[Otherguy Overby]

Current news is that 80% of New Orleans is flooded.

If this is true and New Orleans turns out to be more than 1/2 destroyed by flooding: Would you support rebuilding it at it's present, less than sea level, location.

Remember, they really are your tax dollars.

Would rebuilding NO be a sign of national denial/stupidity/enablement?

Would it just be the right time to say NO to NO?

Could a politician actually say NO, even if it was the best action?

[gunsmith]

I was concerned about the way the red cross denied access to the superdome those who had weapons--I guess gun owners were supposed to let looters and ocean water get their guns.
red cross aint getting nothing from me in the future.

I vote to let nola stay in the ocean-it could become a favorite of scuba divers!

but I did allways want to go to mardis gras, lets just save the french quarter. :evil:

[skidmark]

Rebuilding NO, parts of FLA, MS, AL or anywhere else that is prone to flooding, earthquakes, forest/brush fires, Dutch Elm disease or anything else is just a good way to throw away tax dollars.

Except -

that if we only lived in safe places it would get real crowded real quick.

I hear talk that FEMA is starting to think that if you get disastered once and return/rebuild and do not buy the right kind of insurance in the right amount (lots of debate about kind & amount) you will not get federal $$ the next time around.

Personally, I think that tax dollars are better spent in projects like the one in SW VA a few years ago. Town (I forget which) got flooded every time it rained. After a while somebody got fed up with paying to rebuild on the same spot just to see them get flooded again the next time it rained, and rebuild just to get ... well, you get the picture. FEMA & the state moved the town from the low bank of the river to the high side. Now when it rains they watch the water go by on the other side, but have no flooding in town.

A few more brilliant ideas like that and we might be on to something.

stay safe.

skidmark

[Otherguy Overby]

You know I really laughed: ROFL, BTW, about turning NOLA into an underwater theme park.

We could have new Flipper and Lassie adventures to raise another generation of kids. Flipper could uh, chitter and flip and Lassie could leap from building to building, barking in soprano, while attempting to save the kid from an omnivorous octopus.

Where's Gentle Ben when we need him?

Oh and don't forget the airboats, NASBOAT comes to mind, just check out that 14 second pond stop! A pit crew in waders, no less.

And the press conference? Kerry would show up with a mask, a snorkle, really big flippers and his shotgun so as to crawl up and ambush Shepard Smith to show his support of hunting and the 2nd amendment.

[erikm]

Well,
I kind of support the idea of only getting full FEMA rebuilding aid once per location if you don't have the right insurance. If you're wiped out and rebuild onsite, you should rebuild properly, so the building is safe (or safer) from disaster. In the case of flooding, there are some simple design features to prevent it washing away. Building on stilts with a sacrificial ground floor is one possibility.

Another more spectacular option is building the house on a free-floating barge and adding a mooring pole to fasten it up to. If the location floods the house floats up but stays onsite. This link (http://www.amfibischwonen.nl/) more or less illustrates what I'm talking about and this link (http://www.amfibischwonen.nl/a7/PSC014.html) goes into some more detail (forgive the 'organic' and 'sustainable' talk).

Rebuilding New Orleans as it was seems more than a bit foolish IMO. I know that my country has done more than its share of below-sea-level reclamation and construction, but the flood defenses have been correspondingly heavy and (on the whole) well-maintained. That doesn't seem to be the case here. On the whole I think that the city of New Orleans has, in its current incarnation, had its day. The oil terminal and refinery facilities will probably remain, but a lot of people probably won't (or maybe shouldn't) be coming back.

For the medium future, New Orleans would make a really nice 'disaster movie' set or amphibious/riverine warfare training course. Over the longer term it might make an excellent 'workshop' on living in/with water.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[Gewehr98]

I hear talk that FEMA is starting to think that if you get disastered once and return/rebuild and do not buy the right kind of insurance in the right amount (lots of debate about kind & amount) you will not get federal $$ the next time around.

If you live in a floodplain or flood-prone area, seldom will an insurance carrier even offer you a flood policy. I found that out during the Sacramento flood of '97, the folks in Olivehurste were just plain left out in the cold, they couldn't get flood insurance if they wanted it. :(

[Master Blaster]

Go to the FEMA site and read up on how federal flood insurance works.

Coverage is limited to about 400,000 per risk, on the third flooding incident (even if not a total loss) you have to take a FEMA buyout rather than rebuild IIRC. This all applies to residential single family homes and small businesses.

Large and medium commercial risks can usually get flood coverage as part of a commercial policy, for large risks, Hospitals, Hotels, Fed Ex, Sun Oil, Walmart etc, policies are seldom written without flood coverage included.

New Orleans has had about a 200 year or so run without a loss like this, not too bad considering the location. They will definately rebuild. They will improve the flood control so that this will be less likely to happen in the future.

[erikm]

There's one other thing that NOLA might become an involuntary lab for:
large scale urban toxic sludge cleanup. Of course, this depends on how big the oil industry/refinery damage is.


Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[Otherguy Overby]

I went to the FEMA site and looked around for policy terms/discriptions and couldn't find it before my short term attention span kicked in.

If flood insurance is anything like Earthquake insurance, it ain't much good.

Earthquake is 20% deductible. So, if you live in earthquake land at California prices, you might be facing (Just a guess) say 400K to replace/rebuild everything. What that means is you have to come up with 80K before anything can happen. Of course you head off to see about low interest loans and stuff from the government, only to find out you are NOT eligible because you already have insurance.

Is the flood insurance program like this, too? IOW, iffn you HAVE insurance, though no where near enough, or just no reserves to pay the deductible, is one also screwed?

Since the gummint got involved, disaster relief seems more an enablement program for the dregs of society.