Debunking Katrina myths

[southsider2k5]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ea...076.html?page=3

 

MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

 

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

 

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

 

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ea...076.html?page=3

No one argues that the response was small, the argument is that the response apparatus should have been there PRIOR, and therefore, during and right after. Not days after. This does nothing to debunk that reality, a reality caused by an inept and arrogant response from FEMA as well as state and local agencies.

[Texsox]

We rarely realize our worst fears, or our greatest hopes. I've always assumed we did pretty damn good, we always do as Americans, but we will beat ourselves up and believe we could have done much, much, better. And we could have. And we will do much, much better if we face this sort of disaster again.

 

That process of critical thinking, and the overwhelming drive towards something better is what has made America so successful.

[Balta1701]

We rarely realize our worst fears, or our greatest hopes. I've always assumed we did pretty damn good, we always do as Americans, but we will beat ourselves up and believe we could have done much, much, better. And we could have. And we will do much, much better if we face this sort of disaster again.

And we will face this sort of disaster again, and probably sooner than we think. And it won't be in the same form. Or the same place. And it probably won't even be nice enough to give us a couple day's warning as to the exact time, and we may not even have the years of warning that we had on the NOLA Levees.

[NorthSideSox72]

And we will face this sort of disaster again, and probably sooner than we think. And it won't be in the same form. Or the same place. And it probably won't even be nice enough to give us a couple day's warning as to the exact time, and we may not even have the years of warning that we had on the NOLA Levees.

And we have prepared for some of them. A lot of California is pretty ready for a quake, much of the US coastlines are in the process of preparations for Tsunami warning systems, etc. Some things like Tornadoes we have already gotten very, very good at dealing with.

 

Then there are others that we have ignored. NOLA was one. Memphis and the New Madrid is another. Plenty of others to choose as well. I think our federal government needs more focus on these disaster preparedness issues, instead of focusing solely on terror and crime response.

[Balta1701]

And we have prepared for some of them. A lot of California is pretty ready for a quake, much of the US coastlines are in the process of preparations for Tsunami warning systems, etc. Some things like Tornadoes we have already gotten very, very good at dealing with.

Actually, I would offer some fairly serious disagreements with this one. In particular, the Los Angeles area is simply no where near prepared for the type of disaster that could strike it.

 

In L.A., there are an absolute ton, probably tens of thousands of multi-decade old, 10 story or so buildings made mainly out of materials like brick and concrete. In the event of a major quake on the San Andreas, these would probably stand up. But in the event of a smaller quake on one of the many faults closer to the city itself...these would be absolutely devastated. They simply will not stand up. And there is no where near the money available to fix all of them, you'd basically be talking about demolishing and rebuilding the whole L.A. area. The good news is...either 100 years will pass without a major quake on one of the specific faults underneath the city and by then everything should have been rebuilt anyway, or the U.S. taxpayer won't have to pay for the demolition costs. And yes, that is deliberately heartless.

 

Beyond that, there is a bunch of stuff up North that could be a real mess. The 89 quake, the Loma Prieta quake/World Series one, actually happened quite a ways away from San Francisco itself. It did not happen on either the San Andreas, which runs off shore from S.F., or the Heyward Fault, which runs through S.F. Bay. Those 2 are still locked and probably are approaching their due date. Most of the "Historic" type structures are being renovated, but the money just isn't there for things like normal residential concrete or brick buildings. And that's not even mentionning the Levee mess up near Sacramento, which just had money appropriated for fixing it last November (You think the Levees around NOLA were bad you should see those).

 

And then of course, there's the potential for a magnitude 8-9 quake demolishing the entire Northwest that I haven't even talked about yet.

 

People like to think that their government is on top of these questions with the geology, but just like in NOLA, the government has repeatedly been unwilling to spend the money to fix the problems. Eventually, they will get absolutely smacked out here.

 

Oh, and the East coast is not prepared at all for a tsunami. I'd talk about that more but I have to run upstairs.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Balta1701

[southsider2k5]

No one argues that the response was small, the argument is that the response apparatus should have been there PRIOR, and therefore, during and right after. Not days after. This does nothing to debunk that reality, a reality caused by an inept and arrogant response from FEMA as well as state and local agencies.

 

This is a question I have yet to seen answered.

 

Exactly how should we have been prepared for the biggest natural disaster to hit the US in 99 years? How many people should we have standing by for an event like this? Where should they be stationed? How much equiptment should be sitting and waiting? How much in foot and temporary shelter should sit waiting for a natural disatster? What budgets should be taken from to make sure this never happens again, or should we just raise taxes for this just in case event?

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a question I have yet to seen answered.

 

Exactly how should we have been prepared for the biggest natural disaster to hit the US in 99 years? How many people should we have standing by for an event like this? Where should they be stationed? How much equiptment should be sitting and waiting? How much in foot and temporary shelter should sit waiting for a natural disatster? What budgets should be taken from to make sure this never happens again, or should we just raise taxes for this just in case event?

In the case of Katrina, the amazing thing is, we had all sorts of warning. Further, the warnings were clearly calling for something huge. And yet, look how many days it took before FEMA got really moving. Or in the case of the state of Louisiana, when you have a Cat 5 hurricane coming into NOLA where you've been TOLD there is a good chance the levees will break, why aren't you activating every single Guard unit in the state to help get people out of low-lying areas? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see or read of these things happening.

 

As for the details on equipment and manpower, and their location exactly, that is something every locality and state has or should have for common scenarios. And NOLA had one, but as I recall, they didn't follow all the guidelines set forth, and further, the plan itself was ridiculed by FEMA years prior as unrealistic. That one you can put on the local government and their poor planning.

 

Budget? You can start by getting FEMA the heck out of DHS. When FEMA was placed under DHS, not only did they add unneeded layers of beauracracy, they also put them in a funding pool where they were guaranteed to be short-changed due to terror initiatives. And that is precisely what happened.

 

And, oh yeah, small thing... maybe they shouldn't have put someone in charge of FEMA who had ZERO experience in emergency management. That was not only fatally stupid from an effectiveness point of view, it was also politically assinine.

[Balta1701]

Exactly how should we have been prepared for the biggest natural disaster to hit the US in 99 years? How many people should we have standing by for an event like this? Where should they be stationed? How much equiptment should be sitting and waiting? How much in foot and temporary shelter should sit waiting for a natural disatster? What budgets should be taken from to make sure this never happens again, or should we just raise taxes for this just in case event?

I think another worthy point to raise in response to this is that the biggest natural disaster to hit the US in 99 years was not due to the biggest storm or most catastrophic event to hit the U.S. in that time, but was in fact due to a storm hitting a spot that had been totally neglected in preparation for the exact event that happened.

 

There was still no reason that those Levees should have failed other than the fact that the people who built them did a sh*tty job, and once they were built, the agencies that oversaw them never funded the upkeep.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think another worthy point to raise in response to this is that the biggest natural disaster to hit the US in 99 years was not due to the biggest storm or most catastrophic event to hit the U.S. in that time, but was in fact due to a storm hitting a spot that had been totally neglected in preparation for the exact event that happened.

 

There was still no reason that those Levees should have failed other than the fact that the people who built them did a sh*tty job, and once they were built, the agencies that oversaw them never funded the upkeep.

There is also of course the fundamental problem of having a city in New Orleans at all. its a sub-sea level flood plain (part of it anyway). I sure as heck hope we take this opportunity to NOT rebuild residences and businesses in those lower areas, and instead, make those open spaces, parks, gathering spots, etc. that can flood to no great damage. Otherwise, we're just asking for it to happen again.

[Balta1701]

There is also of course the fundamental problem of having a city in New Orleans at all. its a sub-sea level flood plain (part of it anyway). I sure as heck hope we take this opportunity to NOT rebuild residences and businesses in those lower areas, and instead, make those open spaces, parks, gathering spots, etc. that can flood to no great damage. Otherwise, we're just asking for it to happen again.

The problem with that argument though is that you can make it about a significant number of cities within the U.S.

 

Yes, New Orleans faces a major storm hitting it on average every 50 years or so, with minor storms more often. The Los Angeles and San Francisco areas will each face a major earthquake every 100-150 years or so on average (major being 1906 scale), with minor, Northridge/Loma Prieta scale events every decade. Every 300 years or so (plus or minus about 300, and the last one was about 300 years ago), the Pacific Northwest will face a Sumatra-scale earthquake which will absolutely destroy that area. Every 100 or 200 years or so, the regions around Mt. Hood and Mt. Rainier will be put in major jeopardy due to eruptions of those volcanoes. Every 50 years or so, we can probably expect New York City to wind up under water from a Hurricane.

 

I think the reality of the situation is there's just no way that we can start abandoning cities that are at risk, because if we go down that road, there's no where to put people. Everyone looks at what happened to New Orleans, and now it seems like a logical suggestion to pull out of there because of the things you cite, and clearly it's been shown to be the most at-risk city in the coutnry right? Well, I'd disagree with that. In fact, I'd say it's probably a lot easier to make New Orleans relatively safe from the waters around it than it is to make Los Angeles safe from the multitude of fault lines that run right through it, or San Fran safe from the 2 fault lines that run right through it.

 

This is a classic problem in Geology actually...people have a habit of living right where they are at the most risk, because it is geologic risk that actually creates nice environments. The LA Basin is a great environment because of the rapidly rising mountain ranges next to it. Louisiana is a great place to put a port because of the Mississippi river. Tehran sits right on a fault line that could destroy it at any day, but it's there because the faulting has provided that area with mountains which give the area water resources that otherwise wouldn't be there. And so on.

 

There is no easy solution. But I will say this...if it seems like a good idea to just end the lifetime of New Orleans because we don't want to spend the money to build a decent levee system, then it's time to start evacuating LA and SF, because sometime in the next few hundred years, and probably a lot sooner, it's going to cost a hell of a lot more to fix these cities than it would to build those levees.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem with that argument though is that you can make it about a significant number of cities within the U.S.

 

Yes, New Orleans faces a major storm hitting it on average every 50 years or so, with minor storms more often. The Los Angeles and San Francisco areas will each face a major earthquake every 100-150 years or so on average (major being 1906 scale), with minor, Northridge/Loma Prieta scale events every decade. Every 300 years or so (plus or minus about 300, and the last one was about 300 years ago), the Pacific Northwest will face a Sumatra-scale earthquake which will absolutely destroy that area. Every 100 or 200 years or so, the regions around Mt. Hood and Mt. Rainier will be put in major jeopardy due to eruptions of those volcanoes. Every 50 years or so, we can probably expect New York City to wind up under water from a Hurricane.

 

I think the reality of the situation is there's just no way that we can start abandoning cities that are at risk, because if we go down that road, there's no where to put people. Everyone looks at what happened to New Orleans, and now it seems like a logical suggestion to pull out of there because of the things you cite, and clearly it's been shown to be the most at-risk city in the coutnry right? Well, I'd disagree with that. In fact, I'd say it's probably a lot easier to make New Orleans relatively safe from the waters around it than it is to make Los Angeles safe from the multitude of fault lines that run right through it, or San Fran safe from the 2 fault lines that run right through it.

 

This is a classic problem in Geology actually...people have a habit of living right where they are at the most risk, because it is geologic risk that actually creates nice environments. The LA Basin is a great environment because of the rapidly rising mountain ranges next to it. Louisiana is a great place to put a port because of the Mississippi river. Tehran sits right on a fault line that could destroy it at any day, but it's there because the faulting has provided that area with mountains which give the area water resources that otherwise wouldn't be there. And so on.

 

There is no easy solution. But I will say this...if it seems like a good idea to just end the lifetime of New Orleans because we don't want to spend the money to build a decent levee system, then it's time to start evacuating LA and SF, because sometime in the next few hundred years, and probably a lot sooner, it's going to cost a hell of a lot more to fix these cities than it would to build those levees.

Of course, if you want to go that far, you could. But you cannot mitigate ALL risk of disaster.

 

NOLA is a much different situation than, say, LA, for some very important reasons. One, the area in NOLA that is at that particularly high risk of inundation is a few square miles - VERY small. On the other hand, the areas that might have damage from major faults would take up a substantial portion of the country. Sure, all of the Gulf coast is a hurricane risk. But living below sea level and surrounded on 3 sides by water? That is a specific, fixable thing that we have an opportunity to address, that will save lives and money in the future.

