James Newton, Host wrote:

>source= http://www.piclist.com/piclist/2005/09/03/104313a.txt?
>
>Bob Axtell  says:
>  
>
>>The problem is that its really not possible to build a 
>>reliable levee system in N.O. because the ground is too far 
>>below sea level.  
>>    
>>
>
>Or perhaps just not cost effective? I'm sure it could be done, if enough $$$
>were flushed into it. But why should we?
>  
>
The port is very important to various forms of commercial interests. 
The port and its surrounding support structure (people, housing for
people, and all the fun that goes with all of that) is probably the
number one priority for rebuild along with communications infrastructure.

>>What happens is that water seeps under the levee and 
>>eventually washes it out during a huirricane. Even if you 
>>pushed the bottom of the levee to 20 meters below sea level, 
>>the soil still has NO strength.  
>>
>>But the reason this became a tragedy is because of the 
>>"cry wolf" problem. Every time a huirricane blew up, people 
>>were told to evacuate, and no gamage ever resulted, so people 
>>decided (naturally) that the warnings were bogus. This time, 
>>they were not. The agencies thought everyone was leaving, its 
>>that simple.  
>>    
>>
>
>That is one of the better summarys of this issue that I have heard. Kamile
>(sp?) cost them 60,000 homes, but I guess they could have taken that as a
>slap on the wrist compaired to this one. 
>  
>
Camile.

>On the other hand, most of the interviews I heard were with people who said
>they couldn't find a way to get out, when they decided they needed to. Most
>were very poor, didn't have cars, and didn't feel that they could afford a
>bus ticket even if seats were available.
>  
>
The evacuation plan the Governor didn't follow, but was published by her
emergency office, was to use school busses to carry people that couldn't
afford to evacuate.  It wasn't done.  (I am making no judgements, only
pointing out facts.  Too much "blame game" going on there already anyway.)

>>To rebuilt N.O. as it was is would be foolhardy. New 
>>Orleans needs to revert back to the river delta swamp it 
>>always was. 
>>    
>>
>
>While I agree with that assesment, it is likely that millions of federal
>dollars will be spent to build nice new, high income housing, at a hansome
>profit for the developers who are able to pay off the officials who hand
>those funds out. The more we do to watch for corruption, report it, and not
>forget it before the next election, the less of that will happen. 
>  
>
>From a couple of sources, but haven't found a published document yet: 
The usual rules for Federal contracts have been dropped, and contractors
are not required to go through the usual steps to obtain a Federal
contract.  I assume this means a highly abbreviated process that will
allow for quite a bit of corruption and probably even some money
laundering from various organized crime groups.  Ironic that a city
known for quite a bit of government corruption over the years now may
continue that tradition while it's being rebuilt. 

>I'm sure a lot of nice new city and other government buildings will also be
>publically funded. But again, why?
>
>Is there a good reason to re-build at that specific location? Are there
>other places where the needed harbors and ports, and the industry, housing,
>etc.. that support them could be constructed?
>  
>
The mouth of the Mississippi will always be a major port, no matter who
or what rebuilds it... and people will always live at the port city.

Nate
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist