Yes, you move to Arkansas. Or Kansas. Or, preferrably, the Dakotas. The upper Plains is full of abandoned properties, and there's been serious talk about what to do with areas which have been effectively abandoned, anyways. They need people up there. If you can't stand the notion of country living, Detroit is emptying out faster than the upper Plains.

If the government has to buy you out of your property at a premium, then that's a better investment than helping you rebuild. Because this will happen again.

Christ, this is a nightmare. I don't want to see us re-enact it five, or ten, or fifteen years down the line, when another Katrina blows the walls down again. Because next time it might be the Mississippi, too.

I'm sorry you're so attached to your ruined homes. I'm sorry that the inevitable finally caught up with our wishful thinking. But New Orleans is an impossible place, and we as a nation ought not to be subsidizing its resettlement.

Be a fool. Indulge your cultural and topographical death-wish. But please don't demand government money to finance your suicidal fantasia.

If you want to live on the coast below sea level that's fine, but don't ask the rest of us to pay for your stupidity. That place is a literal hole, and you're lucky it lasted this long.

Arkansas? Kansas? So when those areas get ravaged by tornadoes every year, THEN it's a good investment to rebuild??

Let's be clear about the facts here. NO PLACE IN THE WORLD has EVER in recorded history seen this sort of devastation from a hurricane, and only twice seen more powerful hurricanes. Most hurricanes do about the same amount of monetary damage as wildfires, mudslides, tornadoes, earthquakes, and blizzards.

New Orleans has been there for centuries, so I'd say that it's far from impossible, and the odds of this devastation happening again within our lifetimes are astronomical.

As for living below sealevel, the same can be said for living at the bottom of a volcano, on top of a fault-line, or in tornado alley.

Furthermore, if my tax dollars are going to serve their purpose to those in need in other areas of the country but not mine SOLELY based on location, then I deserve to have those taxes back.

I find it interesting that those whining about the cost of rebuilding never mention the cost of relocating, or the burden of thousands of new homeless.

Plus, Toni, from a practical point of view? New Orleans is a major port? Should we just throw that away? That's pretty dumb.

The rest of you can rot in hell.

I live in Los Angeles and have been thinking about what would happen after The Big One here. I think the fundamental difference is that one week after a big earthquake here, the vast majority of people in this city would still have jobs, the vast majority of schools would still be open, and most houses would still be standing. You would not see an entire region flattened or destroyed. You'd see parts of the town totalled, but other parts would still be here. There would not be the complete devastation of every workplace, every school, every store, every home, and long-lasting environmental contamination from chemicals and sewage. Los Angeles would not have to start over from scratch.

There is also the question of the odds. I heard somewhere--this might be completely wrong, but probably not by much--that a hurricane like this is expected once every 300 years. That means in a person's lifetime--75 years--there is a 1 in 4 chance of having your entire way of life wiped away. There is no town in tornado areas with odds like that. The chance of any one town getting hit is very small.

There is also the precident of the towns along the Mississippi in 1993. After the great flood there, the government said that if you rebuild on the flood plain, we will not help you, and if you rebuild there, you will not get flood insurance. Whole towns were moved to higher ground. The basic thinking was this: you built there once, and when disaster came, your neighbors across the country helped you to rebuild--somewhere. But if you build there a second time, your neighbors are not going to help you again and you're on your own.

As for the culture of New Orleans and the history, it's sad, but it may simply be gone. (Though it looks from satellite imagery that the French Quarter is in better shape than most places in the city.) We might all wish it were otherwise, but you can't have a million people out of work and without homes for what looks likely to be over a year. People will have to move away, find work, get their kids in school, and rebuild their lives.

If we were to rebuild everything in New Orleans, it will be years, at best--more likely over a decade, before all the people out of homes today could possibly be moved back. After settling into a new place for years, how many will pack up again and move back to a city that is completely different from the one they left, with completely different neighbors and completely different jobs. What percentage will move back? Is it enough to actually have a New Orleans at all? or even a city again?

Very interesting blog and comments. How about a partial reconstruction. Parts of NO are not below sea level. In fact the oldest parts where people were smart enough to first settle. For the low lying areas the dutch/venice model could be enacted. Dig canels all over the city. Use the dirt removed from the canels to raise the land level above sea level. Certainly some parts that are just too far down would need to be abandoned all together.

