8 Responses to “Should the city of New Orleans be abandoned as a lost cause and rebuilt farther inland?”

  1. comfort eagle says:

    Ha, I just asked a question very similar to this, and I agree the old site of New Orleans should be abandoned except as a small-population seaport.
    References :

  2. 2008 says:

    It’s cyclical. With this thinking it would have been abandoned in the 1500’s.
    References :

  3. Vote! says:

    It’s a lost cause. It’s wasting time and money. Our government CANNOT afford to continue rebuilding this city! They just can’t.
    References :

  4. nola02 says:

    Why would you say something like that!!!!!! Do you stay in Louisiana i guess you dont because if you did would not say something that ignorant katrina was not that first storm to hit New Orleans so why would they do if thats the case what are they waiting on to get rid of florida they state that gets most of the hurricanes that hit the atlantic Im from New Orleans born and raised and I am pretty sure i know better than you about this and you need to feel stupid for asking a question like that

    TIP: maybe you should read more before you ask question like that making bigg statements
    References :

  5. Tom Mxmustangcatdogtreehousebird says:

    it might not hit new orleans it might go west and hit texas are some where else who knows.
    References :

  6. NOLA guy says:

    New Orleans is not optional. History, architecture, culture, and the fact the city is home to many people are usually mentioned when the topic of rebuilding is discussed. However, those factors (while significant) are NOT why NOLA is important to the rest of the United States.

    New Orleans is a metro area of almost 1.4 million people – not some small town that could be easily relocated somewhere else.

    More than 35% of America’s energy is either produced in Southeast Louisiana or imported through here, and the infrastructure is focused on New Orleans. What may be the largest oil field on earth was discovered offshore of Louisiana in 2006, and it will be exploited via New Orleans.

    The Port of New Orleans is the largest or second largest port in North America each year (tons of cargo) and one of the top ports in the world each year. The Port of New Orleans is not replaceable.

    More than 25% of America’s petroleum refining capacity is in the New Orleans area. That percentage will increase due to a new refinery already under construction and the planned expansion of existing refineries.

    A large percentage of America’s non-petroleum chemical industry is here.

    New Orleans is one of only three principal east-west transportation points for the USA, and the resulting convergence of water, rail, pipeline, electricity, and highway links is not replaceable.

    A large percentage of America’s ship building & repair industry is in New Orleans.

    NASA builds essential parts for the space shuttle in New Orleans, and will build components for the next generation of spacecraft here. Other manufacturers (ex. Bell-Textron) have factories in New Orleans.

    A large percentage of America’s seafood comes from SE Louisiana, and the distribution network is focused on New Orleans.

    And so on….

    It is theoretically possible to move the industry and the population, but only at horrific cost. The Mississippi river, Gulf of Mexico, and the oil fields cannot be moved. To even attempt to replace New Orleans would cost Trillions of Dollars and the attempt would fail.

    In contrast, New Orleans can be protected from future hurricanes with the expenditure of about $15 Billion (that should have been spent before Katrina) spread out over a period of a decade.

    Note that New Orleans is NOT "prone" to hurricanes or being flooded. The last one to hit before Katrina was in 1965 and before that was in 1947. Neither of those flooded the city proper like Katrina, which was the strongest storm ever recorded to strike North America.

    There is a widespread myth that New Orleans is "built below sea level”, but that is not true.

    Realize that nowhere is without risk. NYC and Miami are at more risk from hurricanes than New Orleans. Los Angeles and San Francisco are at risk from earthquakes and fires. Seattle is threatened by volcanoes and Tsunamis. The Midwest is hit by tornadoes every year. However, I don’t hear anyone claiming New York, Florida, California, Kansas, or Washington (state) be abandoned, or even not rebuilt after the next disaster.

    However, people routinely claim New Orleans should be abandoned, or that we somehow don’t deserve help after Katrina.

    Why is that?

    References :
    New Orleans resident

  7. violetkites says:

    NOLA guy is absolutely correct. I voted for him.
    Thank you for knowing your facts and not basing your opinions on your emotions and misinformation.
    I am quite disappointed that the media just tries to "charge" people’s emotions up about this issue and makes no effort to present the facts. It just causes people to form opinions that are based on misinformation and ignorance.
    References :

  8. NOLA Proud says:

    Just adequately rebuild (or maybe the better term is "build") the levees and the city will never have to be rebuilt again. The levees failing is no more a natural disaster than the collapsed interstate bridge in Minnesota is a natural disaster of gravity.

    It’s silly to think we can’t build walls and piles of dirt big enough to stop tides and save a city when we can cut through granite mountains just to make traveling easier in other parts of the country.
    References :

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.