Do you think New Orleans should be rebuilt?
Yes 22.7 %
No 77.8 %
Total Votes: 2319
I have a couple of problems with that question. As phrased, it's almost impossible to answer. Because of the nature of the flood damage, I cannot see it as a single question.
First of all, I think that if people were asked whether the federal government should pay for rebuilding New Orleans, the answer would be a more resounding 'NO' than if they were asked whether individuals should be allowed to rebuild their own homes and businesses.
It's further complicated by things like location. What a lot of people are forgetting is that a number of areas don't need rebuilding at all:
Tens of thousands of New Orleans residents could begin returning to their homes as early as Monday as city and federal authorities have set out an accelerated plan to repopulate the city, reversing earlier estimates that the metropolis could be closed for months.
The plan would reopen a portion of New Orleans that was home to about 170,000 people, or one-third of the city's population, federal officials said, and be rolled out over the next two weeks.
The reentry plan would unfold by Zip code, depending on which section gets power and water utilities online, and how quickly hospital and emergency services can be restored. It involves portions of New Orleans that largely were unflooded: downtown, the French Quarter, Uptown and Algiers. (Emphasis added.)
So, asking whether these places "should be rebuilt" is a moot question, as what wasn't destroyed doesn't need to be rebuilt. Thus, there is no single question about rebuilding New Orleans. Privately owned real estate is still there, and, not suprisingly, the best locations tended to be the same places which the flood spared:
amid the debris, restoration crews and armed troops on the streets Wednesday, some residents were looking forward again -- almost optimistically.
About midmorning, restaurateur Alex Patout was sitting outside his famed French Quarter establishment, sipping champagne.
"Thank God the heart and soul of what New Orleans is all about is basically damage-free," he said. "All we need is electricity -- we want to be one of the first restaurants to open."
He was planning his first menus, but he acknowledges that he is facing a daunting challenge. Of his staff of 40, many of whom lived in east New Orleans, he has located only one.
As he sees it, New Orleans has been split into two very different halves, one flooded, the other dry. Though the dry portion may be better off in some ways, the businesses there depend on the less-fortunate parts for employees.
"That is going to be the biggest nut for this city," he said. "Where is the human infrastructure that makes it run?"
There's no question about rebuilding places which weren't destroyed like the French Quarter, but whether and where to relocate the people who used to live in the artificially drained swamps -- and whether to rebuild their housing -- are questions which need to be asked.
I have a problem with the theory of "public housing" because I don't think there's a right to housing, nor do I think the government has any legal duty to provide it. However, considering the reality -- that there are poor and disabled people so helpless as to be government dependents -- if housing is to be provided for them it makes no sense at all to build it in a drained swamp located below sea level where the residents would be at the mercy of another hurricane.
So I'd vote 'NO' to rebuilding public housing in any of the flooded areas. Anyone else crazy enough to build there, I'd let them do it at their own risk -- not that of the taxpayers.
I suppose not rebuilding the projects would be considered "elitist."
But is it really "populist" to have the poor drown?
posted by Eric on 09.15.05 at 12:36 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2781
Comments
You wrote:
"I have a couple of problems with that question. As phrased, it's almost impossible to answer. Because of the nature of the flood damage, I cannot see it as a single question.
First of all, I think that if people were asked whether the federal government should pay for rebuilding New Orleans, the answer would be a more resounding 'NO' than if they were asked whether individuals should be allowed to rebuild their own homes and businesses."
Criminey! Have we already reached the point where a government would the power to forcibly stop people from rebuilding their homes and/or businesses?
To me this question seems parallel in certain ways to the one that raged during the nuclear-war scares of the 1950s and early 1960s and then later in the 1980s: "Should people build fallout shelters in their backyards to protect themselves from nuclear bombs?"
I suppose you could similarly answer that three ways:
1) Yes, and the government (federal, state, or local) should subsidize it.
2) No, and the government (federal, state, or local) should forbid them to do it.
3) Yes, but it's probably a foolish idea and they should pay for it themselves.
Nuclear hawk as I am, my own answer would still have to be #3. I doubt if fallout shelters would provide too much protection, but that depends on where you are, how close you are to the blast. The best way to prevent nuclear war is through a strong nuclear deterrent force or, in the case of some of today's enemies such as Iran, a pre-emptive war. I also support space-based defense ("Star Wars").
As to rebuilding New Orleans, I don't live there, so I can't give any advice on that. I prefer to let those who live there decide that for themselves as best they can. A tragic situation.
I noticed in the transcript of Bush's speech that he suggested homesteading on federal land (by implication, higher ground.) Maybe it could be a one-to-one trade: We give you a piece of property in exchange for your current one (they don't have to be the same size.) Then no business or housing on the federal land (semi-disposable touristy stuff is all right).
Allow the owners to rebuild, using what funds they can, but give them an option to relocate... and possibly fund that as an incentive.
Homesteading sounds like an excellent idea. I remember that earlier Republican who started that in a different century in a different context, i.e., Lincoln, to encourage settlement of what was then "the West" within the United States. Ayn Rand suggested a similar program for the airwaves to get them out from the control of the F.C.C..
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
You wrote:
"I have a couple of problems with that question. As phrased, it's almost impossible to answer. Because of the nature of the flood damage, I cannot see it as a single question.
First of all, I think that if people were asked whether the federal government should pay for rebuilding New Orleans, the answer would be a more resounding 'NO' than if they were asked whether individuals should be allowed to rebuild their own homes and businesses."
Criminey! Have we already reached the point where a government would the power to forcibly stop people from rebuilding their homes and/or businesses?
To me this question seems parallel in certain ways to the one that raged during the nuclear-war scares of the 1950s and early 1960s and then later in the 1980s: "Should people build fallout shelters in their backyards to protect themselves from nuclear bombs?"
I suppose you could similarly answer that three ways:
1) Yes, and the government (federal, state, or local) should subsidize it.
2) No, and the government (federal, state, or local) should forbid them to do it.
3) Yes, but it's probably a foolish idea and they should pay for it themselves.
Nuclear hawk as I am, my own answer would still have to be #3. I doubt if fallout shelters would provide too much protection, but that depends on where you are, how close you are to the blast. The best way to prevent nuclear war is through a strong nuclear deterrent force or, in the case of some of today's enemies such as Iran, a pre-emptive war. I also support space-based defense ("Star Wars").
As to rebuilding New Orleans, I don't live there, so I can't give any advice on that. I prefer to let those who live there decide that for themselves as best they can. A tragic situation.