Proposal would create 'New Orleans National Park,' Blanco says

[Earth_First]

WASHINGTON -- Gov. Kathleen Blanco expressed concern Monday that language attached to the $4.2 billion President Bush recently proposed for additional housing recovery financing in southeastern Louisiana could radically alter the landscape in New Orleans.

In Washington for the National Governor's Association meeting, Blanco said she is worried that the restricting the housing money to "mitigation" uses could turn the worst flood-damaged sections of the city into green space, off limits to residential or commercial development.

"If (the proposal) stays like it is, it will be New Orleans National Park," Blanco said. "It will be a problem for us unless they change the language."

The housing money, included in a $19.8 billion supplemental spending package unveiled by the Bush administration two weeks ago, specifies that the money be subject to section 404 of the Robert Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Under the act, the state could spend the money to raise homes or fortify them against future flooding. The homes also could be purchased outright. But if they are, they cannot be placed back into commerce, only used as green space or wetlands.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-1/114110992268070.xml

[HereSince1628]

1. The rich can live anywhere, the poor must get the hell out of the flood

plains. Why would they miss an opportunity to make a whiter, brighter, New Orleans?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. New Orleans will only be white

if they can get white folks to work in the hotel industry in the lower level jobs, and I really doubt that.

It will fill up black again, but it will take time. First they have to have a place to live. And it needs to be out of the flood plain. Park land is a great idea for that wretched area.

[seafan]

10. Pardon my cynicism, but this act's language bothers me.

Under the act, the state could spend the money to raise homes or fortify them against future flooding. The homes also could be purchased outright. But if they are, they cannot be placed back into commerce, only used as green space or wetlands.

Maybe my cynicism is showing, but this language appears to OK *fixing the well-off people's homes* by raising/fortifying them, BUT the $$ also may be spent to *purchase outright*==raze poorer areas for green space/wetlands.

So in this case, the wealthy folks in their newly fortified homes would suddenly have *lots of gorgeous views* overlooking newly natural areas when the old neighborhoods are destroyed permanently.

In my opinion, if an area will be reverted back to green/wetlands, no wealthy people should be left behind.

[gasperc]

2. Look, I want as many if not all of N.O. residents to return

but they do need to scientifically analyze the territorty of N.O. and definately designate the lowest lying areas as watersheds for NO development. Set up two tiers of flood walls, if the primary breaks hopefully a secondary set more inland can take up the slack and avoid the flooding of 80% of the city.

I'm sure there are many political and financial ramifications to my ideas. And I also believe that every resident should get a check for 100% pre-hurricane value of the home to pay thier mortgage off and use the difference for a deposit on the new construction. And bids can be submitted to re-build low cost housing like habitat for humanity and other organizations.

[Lorien]

6. I agree entirely

Once a person has gone through something as horrific as the flooding following Katrina, they'll be none too eager to return to the same vulnerable area (as hurricanes are only expected to worsen in coming years). There's nothing wrong with green space-as long as housing is provided elsewhere and that green space isn't doomed like all other "National parks" to be leased out free of charge to oil and gas interests. If they are determined to do this, then they must also restore the wetlands that were the natural drainage system for NOLA which were given over to GOP developers several years ago.

Realistically, it will be many years before N.O. population rises to Pre-Katrina levels again. Efforts need to be made to fill the safest areas of the city first with a MIX of residents. I live in an extremely mixed community (shacks, middle income cottages and multi-million estates in the same neighborhood)and were have a pretty good sense of community here.I'd love to see other metropolitan areas make the same effort to be entirely inclusive.

[sui generis]

4. it's laziness and cheapness

if you want the city to survive flooding you need to build super levees in critical areas, raise and fill portions of the city and do what every other city in the world has done for thousands of years - build on the ruins of its predecessors. Modern Rome is something like 30 feet above street level of Year Zero Rome in places.

I'm not against greenery and preserves, but we're talking in the middle of a city. This is bullshit. If it's going to flood, then the problem is that it's going to flood. Fix the problem. Don't put lipstick on the pig.

[cap]

5. New Orleans will be white

but there will be an outlying burb that will be black where low cost labor can live.

Sad isnt it.

[noonwitch]

17. Henry Ford did that once-named the town Inkster

When he brought people up from the South to work in his factories, white people didn't want to live in the same neighborhoods (Dearborn, Taylor, Westland, etc.) as blacks, and many of the factories were out in what was then rural Wayne County, so he established a black community and called it Inkster. Nice, isn't it?

