stupid white people so we should give it to stupid black people, too." No, we shouldn't give it to stupid people, period. It is a bad idea to allow the kind of development in California which leaves more and more people vulnerable to wildfires and mudslides and, contrary to what he's claiming, people have been questioning the wisdom of it--for years now.
But what the planners viewed as logic was dismissed as racism by some local leaders. "Florida gets hit every year and we never hear the question raised whether or not we need to rebuild the coast of Florida," said Danatus King, president of the New Orleans chapter of the NAACP. "California gets hit with wildfires and mudslides. What's the difference between those areas and the areas of New Orleans we're talking about? It's a majority black population and poor population," he said.
Dare I suggest that the difference might be mostly economic? Do the stupid white people in California expect the federal government to pick up the tab for their folly or do they pay for it themselves? Probably a bit of both, but from what little I know the expenses are largely their own. If someone wants to use their own money to do something ill-advised, well, I can't stop them. But much of the reconstruction of New Orleans will come directly out of the Federal purse and, if you want to take my money to do something ill-advised, I not only can say no, but I feel I have a responsibility to.
I wish we could see a broader debate about the burden of responsibility between government and citizens in situations like these. Otherwise, every time there's a natural disaster of any size, people will point to the precedent of New Orleans and argue that they should be bailed out. There should be some clear criteria in place so we could say, for instance, "Reconstruction was Federally funded in New Orleans because the existence of levees maintained by the COE constituted an implicit promise of flood protection and, even then, only those neighbourhoods not at high risk to future flooding were rebuilt. You all built on a known floodplain without flood structures in defiance of Federal warnings, so suck it up."
What are the criteria in place in NOLA? I can't completely tell--and the clearest and most sensible ones being proposed are already in danger of being hijacked by narrow political considerations.
no subject
If ifs were skiffs, we could all go sailing. But the fact remains, there is simply no foolproof way to protect New Orleans (or any Gulf city, for that matter) from flooding. Build the highest and strongest levees you want--they're still fallible. Restore the entire coastline of Lousiana to swampland[*] and it won't be enough to absorb the strength of a really powerful hurricane. (As plenty of analysts pointed out before the storm hit, there's no city in the world that's built to withstand a Category 5 storm.) Move thousands of tons of debris and raise the street level--the ground will still subside again. It's a delta and that's what deltas do.
Saying that five years of funding reductions and less than ten years of coastal exploitation alone is the difference between a NOLA that is high and dry and one that is a swimming pool is ludicrous. Sooner or later, the city is going to flood again. The question now is what can be done during the reconstruction process to mitigate the damage. Moreover, it's inevitable that other cities are going to be hit by Category 4 or 5 storms as well. Are we going to spend Federal dollars to rebuild them all? Where do we draw the line between the Federal responsibility to protect citizens and the citizens' responsibility for not assuming greater risks than they can afford.
[*] BTW, I've heard a lot of assertions that relaxation of restrictions on coastal exploitation contributed to the damage wrought by the storm, but I haven't seen any convincing data yet--and I've looked. Can anyone show much how much wetland has been lost along the shores of Lake Pontchartrain in the last decade? Because this is what would've made a difference to New Orleans--not environmental degradation in places like Plaquemines Parish and Atchafalaya Bay.
no subject
I still can't believe there's such a thing as a Gay Republican
I said decades, not 5/10 years.
Of course there's no foolproof way of doing anything, especially with our dependence on fossil fuels, global warming, and the predictions of more storms to come.
As for the relaxation of restrictions causing storm damage, much of that is in adjoining states where wetlands were filled in and new housing constructed. That's not NO. I was referring to dredging for shipping channels and the accompanying effect on mangrove swamps.
You want foolproof? Really, I'd have thought you learned that lesson by now. And as an academic, I've never heard any comment from you about the degradation of science for political expedience. So are you relying on some neo-con think tank for your data? Just like the linkage between petroleum companies, domestic auto manufacturers and the development of the hydrogen engine- supposedly ten years off when we could have had hybrids for the past three years. Is your information coming from the same people who brought us Healthy Forests and WMD?
But basically you're saying that white people get to rebuild and black people do not. Because we can't afford to secure New Orleans? Because we're spending $400B on wartime priorities? $200B on the biggest pork barrel in our history, the Department of Homeland Security? Or because we're taking $11B from Social Security to balance the budget? Or $7B each year for FICA paid by employers for illegal immigrants who will never be able to collect it? Or just because George and Laura will send out over a million "holiday" cards that you're paying for?
Or just because you're a hard-hearted neocon?
no subject
No, mostly on data produced by the USGS National Wetlands Research Center and the State of Louisiana's Office of Coastal Restoration and Management. As far as know, neither of these is dominated by neocons, but perhaps you know more about their constitution than I do.
But basically you're saying that white people get to rebuild and black people do not.
Not at all. I'm saying that people who can't afford to rebuild in highly risk-prone areas shouldn't expect the government to rebuild for them. This goes equally well for poor whites in South St. Louis County (where there's been an insane amount of building on the 100-year floodplain of late) as it does for poor blacks in NOLA.
Let me ask you: How much funding should the Federal government make available to each person who wants to rebuild after a natural disaster? What criteria should they use to select recipients (if only to prevent fraud) and what strings should they attach to the use of the funds? Make it a good answer, because you're not only talking about New Orleans, but potentially every Gulf city, every town in a floodplain, every municipality in every earthquake zone, and so forth.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to say, for instance, "We will give you the funds to rebuild, but not someplace that's 20 ft. under sea level." As I said, I think that they have a responsibility to impose conditions like this in the interest of not sowing the seeds of a future crisis.
Because we can't afford to secure New Orleans?
Because it's not possible to secure NOLA. It's built in a swamp on a delta. And flooding isn't the only problem: All that's keeping the Mississippi from changing course entirely is the antiquated Old River Control Structure above Baton Rouge. When that goes--and I'm frankly surprised it's still standing--NOLA will lose its most important source of fresh water and corrosive salt water will flood the old Mississippi channel. I've never heard an estimate on the cost of completing rerouting and replacing the water supply systems for the public and every enterprise in the entire Greater New Orleans Area, but you can bet it won't be cheap.
Plenty of businesses and individuals with the capital and mobility to relocate elsewhere have already re-evaluated the risks and decided that NOLA isn't worth it--just ask the Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce. Thousands more probably should follow their example, but lack the wherewithal. The Federal government, as well as other bodies, could furnish that, at least in part. But the discussion of what is wisest to do seems to be drowned out by defiant emotional vows to "rebuild" and screams of "ethnic cleansing".
Moreover, your arguments about funding are as misguided as King's. If it doesn't make economic sense to rebuild all of New Orleans, then it doesn't regardless of other funding commitments. Politics says, "Since you're wasting money on your dumb things, we should get to waste money on our dumb things, too." Common sense should say that none of that money should be wasted at all.
Or just because you're a hard-hearted neocon?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I deliberately choose to live in an area which is not prone to earthquakes, tornados, flash floods, hurricanes, brimstone from the sky, wildfires, and the like and I don't understand why a chunk of money should be taken from me and given to subsidise those who do.