 

We don't have to live in the extremes. The alternatives should not be "let them rebuild wherever they want" or "not let anyone build in places of natural risk". We should be smart. When an opportunity like this, with a relatively low national impact, can be enacted in such a way that lives and money can be saved, we should take that opportunity. Heck, with the number of people who have left NOLA permanently, this should be very doable.

[southsider2k5]

In the case of Katrina, the amazing thing is, we had all sorts of warning. Further, the warnings were clearly calling for something huge. And yet, look how many days it took before FEMA got really moving. Or in the case of the state of Louisiana, when you have a Cat 5 hurricane coming into NOLA where you've been TOLD there is a good chance the levees will break, why aren't you activating every single Guard unit in the state to help get people out of low-lying areas? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see or read of these things happening.

 

As for the details on equipment and manpower, and their location exactly, that is something every locality and state has or should have for common scenarios. And NOLA had one, but as I recall, they didn't follow all the guidelines set forth, and further, the plan itself was ridiculed by FEMA years prior as unrealistic. That one you can put on the local government and their poor planning.

 

Budget? You can start by getting FEMA the heck out of DHS. When FEMA was placed under DHS, not only did they add unneeded layers of beauracracy, they also put them in a funding pool where they were guaranteed to be short-changed due to terror initiatives. And that is precisely what happened.

 

And, oh yeah, small thing... maybe they shouldn't have put someone in charge of FEMA who had ZERO experience in emergency management. That was not only fatally stupid from an effectiveness point of view, it was also politically assinine.

 

That's all nice , but really not what I asked. I am talking about manpower, supplies etc for the after the fact response that everyone is ridiculing. How many people should be dedicated to waiting for a disaster to happen, so that they are able to respond instantly? How much food, water, temporary shelter should we have stored up for disasters like this? How many meals should we be able to supply on a moments notice? Where should it be stored? Just taking LA's disaster, we are talking about around a million people. Even if we are just talking about month, where and how would we keep 30 million meals, and the technical ability to get them to a million people in less than 3 days? Or if you are talking about a place like LA, with a much greater metro area, how should we prepare for that? In this case we would be talking about something like 250-300 million meals if we are to feed the LA metro area for just a month in the case of a disaster which destroyed the infastructure (which is coming).

 

If you want to get into keeping people out of the way of a disaster, should the government already be moving people out of cities like San Fransisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York City, etc where we know that huge disasters are going to happen? All of those places are more are not an "if?", they are a "when?". If you want to be technicial about it, we have had a little over 100 years notice that there will be a huge quake in California along the Pacific Coast, but no one seems to be leaving. In fact more people are moving in. How do we handle people who refuse to leave, or even enter disaster areas?

[NorthSideSox72]

That's all nice , but really not what I asked. I am talking about manpower, supplies etc for the after the fact response that everyone is ridiculing. How many people should be dedicated to waiting for a disaster to happen, so that they are able to respond instantly? How much food, water, temporary shelter should we have stored up for disasters like this? How many meals should we be able to supply on a moments notice? Where should it be stored? Just taking LA's disaster, we are talking about around a million people. Even if we are just talking about month, where and how would we keep 30 million meals, and the technical ability to get them to a million people in less than 3 days? Or if you are talking about a place like LA, with a much greater metro area, how should we prepare for that? In this case we would be talking about something like 250-300 million meals if we are to feed the LA metro area for just a month in the case of a disaster which destroyed the infastructure (which is coming).

 

If you want to get into keeping people out of the way of a disaster, should the government already be moving people out of cities like San Fransisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York City, etc where we know that huge disasters are going to happen? All of those places are more are not an "if?", they are a "when?". If you want to be technicial about it, we have had a little over 100 years notice that there will be a huge quake in California along the Pacific Coast, but no one seems to be leaving. In fact more people are moving in. How do we handle people who refuse to leave, or even enter disaster areas?

 

If you guys want to take the easy route, and say we can't be ready for any so don't prepare at all, then that's fine. But I think its short-sighted. The examples of fault lines in CA and flooding in NOLA are really not comparable, for the reasons I stated earlier (and other ones). You cannot displace a region of people. You can, however, be smart with certain high-risk areas.

 

As for your series of questions on planning, I will answer them later. But there are definitely logical answers to all of them. Not perfect ones - but ones a lot better than anything that was actually done in prepping for Katrina.

