What our other readers are saying:
The water's rising
The disaster that befell the Gulf Coast cannot be compared to an earthquake. Most scientists studying climate change have reached a consensus: sea level is rising, and the rate of rise will probably accelerate. That means that efforts to rebuild and strengthen levees and other storm surge defenses will have to be much greater than they are now, probably something on the order of what the Netherlands has invested. Are we prepared to spend ten times what we have already spent, in an ultimately futile attempt to keep back the water? I don't think so.
Government policy should be directed towards getting people to settle further inland. Maybe it is not too much to think about relocating the whole city.
Andrew Millat, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Don't pour billions into a still-sinking ship
Since Hurricane Katrina hit a year ago, all one seems to hear about on the news is the various attempts to rebuild New Orleans, but the people (oddly predictably) are not taking to the rebuilding. In a sense, the hurricane caused a physical chaos similar to the civil chaos that has been occuring there for many years. As we can now see, things were in a bad way in New Orleans, and now they're going to pour billions of tax dollars into a still-sinking ship?
I think that rethinking is the best term here, but relocation is the goal. Get out of the Gulf Coast. It's obviously not safe, and it's also not economically beneficial anymore.
Byron Harrison, Hutchinson, Kan., USA
No wisdom in 'lifetime disaster welfare'
Immediately following Katrina, I thought it made no sense to rebuild anything that did not belong where it was built. Two months later I was able to volunteer for the Red Cross in New Orleans. It was very sad to see an American city in the 21st century so utterly devastated. But we were surprised by the resolve and optimism of the locals.
Considering we are the richest country in the world, and this was a once-in-300+ year occurence, I supported rebuilding a better city than before. But the hurricane-prone areas of the Gulf and Atlantic have been rebuilt over and over again using federal tax money. Nothing should be built on the same spot where buildings have been completely destroyed more than once – whether by hurricane, flood, earthquake or other reoccurring disaster.
If property owners want to use their own money or private money to rebuild, then that is their choice. But forcing every taxpayer to cover reccurring disasters makes no sense. I see little difference between lifetime disaster welfare and lifetime social welfare – neither are good for the country.
Kervin Krause, Carlsbad, Calif., USA
The 'spiritual stamina' of New Orleans
Those brave returnees are not going to abandon New Orleans. Its unique culture, its value as a port, and its spiritual stamina are here to stay, and all of its residents deserve a fair share of government rebuilding funds. Affordable housing and improved hurricane protection systems should receive a much greater public effort than they have. This is a historic opportunity to improve the livability and security of New Orleans for all of its citizens.
Jerry McIntire, Portland, Ore., USA
'Potential danger' as grounds for not rebuilding?
People seem to be forgetting that it was not the storm, but the levee failure that resulted in the drowning of New Orleans. This could have easily been prevented, had the government listened to the Corps of Engineers over the past decades, when they repeatedly said the levees were not complete, and needed more funding.
We are spending billions of dollars in Iraq. Some of that money was taken directly from monies earmarked for the New Orleans levee system, before Katrina. For a fraction of those billions, we could have built a system like Holland has. They are 30 feet below sea level. (New Orleans is 10 at its lowest spot.)
As Mayor Ray Nagin said, you go anywhere in the world, you say New Orleans and people respond, they are familiar with it, and love it. It's probably America's most unique city. Nobody talks about "moving Manhattan inland," or leaving a "greenspace" where the Twin Towers stood. If we are going to use potential danger as a measure for who should be rebuilt, then prepare to lose California. And where will we stop? The Midwest has tornado season....
Melody Von Smith, Buffalo, N.Y., USA
A smaller New Orleans
Mayor Nagin needs to bite the bullet and decide that some low-lying sections of New Orleans cannot now be rebuilt. The people in the Lower Ninth and other flood-prone areas should be bought out – with serious money, not the measly $150,000 max they can get now. And renters should also be given generous reocation settlements. Those areas should remain parkland, with some sites set aside for development after the levees are brought back to full strength and the wetlands restored – a process that might take a decade or more.
The smaller city will be easier to police, and will present an easier footprint in which to provide utility, water, bus and other municipal services. Meanwhile, the rest of the city should embrace high-rise living – especially outside of the historic districts. Will poor New Orleans feel displaced and embittered? Some certainly will, but I'd guess that many of them will take the money and run. And with a functioning city again, even more will take the money and stay.
Jay Roberts, New York, N.Y., USA
Stop subsidizing the true cost of building on the coast
Homes need to move inland. We must stop subsidizing the true costs of building on the coast (where they ask for federal grants or reduced insurance rates when they get in trouble). Current zoning isn't working, and the future costs will soon be more than even the federal government can bear.
Sam Casmus, Lafayette, La., USA
Where to start?
The biggest challenge is the overwhelming destruction – you don't know where to start. You don't know if it makes sense to start to rebuild. If everyone had the financial resources that the couple in your story have, they would probably be rebuilding. But that couple is exception, not the rule. Are they going to stay behind their fence forever?
Victoria Thomas, Charleston, S.C., USA
Patience is key
Our Waveland, Miss., home was destroyed by Katrina. The storm surge picked it up and dropped it on the railroad tracks. While we have decided not to return, we have many friends involved in the recovery.
The greatest challenge facing reconstruction is the lack of housing. Without housing, there is no place for the workers needed to build houses and work in businesses to live. It is really hard to convince construction workers to work all day in the hot, humid weather and then sleep in a tent. As for a strategy to rebound: patience, patience, patience.
It is going to take a long time to rebuild. "Roma die uno non aedificata est." (Rome wasn't built in a day). As for whether people should rebuild on the Gulf Coast, consider the reconstruction that occurs after California earthquakes and fire storms. People are resilient, and reconstruction will occur – life will go on.
Paul Gloyer, Waveland, Miss., USA
Cities are not disposable
We of New Orleans are the canary in the coal mine, sending a warning to the rest of the world to deal with the global ecosystem before it deals with us. Just pull up stakes and leave? Great cities are not a disposable commodity. We must rebuild smarter and stronger, perhaps smaller, but our city is the ongoing work of 300 years of human endeavor. The work goes on.
Paul Schierhorn, New Orleans, La., USA
