<p><a href=“http://www.nola.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/print075833.html[/url]”>http://www.nola.com/weblogs/print.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/print075833.html</a></p>
<p>The question has been asked.</p>
<p>Probably not too popular and probably won’t happen, but it’s nice to see some people thinking pragmatically for a change.</p>
<p>That idea is put forth hear everytime we get hit by a hurricane and the beachfront homes are damaged. </p>
<p>Personally, I think that the government dictating where people can and cannot build because of an event that <em>might</em> happen is rather tyrannical.</p>
<p>I don’t want to sound heartless here, but if someone wants to exercise their personal freedom to build their house in a high<em>risk</em>of_flooding zone, they shouldn’t expect government bailouts when the expected disasters <em>do</em> happen.</p>
<p>Willow, as optimizerdad implies, the government wouldn’t be dictating anything - they just wouldn’t pay to re-build in an area that they may have to pay for again when the next disaster hits. If the individuals want to spend their own money - that’s their perogative. As a taxpayer who doesn’t live in a high risk area (at least from natural disasters) I’m not sure why I should continually subsidize those who choose to.</p>
<p>Since the entire town seems totaled, can’t some brilliant engineers come up with a way to fill the bowl and then rebuild above sea level. I’ve been told that NO was not below sea level when first settled, it was on the gulf, but silt has filled in south of NO and the city has sunk as the ground compacted and water tables were drained. If this is so, and we’re all footing an outrageous bailout, why not try to fix it right?</p>
<p>I’m wondering the same thing, somemom. San Francisco is built largely on fill – which creates its own problems when we get hit by earthquakes - but it keeps the land that was once part of the bay safely above sea level most of the time. </p>
<p>A few years ago I went on a very interesting tour of underground Seattle. It seems that the downtown area of Seattle is built entirely on top of what was once ground-level (and now underground) - so on the tour they take you down to basement level to see the historic structures. But the point is - it is is very possible to build a new city on top of (and safely above) the ruins of the old. </p>
<p>So I certainly think it would be wonderful to see a rebuilt New Orleans that doesn’t happen to be in a below-sea level basin relying on levees to keep the water out.</p>
<p>I’d also like to say that now that I’ve read Hastert’s comments - I disagree with the sentiment. San Francisco and Los Angeles are thriving cities on earthquake faults in part because there are now strict requirements for new construction and engineering. We can’t be 100% perfect, but even in the larger quakes we have seen the damage has been sporadic and casualty figures fairly low (compared to the type of massive casualties seen when earthquakes hit third-world countries like Iran), because we use the technical knowledge we now have to try to build structures that will withstand earthquakes. There will still be many problems and issues when “the big one” hits - but I know for example that in a moderate quake my house probably won’t crash in on top of me, though my chimney might fall and the foundation could be damaged. No one these days could get a permit to put up a structure that didn’t withstand certain requirements. </p>
<p>In other words - the answer lies in engineering, not abandonment.</p>
<p>And I think that Dennis Hastert should be thinking about the bigger problem, that is probably at the root of the hurricanes we are seeing: global warming.</p>
<p>In most cases, people do pay for their own repairs when they live in high-risk areas. For example, insurance premiums are very high right now because of the hurricanes. We pay them, because we choose to live here.</p>
<p>If an earthquake were to hit here, though, the government would likely pay for part of the rebuilding. Why? Because it would be an unprecedented disaster. In the same way, hurricane Katrina was an unprecedented disaster. The residents of New Orleans did have precautions in place to deal with Categories One-Three storms, and they have weathered such storms before with minimal damage, but in a storm like Katrina, all bets are off.</p>
<p>
Probably? According to whom? Ted Kennedy?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/national/30cycle.html?ei=5065&en=9e0e24b0c5ee1d90&ex=1125979200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/national/30cycle.html?ei=5065&en=9e0e24b0c5ee1d90&ex=1125979200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print</a></p>
<p>I think the financial markets will determine what, where, when, and how NO will be rebuilt. Unless GWB changes the rules and GOD disaffirms that sealevel is what it is, no lender will lend money to rebuild without a government guarantee.</p>
<p>I would love to tell you what the OP said on another thread about NO, but it was too disgusting</p>
<p>If gobal warming continues there will be more and more frequent storms damaging and destroying costal cities and towns. Can The Government afford to have massive resources available and on call to move in immediately at every crisis? I can’t imagine what the future has in store. Best not to buy a beachfront property???</p>
<p>Regarding FEMA: </p>
<p>in 2003 FEMA is downgraded from a cabinet level position and put in the Department of Homeland Security, Its mission is refocused on fighting acts of terrorism</p>
<p>in 2003 FEMA’s preparation and planning functions were reassigned to a new Office or Preparedness and Response. FEMA would henceforth focus only on response and recovery</p>
<p>In 2001, FEMA said a major hurrican hitting NO was one of the three likeliest, most catastophic disasters facing this country</p>
<p>First off, this is a tragedy, and not unlike our own tsunami disaster. I still have trouble getting my mind around the magnitude of the horror, and am sending strength to everyone affected. But I felt moved to respond here with a few thoughts.