[jasonxctf]

There is also of course the fundamental problem of having a city in New Orleans at all. its a sub-sea level flood plain (part of it anyway). I sure as heck hope we take this opportunity to NOT rebuild residences and businesses in those lower areas, and instead, make those open spaces, parks, gathering spots, etc. that can flood to no great damage. Otherwise, we're just asking for it to happen again.

 

 

i guess we shouldnt have rebuilt any of the areas here in tornado alley (plainfield, ottawa, etc) because that will happen again as well.

 

I just got back from spending time there over the holidays. while most of the city looks ok, the lower 9th and Chalmatte look horrible. you can still see the markings on the houses showing how many dead bodies were found inside. The surprising thing to me was that in Chalmatte (upper lower income/middle income area) the place is a ghost town. All of the items that would be covered by Federal Tax Dollars (street signs, stop lights, roads, power lines, etc) still look the same way they did shortly after the storm. Businesses such as McDonalds still have their windows blown out and stores abandoned. So while everyone likes to make a stink about the general population not rebuilding, tearing things down etc... corporate america and the government hasn't done its part either.

[southsider2k5]

i guess we shouldnt have rebuilt any of the areas here in tornado alley (plainfield, ottawa, etc) because that will happen again as well.

 

I just got back from spending time there over the holidays. while most of the city looks ok, the lower 9th and Chalmatte look horrible. you can still see the markings on the houses showing how many dead bodies were found inside. The surprising thing to me was that in Chalmatte (upper lower income/middle income area) the place is a ghost town. All of the items that would be covered by Federal Tax Dollars (street signs, stop lights, roads, power lines, etc) still look the same way they did shortly after the storm. Businesses such as McDonalds still have their windows blown out and stores abandoned. So while everyone likes to make a stink about the general population not rebuilding, tearing things down etc... corporate america and the government hasn't done its part either.

 

There is a crazy circle going on down there. Business will not reenter until people come back. People won't come back until there is infrastructure/business. There won't be infrastructure until there is an organized rebuilding. The politicians don't want to do any organization of rebuilding because they don't want to go in and tear down peoples house, because they throw a fit when it happens.

[Texsox]

Which comes first, a population that needs a McDonalds, or the McDonalds? That one I have to side with Corporate America on. But which comes first, a population that needs electricity or electricity and that one has to fall on the government.

 

But having said that, does the government (local, state, or national) have a responsibility to bring services to wherever someone wants to rebuild? I don't think so. A plan to offer utilities in a sequential order works for me. One person building a mile from the nearest working grid, shouldn't happen and slows down the rebuilding efforts. We probably need to buy some people out, a hopscotch pattern of rebuilding and providing utilities is wasteful.

[jasonxctf]

There is a crazy circle going on down there. Business will not reenter until people come back. People won't come back until there is infrastructure/business. There won't be infrastructure until there is an organized rebuilding. The politicians don't want to do any organization of rebuilding because they don't want to go in and tear down peoples house, because they throw a fit when it happens.

 

 

its a crazy circle. its like playing Sim City... you have to build the infrastructure first, then put in the police, fire, school, hospital, etc and then start building those green, blue and yellow boxes.

 

Which comes first, a population that needs a McDonalds, or the McDonalds? That one I have to side with Corporate America on. But which comes first, a population that needs electricity or electricity and that one has to fall on the government.

 

But having said that, does the government (local, state, or national) have a responsibility to bring services to wherever someone wants to rebuild? I don't think so. A plan to offer utilities in a sequential order works for me. One person building a mile from the nearest working grid, shouldn't happen and slows down the rebuilding efforts. We probably need to buy some people out, a hopscotch pattern of rebuilding and providing utilities is wasteful.

 

 

but in all fairness, those businesses did have property insurance. most of the houses in that area did not. So corporate america took the insurance $ and ran rather than use it for its designated purpose of rebuilding.

 

speak of the devil, look what just popped up on Yahoo's front page.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_...katrina9th_ward

[southsider2k5]

its a crazy circle. its like playing Sim City... you have to build the infrastructure first, then put in the police, fire, school, hospital, etc and then start building those green, blue and yellow boxes.

but in all fairness, those businesses did have property insurance. most of the houses in that area did not. So corporate america took the insurance $ and ran rather than use it for its designated purpose of rebuilding.