[Lorien]

7. I disagree

It will be many, many years before N.O.'s population returns to pre-Katrina levels. BushCo has pissed away every penny of surplus America had-even if their wars were stopped today, the country would continue to be saddled with crushing debt. What you are suggesting would cost far more than creating green, sustainable housing for all in the more elevated areas of the city that might actually attract former residents. MIXED communities are the most vibrant communities; I live in one; there are millionaires and those on food stamps living on the same block. Well educated city planners know this to be true; even Disney's "stepford town" Celebration does not allow gated communities or mansions to be built next to one another; there must be modest middle income homes between them, and they can't complain about the low income housing just down the street. A "central park" in NOLA actually makes sense, imho. Having lived through three hurricanes here in Florida, I would now never even consider moving to the coast. I'm sure that those who suffered through Katrina feel the same way about the most vulnerable areas of LA-especially since hurricanes are only going to worsen in coming years.

It's going to be tough enough to lure former residents back to NOLA now that many have jobs and new lives elsewhere, but offering great housing in well planned neighborhoods that ARE NOT exclusively rich, poor, black or white would be a great way to start.

[Lorien]

8. These are the types of planners they need:

http://www.villagehabitat.com/project_menu/lake_claire/lake_claire.htm

[hedgehog]

9. I hate to be the ghost at the banquet but,

it's less than 100 days to the next hurricane season, and there still hasn't been a complete house to house search in New Orleans to ensure that all the bodies have been recovered from last hurricane season because the city doesn't have the money to pay the over-time needed. (NBC Nightly News, Feb 17). I think we're witnessing the slow death by drowning of an American city. I'm afraid it's just the first on the list. It's not the first time we've abandoned a city. Just talk to anyone from the rust belt. It's just that people aren't usually killed in the process.

[Igel]

11. This is the same deal that was given to other

communities up the Mississippi and along the Missouri/Ohio rivers back in the '80s and '90s. They were largely white, and built in flood plains. It's simply cheaper to buy out their property and let it revert to green space than to fund flood insurance and repair their houses every few decades, or to build the levees to handle anything that could possibly come along.

The people also had the option to mitigate flood damage, if it was feasible. Raise houses; or take insurance money, rebuild, and not get insurance. It broke up communities, and some people couldn't leverage the money from the buy-out to get into comparables houses nearby, or not enough were available.

I'm not sure that I'm all that in favor of altering a standing policy because of the race of the people involved, or their culture. But it should be applied precisely without regard to race or culture. If people can afford to build in a flood plain and either cough up the dough for the occasional catastrophe, or pay higher insurance prices, that's their affair.

As for this versus living in some place where there's the occasional earthquake or fire, talk to the actuaries.

[happyslug]

13. I agree

People remember, New Orleans will continue to sink for it is built on river mud. As that mud dries out it sinks. The only permanent solution would be to permit flooding from the Mississippi every year and rebuild on top of the mud every year.

Except for the French Quarter, most of New Orleans is built on swamp, swamp that only holds its elevation over time if additional mud flows over and lays on top of the sinking mud. One of the Reason New Orleans was founded where it is, was the French wanted a post surrounded by swamp. The original French Settlement (the French Quarter) was a sold piece of land surrounded by Swamps. The Swamp had to many trees for ships to attack New Orleans, and to wet for Infantry. The problem was as New Orleans became to large for the French Quarter and expanded into the Swamps (Which New Orleans drained). The problem was once the area was drained you had to put up levels to keep out the water. Since the water brought in the mud that kept the area from sinking, the area drained sinks and sinks more every year. This requires bigger and bigger levels. This problem call came to a head during Katrina.

The real issue is it worth keeping these areas drained and leaving them sink even more? Is the FUTURE costs worth the effort or would it be better to make New Orleans nothing but a outpost of Baton Rouge? I hate to say this but given the problems that will face a re-built New Orleans the best solution would be save the French Quarter (For it is built on Solid Ground) but abandoned the rest of New Orleans thus making the French Quarter a distant exurb of Baton Rouge.

[cap]

15. not quite so simple... blacks were redlined into low lying areas

they couldnt buy a house in other areas. Banks wouldnt lend to them in other areas.

[KamaAina]

12. New Orleans already has Jean Lafitte National Historical Park

http://www.nps.gov/jela

it does NOT need another national park!

Leave it to the Bush**ies to appear to finally come across with some relief, then put a "gotcha" in it. :grr: :banghead:

[cap]

16. the gotcha is to word the bill so it looks environmental

and not like it is endorsing racial cleansing.

[Javaman]

14. And this is why, just last week, the repukes were all over that bill

to preserve Wetlands.

All arrows were pointing to this.

Never trust a repuke, they will fuck you everytime.