Yes, Katrina was unprecedented, but it was not an unlikely risk in that area. I think that’s the big difference. I applaud those who had flood insurance, but realize that most did not.</p>
<p>From what an insurance agent told me, the homeowners insurance that people have in areas like NO cover damage from <em>wind</em> (e.g. the roof blowing off the house), but only a very small percentage of homeowners chose to pay extra SPECIFICALLY for flood insurance which is not part of the standard coverage. Since flooding is a large part of what destroyed so many homes and lives, relatively few people will be covered by their private insurance (likely to their surprise), and will then turn to Federal disaster aid to rebuild their homes in the same risky spots as before. NO was an area at high risk of flooding. People who chose to buy homes there yet not purchase flood insurance were, perhaps unwittingly, accepting that risk and rolling those dice. Just as I live in CA and recognize that there is a risk of earthquakes here. I purchased the most earthquake insurance I could find (which is state-mandated at less than full replacement value) and recognize that if The Big One hits, I have to find a way to cover the difference between my insurance and the actual cost of rebuilding. I take that risk because I want to live here. It seems to me that anyone choosing to buy a home in NO did so knowing the city was below sea level and that it could just be a matter of time before there was some sort of natural disaster.</p>
<p>Like others of you, I’ve been thinking about “rebuilding entitlement” the past few days. Unlike some of you (I presume), I do not think that all Federal aid should be done away with, far from it. But we ought to have a long national conversation on what personal responsibility is all about. I have this sense that all areas ought to have a set of known risks associated with them (beachfront property, earthquake zones, tornado alley, hurricane paths, cliffs prone to mudslides, hillsides prone to wildfires…), which homeowners must read and sign at closing. If they elect not to purchase insurance to cover those risks, rebuilding is on their own dime, not the taxpayers’. If by surprise a tornado spawns in CA or there’s an earthquake in FL or a hurricane in WY, that’s what Federal aid ought to help rebuild. Not the things we all knew about when we bought our homes, but chose to ignore in the hope that nothing would ever go wrong. That’s what insurance is for, after all. And if we can’t afford the insurance, maybe we shouldn’t buy the house. There might be a warning message to potential homebuyers in that circumstance. (If it’s so expensive to insure, maybe that’s because there’s some real risk of problems…)</p>
<p>Just thinking “out loud” here, since it’s the Cafe and all… My thoughts are with Gulf Coast residents tonight.</p>
<p>When Galveston was destroyed by the 1900 hurricane, the city decided to raise the grade of the entire city by 17 feet and build a seawall. By the time another hurricane hit in 1915, Galveston was protected. The seawall and grading still work today.</p>
<p>Barrons: “NO was a human cesspool befor the event and nothing much has changed.”</p>
<p>Outting folks like this is the best way.</p>
<p>I’m curious about the Flood Insurance issue. We have a vacation property (in NY) which has a small creek running through it, approximately 30 feet from the house. It is less than six inches deep so the risk of flooding is almost nonexistent. We were required by our bank to purchase flood insurance when we took out the mortgage. Would this requirement have been simply one instituted by the bank, is it a state requirement? I’m curious about this now, upon hearing that most in an area of REAL flood danger, not having this insurance. Anyone know?</p>
<p>All I can add is that I’m glad the question of the inherent risk of rebuilding NO in its “below sea level location” is being asked. It should be discussed thoroughly before any attempt to rebuild (at least to the same extent of what existed before) is undertaken.</p>
<p>And if rebuilt in a continued high risk area, then I thank mootmom for post #14 that clearly outlines the insurance risks homeowners will be taking on.</p>
<p>I may be wrong, but Flood Insurance is required if you live in a designated “Flood Zone”. We live on a hill, never bought flood insurance, obviously, and then when Andrew blew through here, our basement got flooded via some underground streams. Our policy covered us, only because we lost power, and the sump pumps did not operate. After that, the insurance Co. offered us F.I., and we took it, at a very low cost…maybe $40.00 per year…Now we have a new Insurance Co. and they won’t sell us hurricane coverage.</p>
<p>I know I did not answer your Q, but these things are beyond me, how they work. I’m not sure the bank can MAKE you, if you are not in a designated flood zone. Can your Ins. Agent help you out?</p>
<p>I have always heard that one is required to buy flood insurance when living on some sort of a flood plain- I don’t know how much of a flood plain- 100 year flood, 50 year, etc., but if all/most of NO is below sea level, that sounds like a flood plain to me???</p>
<p>The people I really wonder about are the middle class people who have mortgages owing, won’t they have been required to have fllood insurance? If not, how the heck are they paying their mortgages now?</p>
<p>I still think they need to spend the big bucks and raise the level of NO to be above sea level…make the investment once, now, and avoid multiple future bail outs from flooding and maybe, even avoid the whole levy issue???</p>