Build it and they will flood

[muckefuck]

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:

"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.

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.

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? But of course not everyone is happy--or, in the words of an AP story:

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....

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.

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.

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.

Comments

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Why do you have the the boring, new-fangled Welsh? It's not worth counting in Welsh if you don't use the good ol' Celtic vintigesimal system, i.e. saith ar ddeugain (lit. "seven on two-twenty").

[n-true.livejournal.com]

Indeed... I have thought about changing it... I was given both versions. I'll switch it, I think. ;)

What about all those Amerindian languages you posted something about lately? Or the many neat South-Asian ones? Also, I like your Thai and Khmer transcriptions — I always had problems transcribing Khmer and Thai. How would you write my versions?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

On second thought, it should be saith a deugain ("seven and forty"); I don't think ar is used with numberals above twenty. Deugain saith is definitely wrong though; it's an unholy blend of traditional and new-fangled.

Unfortunately, I don't have my Amerind grammars handy, so I'm like Batman without his gadgets. I can get you the Chinook Wawa (although you might want to double-check it with embryomystic): lakit tahtlum pe sinamokst.