I agree culturally one can not just abandon a city. But this could be a good opportunity to make N.O. safer

I know that I would be pretty angry if people from other parts of the country (sitting at home reading the newspaper) were saying things about my hometown like "Should we spend the money to rebuild this town?" and "This was a long time coming, you're lucky it lasted this long" (totally inappropriate, by the way). I would be furious. But you can't blame people for bringing it up. And, the situation there is so different, just because of the fact that a lot of the city sits below sea level. Hurricanes hit the east coast and destroy cities, yes. However, for the most part, flood waters recede quickly, people and supplies can get in and out of the city, and things can moderately quickly become stable, even if not "normal." Earthquakes hit California, and even when buildings fall and roads crumble, people can get out or are at least dry. I think that the flooding is the problem here, pure and simple.

As for the whole "tornado alley" argument, I think that most people have a bit of a "Hollywood" idea of how many tornadoes there are in Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, etc. I have lived in Kansas my entire life, and have NEVER seen a tornado. And, while the eye of a hurricane is what, 40-50 miles across (I think that was what the reports were saying, perhaps I'm wrong) and the storm itself was hundreds of miles across, the eye of a tornado is more like a mile (maybe?) across. Also, most tornadoes touch down briefly and blow themselves out in an hour or so. PLUS, (I'll be the first to admit it) most of the Plains is empty, so there is nothing to hit.

As for land, some cities in the Plains are giving it away to people that will come to town. There's an interesting article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9058504/. You are right, however, about creating jobs. And I know that the economics of the situation are important. There is an interesting article on MSNBC somewhere about the aspect of race in this disaster (i.e. most of the people stranded in the city tend to be poor and black). The point about NOLA being a shipping port is important too. It would be difficult to close a major port on the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi.

I DO NOT agree with the post about "you had this coming, you should have known, etc." I do think that poor planning/funding for the levee/pump system/evacuation planning contributed to this disaster. It is easy for someone living somewhere else to say "let's not rebuild the city." It's got to be hard for people from the area NOT to say, "The rest of you can rot in hell." The first priority has to be getting people out of the city and restoring SOME semblance of order and safety to their lives. But both points of view have some validity in my mind. And while it might be a LEETLE early to bring up the "should we rebuild" topic, you have to see WHY someone would discuss it.

If you think you're gonna have a job after the "big one" in LA you're smoking something really, really good. Have you ever looked at the scenarios for the impact of that? Basically throwing the US into recession.

With that in mind, if New Orleans is impossible, so are LA and SF (scary amounts of financial servcies infrastructure ready to be wasted). So's DC (terrorist target!) and NYC. Florida? Forget it. Seattle? That volcano could come to life.

New Orleans is going to be different. But despite what people are saying, it plays an important role in American commerce, energy, and culture. The thinking that says "forget it" can be applied all over the country. If we go that way, it's time to start dismantling places that are homes to millions of Americans.

Oh and for those in other places who think "they shouldn't have to pay," just watch the economic fallout that's coming. Guess what folks, it IS your problem, and you're about to find out the hard way.

-John in Houston

Right on.

It's insane to suggest abandoning the city, not to mention cruel. People talk about junking 300 years of culture like they're throwing out a favorite pair of pants. Our larger national culture is seriously sick if we're that detached from our own unique heritage.

This is probably one of the worst disasters ever to hit a city anywhere. It's not as bad as Pompeii, with the city gone forever, but it's probably a worse blow in some respects (thankfully not in lives) than Hiroshima. But people can recover from all but the worst disasters, and in this case, they can and should.

So some parts of the city are below sea level. The reason the city is sinking is because the current levee system raises the level of the lake and river at the same time it leads to subsidence within the city. We know how to fix that, and this is the opportunity to do it. Create canals to accomodate the flooding, and take the dirt from the canals to raise the level of the city elsewhere.

In Seattle, after the 1889 fire, they rebuilt over the low-lying parts of the city, 20 feet above. Previously, those parts of town were on mudflats and subject to tidal flooding (the rest of the city was and is on hills.) There has been no tidal flooding since. New Orleans has much more difficult geography, but the same principle works on a larger scale. Fill in, then build above. Combined with efforts to end the sinking of New Orleans by reworking the levee system, and by taking efforts to end development on the delta and preserve protective coastal lands there, the city could be rebuilt in a way that makes a repeat of this week extremely unlikely. The whole city could be made to be above sea level.

Realize that the areas of New Orleans above sea level are fine, even during this disaster. They are the core that you can build the new city around, and fortunately, they include most of the historic neighborhoods of the city. This can be fixed, and we should fix it.

