New Orleans, The Future?

Some probably will. There are many people from many states offering jobs and housing. They might find that they like the new area better.

I know if I ever went through this, I would ask my husband which state would you like to live in. Then we would get there the best way we could. I would never live in that location again. And I have lived either on the Gulf Coast or the Atlantic most of my life.

 

I agree, Lorrie, that some will return because of the refineries and the port. I wonder if they will live below sea level again or if they will live farther north and commute to the work?

Indianapolis hospitals received some of the ill. We have plenty of empty apartments on our east and west sides of town so I think that it would be logical for some of them to move here. We don't have much work and we don't make much money but we are high and dry.

 

I saw some of the NO police officers on the news. They had made sure all were evacuated from the area that they were in. One of the police said he had to beat the men back from trying to enter the helecopter before the women and children. The officer said that there are a lot of cowards out there. It made me sick to think of men trying to take spots a baby could have had.

I thought the looting was sick but I think trying to save your own neck before the children are out is even sicker. I just wonder if I will hear something that will top this. I am VERY disturbed by this

 

That may just be a different culture. Here in Indianapolis it is customary for men to get on the city bus before the women and children or the aged.

By the way, we have a recently closed hospital here called Winona Hospital. We could turn that into a nursing home or hospital very quickly or even a shelter. Some of the people with destroyed homes are going to have to come north it seems to me.

 

I was raised in "ladies first" custom so maybe that is why it disgusted me so much. I also raised my sons that way as well to give up their seat for a woman, open car door, or any door for that matter. I am sure there might be ladies out there offended by this but not one has ever said so to my sons. In fact, they usually tell them that they do not see very many gentlemen anymore.

 

I know--it is disgusting.

The State of Indiana has a vanity license plate that says, "Children First." That is an error also.

A guy who lets ladies on the city bus first stands out day after day. Urban culture is rough and nothing is free in the big city.

 

Lorrie,

There is still a culture amongst SOME women to not like gentlemen.

... Oh well ... My grandma was in the hospital and I called her nurse 'ma'am'. The nurse was MUCH younger than I am. So she said that she did not like being called ma'am.
My grandma replied ... "He had better call you ma'am that is the way he was raised."

But, I can imagine that in an evacuation situation, many men and women might buckle under the stress.

 

CMG,

I thought you were kidding!!!! All I can say is that I am glad I was NOT raised in a big city. I probably would not survive.

 

The new New Orleans will be 250,000 mostly white retired Californians and New Yorkers. The price of building materials will skyrocket and only wealthy people can afford to buy new construction in any major city. There will be enough Section 8 housing to insure that there will be sufficient grunts to serve the upper class retirees.

 

I was wondering if the government would use eminant domain to take the land away.

 

What would they use it for, though? I'm sure many businesses and developers would think twice before relocating to the city regardless of the tax breaks.

 

Lorrie,

Here's to life in the South, ladies (and children) first, manners, and Southern police officers who try to enforce it.

 

Michael Barone, political commentator had this remark about New Orleans:

Something similar has been going on recently in New Orleans. The population of the central city declined from 484,000 in 2000 to 462,000 in 2004 -- one of the biggest percentage declines in the nation. It seems unlikely that many of the small wooden houses in neighborhoods dominated by the criminal underclass will be habitable after the waters recede, nor will it be worth anyone's money to rebuild them. New Orleans may suffer a population loss similar to Detroit's in a much smaller period of time.

The suburbs are more likely to be rebuilt, and the gambling casinos and the historic structures of the French Quarter and the Garden District will be, too, to the maximum extent possible. The tourist trade, which has recently been New Orleans' biggest employer, will likely revive, and the city's great restaurants will likely reopen.

But New Orleans' heritages of upper-class complaisance and political corruption -- the result of the city's French tradition -- work against a more broadly based commercial and economic revival. Without changes in these attitudes, historic New Orleans may revive, but the city will become little more than a theme park, like Venice, and not the great commercial beehive it once was.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050905.shtml

 

How come when I wondered that on another thread, I was told I need some rest?

I still think it is a legitimate question.

 

I totally agree with OR.

 

I was watching the news and they were talking about all the horrible toxins that are now in NO. If NO rebuilds, it won't be able to use ground water because of them. So is the government going to have to supply the residents with bottled water to bath in, brush teeth, wash clothes, cook, drink, etc?

And where are they going to put the "old" NO when they tear it down to build the "new" NO?

I realize that these people loved their city and it is tragic what happened. But when Three Mile Island happened, people had to leave that area. I know, it was not as big as NO, but the problems are going to be emense for rebuiding NO.

If NO is rebuilt, will those that move back have to sign contracts saying that they will NOT sue the US government when they get cancer, sores, etc?

This thing could be costing generations down the line. It has to be stopped somewhere!

 

Chicago was rebuilt after the great Chicago Fire of 1871. It took more than two years to reasonably rebuild the city.

It took the City of San Francisco several years to rebuiid after the 1906 quake.

Gulfport, Mississippi rebuilt after Hurricane Camille in 1969.

Southern California took years to rebuild after the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, which, up to now, was the nation's most natural disaster ($25 billion in damage; 114,000 buildings left in ruin; 9,000 people severaly injured, 72 people killed). BTW, I was one of the injured, though not severaly.

I'm inclined to want to agree, but I can easily see the ire if someone said they didn't want federal funds to go to rebuilding of anything in an earthquake-prone area.

 

How come when I wondered that on another thread, I was told I need some rest?

I still think it is a legitimate question. </font>[/QUOTE]Very legit L.E.
Let me fire one across the bow here and then you can go tell me I need some rest.
Who here actually believes that there havent been many board meetings between land speculators, commercial developers, and real estate attorneys looking at the few remaining records of the deeds and plats of that town?
Would anyone be surpised if you heard that they were offering a 1 dollar to 100 dollar ratio for their small little plots of land under the water?
And do you think that the government, fearing that they wouldnt get their cut, would not pull out the emminent domain clause now that the supreme court has made it so handy?
Those little plots of land are all,I mean ALL, that many of these people have. Thats why they are refusing to leave what many of us would consider sure death.