 

speak of the devil, look what just popped up on Yahoo's front page.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_...katrina9th_ward

 

That is assuming they got real value on their insurance claims. If I had to guess the business claims were no different than the personal claimes, which means they most likely got screwed for the most part.

[Texsox]

That is assuming they got real value on their insurance claims. If I had to guess the business claims were no different than the personal claimes, which means they most likely got screwed for the most part.

 

A business will fail without customers. Using a McDs as an example, if the rooftops are gone, they could rebuild the greatest McDs ever, and it will close without customers ringing the cash register.

 

Infrastructure in a sane, systematic, efficient manner > residents > businesses I don't see how you can take this out of order.

[Balta1701]

A business will fail without customers. Using a McDs as an example, if the rooftops are gone, they could rebuild the greatest McDs ever, and it will close without customers ringing the cash register.

 

Infrastructure in a sane, systematic, efficient manner > residents > businesses I don't see how you can take this out of order.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...so why would people want to move into an area where there is no access to business? If you have to drive a half an hour to buy milk because every grocery store in the area has been looted, vacated, and collapsed, couldn't you have all of the gas, power, and phone service you want and still have people with no desire to move into an area? And why do people move into an area when the businesses are all gone if those businesses are a main source of employment?

[Texsox]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...so why would people want to move into an area where there is no access to business? If you have to drive a half an hour to buy milk because every grocery store in the area has been looted, vacated, and collapsed, couldn't you have all of the gas, power, and phone service you want and still have people with no desire to move into an area? And why do people move into an area when the businesses are all gone if those businesses are a main source of employment?

 

People have homesteaded far from conveniences before. Some do it for the solitude, some are attracted by lower costs. I grew up in Lake County, way before the housing boom. We were a ways from the nearest grocery store, etc. but very close to a lake. When people asked why I lived in Wildwood and drove to Schaumburg to work (an hour many days) I replied I drove an hour to live. I like the spaces.

 

In this particular case, it would be lower housing costs. The higher costs would be closer to services, the cheapest the furthest away. Once the conveniences came, those homes would appreciate in value at a greater pace than the ones build closer in.

[Balta1701]

While we're on the demolition and debunking myths topic:

Urban planners at three universities are challenging the notion that the city's Ninth Ward must be rebuilt from scratch, reporting in a new survey that the predominantly black neighborhoods can be brought back largely as they existed before Hurricane Katrina flooded them.

 

"The structural integrity of the buildings, even in the most devastated areas, are in much better condition than has been reported," said Kenneth Reardon, chair of Cornell University's Department of City and Regional Planning.

 

The only section that must be demolished before being rebuilt lies directly next to the levee breach on the Industrial Canal, an area that covers less than a square mile in the Lower Ninth Ward, the planners said. Homes there were battered by floodwaters from Katrina and then from Hurricane Rita nearly a month later.

...

More than 80 percent of the Ninth Ward's structures "suffered no terminal structural damage," the research found, and the majority of those structures were built atop piers, making it easier to raise them to meet new flood zone requirements.

 

Only about 20 percent of Ninth Ward residents have returned home, the survey found. It cited bureaucratic and financial hurdles.

 

"That data shows that it can be rebuilt, and rebuilt in a cost-effective way. What is lacking are the resources," said Andrew Rumbach, a Cornell planner.

 

Many people in the Ninth Ward did not have flood insurance, and government rebuilding aid has been slow in coming. A lack of schools, day-care centers, businesses and public services, as well as high rents, are also keeping people away.

[southsider2k5]

While we're on the demolition and debunking myths topic:

 

So they are saying its OK to remodel a house that was emmerced completely in water for a long period of time? I guess that means they don't need nearly as much aid as they though they did then do they? Its much cheaper to remodel than to rebuild.

[Texsox]

So they are saying its OK to remodel a house that was emerged completely in water for a long period of time? I guess that means they don't need nearly as much aid as they though they did then do they? Its much cheaper to remodel than to rebuild.

 

That does seem like good news. I imagine there is a cross over point where they have to rebuild, but this would seem to preserve the neighborhood to a greater degree than rebuilding.

 

But the chicken and egg conundrum seems to be happening with businesses like child care. Not enough business because not enough people, not enough people because no businesses.