Abandon New Orleans, and we might as well abandon every city that ever has a disaster befall it. Next time New York is hit by terrorists, we'll just let it be, since after all, it can happen again. Next earthquake that devastates San Francisco or LA, we'll just leave things to fester, and relocate people to Nevada. When those people overtax the water system in Nevada, we'll just let people die by drought, and the survivors can move inland to Wyoming.

It's absurd to even contemplate. We should and will rebuild New Orleans. And I hope if anything similar ever happens to my fair city, you all will return the favor.

New orleans is caught in catch 22. To prevent flooding from the Mississippi and keep it navigable to the port it channelized. Because it is channelized the protective delta diminishes and New Orleans sinks deeper and deeper because it is built on flood replenished silt that isn't replenished without the floods.

So you have to build levees higher and higher and get bigger and bigger pumps to pump out rainwater because the bowl gets deeper and deeper.

This game will always end up a loser. there needs to be rethinking.

I agree that there will be a core of a city left over after this that could form the seed of a new city. And I'm sure no matter what happens, those parts with minimal damage will be rebuilt. I'm just not sure about the deepest parts of the city. I would guess that most of what will be rebuilt will be built further north, away from the bowl. Is a New New Orleans shifted to the north still New Orleans? Dunno.

We'll be asking this same question when Las Vegas runs out of water or when the New Madrid fault tears up the Midwest. Will our answer be the same?

We've got to have the port. And as long as the French Quarter survives, tourists will come. A world without New Orleans is hardly worth living in.

While I can understand why they ask whether NOLA should be rebuilt, I am shocked people's sloppy thinking. I live in the other LA--Los Angeles, btw.

NOLA has dodged the bullet so many times it's almost miraculous. IF this storm had been a Cat 3 or 2 or 1 like the vast, dominant majority of hurricanes, no one would be talking about whether money would be wasted on rebuilding. So it appears that it some Harvard Business School misguided notion of cost-effectiveness is really behind their thinking.

NOLA and the other affected areas was hit by one of the rarest storms in recorded history. It was so extremely rare that it it the second or first worst in all of recorded hurricane history: low interior pressure, size, sustained wind speed, travel across land, storm surge, etc. and WHERE IT HIT. Ergo, it seems to me that the fears that this will happen again so the money would be "wasted" is simply ridiculous.

And, of course, of course NOLA won't be rebuilt as it was. I expect new building codes that require escape hatches in the roofs, I imagine more of the city will be built outside the bowl, the levees will finally have to get the money Bush refused to give them years ago and they will be able to withstand a C5 storm, etc.. People will rebuild smarter. That's a given. So this will be even less likely to happen in the future. NOLA has HAD their Big One.

However, if we want to talk about cost-effectiveness and probability of disaster as the standard for rebuilding, then ALL of Florida should be abandoned since every part of the state, it seems, over the past decade has been hit by more than one hurricane. If we added up all the dollars spent to rebuild Florida (and some parts more than once) and adjusted for inflation, my bet is that far more has been spent on Florida than will be spent on the aftermath of Katrina. But more to the point, we know Florida will be hit over and over and over.

The poster who said that the Big One in earthquakes wouldn't destroy as much, cost as much or kill as many is simply talking out of his hat. First of all, while the entire region wouldn't be destroyed, it's far more crowded in the areas that it is expected to hit--the costs of rebuilding will be at least equivalent. Plus many of the same problems will happen--cell towers will go down, the way into affected regions will be difficult, people here are LESS prepared for an earthquake--at least many in the Gulf had laid in food and water or had evacuated. We Westerners won't have that preparation warning.

Let's look at it another way: The taxpayers in Katrina's affected areas have paid their share of the billions that have been spent on fighting Western fires and cleaning up after earthquakes. Far more billions are spent on disaster relief for those in flood zones in the Midwest through PA and most states south of the Mason-Dixon line. Over time, billions have been spent on Eastern Seaboard hurricane aftermath (hello, Hugo anyone?) and are spent on blizzards and Nor'Easters. It's just NOLA and its environs (and the affected areas of Mississippi and Alabama) turn. They have as much right to have the money spent on rebuilding their areas as any of us who have seen federal money spent on our regional disasters.

But it is a moot point anyhow--NOLA will be rebuilt because of the oil/refinery industry and port. It HAS to be--because the very people who are suggesting it not be rebuilt depend on NOLA being there so they have gas for their cars.

And the well-meaning soul that suggested people move to other areas like Detroit? Why do you think there's so much housing (that is falling down) is available in Detroit and Flint, etc? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO JOBS. Why do so few live in the other areas suggested? BECAUSE THERE ISN"T ENOUGH JOBS for more--so the poor that do manage to escape NOLA will be poorer elsewhere.

And it really bugs me that people who are saying that NOLA shouldn't be rebuilt are saying them in the comfort of their homes with water, food, power and sanitation instantly available. They are taking such positions with their precious possessions intact, clean clothes available, a job to go to and knowing where their friends and families are and if they're alive. They can *afford* to be judgmental. What hubris!

Well, while we are moving everyone to Arkansas and North Dakota, why don't we make it global. Why help other countries rebuild after they've been ravaged by war? It's just gonna happen again. Why help people in who are ravaged by tsunamis rebuild? It's just gonna happen again. What about monsoons? or landslides? or other countries who get floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and such? Why don't we move all of THEM to North Dakota. Then they can hole up for weeks at a time with no electricity during blizzard conditions instead. Won't that be so much better? I guess what I'm trying to say is that conditons aren't ideal any where. Every city, every state every country has there own shit to deal with. If the people of New Orleans think it is worth rebuilding (I'm in Nebraska and I think it is) then that should be all that matters. Right now I wish everyone would concentrate more on what we can do to help these people now and in the future. Whether we put them back in NO or send them off to Kansas, the fact remains that they are Americans and they have nothing beyond the clothes on their back.

i have a question why can't they deposit a lot
of the debris in the parts of the bowl sections
of new orleans and build what they can up to
and above the water level and build a new
city i know they can't do the the whole area
like this but they could reclaim some land?
may you have better days in the future
johnny

I have given a lot of thought to the rebuiilding of New Orleans.
There are two irrefutable facts:
1) Billions and billions of dollars are going to be spent in the Gulf Coast area
2)There are many,many poverty stricken neighborhoods and towns in the Gulf Coast area.
If I were a resident of this area, I would want to see if there were some way to provide vocational training NOW to displaced residents, the chronically unempoloyed, and to make sure LOCAL contractors and businesses got needed equipment, grants ,small business loans,childcare centers-whatever they needed to get in the process of rebuilding.
What I would be very afraid of is outside contractors(such as Haliburton) and outside employees coming into this situation, getting the contracts, taking the money, and LEAVING.
As much of a disaster as this is, it also presents an opportunity for jobs and income and poverty relief, by allowing the residents, the jobless, the homeless to get some vocational training and have a hand in bringing their neighborhoods,cities and states back to life. There will be funds, there will be jobs. I would love to see these billions of dollars stay in the area and provide long lasting stability to the locals, instead of lining the pockets of the millionaire contractors.

I was in Los Angeles during and after the pretty big one (Northridge 1994) and I have to say that it took FEMA forever to get their act together then, too. Parts of the Valley that were destroyed then still have not been rebuilt 11 years later. The major reason there were not thousands dead in that quake had to do with a few minor details.
1) The 1971 Sylmar quake had destroyed many homes and buildings already, and most were either not rebuilt or were built to higher standards. (One exception was the I-5 overpass, which was rebuilt to the same specs as the original - and which once again crumbled)
2) The quake happened in the middle of the night, when most people were home. Earthquake codes required home building to meet pretty strict standards, and once again most of the older homes had already been nailed by the earlier quake. If the quake had happened in daylight hours, there would probably have been over 5000 fatalities at the Northridge Mall alone, and probably another several hundred in the Granada Hills Kaiser medical offices and on the freeways.
And this wasn't the Big One.
I think that NO should be rebuilt. I think that it should be rebuilt to try to minimize the damage that will inevitably follow another hurricane. But rebuild with faith and hope.
Los Angeles rebuilt.

Of course NO should be rebuilt. I'm amazed at the hatefulness of some so-called fellow Americans. With all our technology, etc., can't we find ways to bolster it against further damage? Should I move from Cleveland because I never know when a devastating blizzard could kill me? Do we make everyone in Calif evacuate and live elsewhere? Come on, folks.

Of course NO should be rebuilt. I'm amazed at the hatefulness of some so-called fellow Americans. With all our technology, etc., can't we find ways to bolster it against further damage? Should I move from Cleveland because I never know when a devastating blizzard could kill me? Do we make everyone in Calif evacuate and live elsewhere? Come on, folks.

Very interesting blog!