Isn't the real question, "Why the hell is anyone building ANYTHING in New Orleans, given that it's basically all under sea level and will be destroyed by another Katrina at some point in the foreseeable future?"

I mean, let 'em build their "mixed income housing." That way there will be a more even distribution of misery when the next hurricane comes and knocks it over.

Yeah, I actually think what they should be doing is building low-income housing on higher ground, so that next time a Katrina happens (and it will happen again, and worse), the people who can't afford to rebuild won't be the ones who are hit the hardest.

Rebuilding on the same ground would basically be telling these people, "you're the ones we don't care about, so we'll give you housing where you're mostly likely to be killed."

From the organizers:

Call and/or send a message to the New Orleans City Council TODAY:

http://www.colorofchange.org/hudhousing/?id=2115-227598

Arnie Fielkow 504.658.1060 afielkow@cityofno.com (Target, Swing Vote)
Jacquelyn Clarkson 504.658.1070 jbclarkson@cityofno.com (Target)
Stacy Head 504.658.1020 shead@cityofno.com (Target)
Shelly Midura 504.658.1010 smidura@cityofno.com (Target)
James Carter 504.658.1030 jcarter@cityofno.com
Cynthia Hedge-Morrell 504.658.1040 chmorrell@cityofno.com (Target, Swing Vote)
Cynthia Willard-Lewis 504.658.1050 cwlewis@cityofno.com

Let's not forget that New Orleans wasn't damaged by the Hurricane. Remember Mayor Nagin and the city council holding an elated press conference the day after Katrina passed through where Mayor Nagin said, "We dodged the bullet"?

New Orleans was destroyed by corruption. The corruption -- which is all over that area -- was this time in the Levee Authority who had spending their money (mostly Federal) on everything BUT maintaining the levees. New Orleans did dodge the bullet with Katrina. Then the levees failed.

It really is dumb to be rebuilding there but if they do let's at least rebuild the levees and maintain them properly.

"Rebuilding on the same ground would basically be telling these people, 'you're the ones we don't care about, so we'll give you housing where you're mostly likely to be killed.'"

Isn't that pretty much what the segregationists told minorities back when they divided the city?

"New Orleans was destroyed by corruption. The corruption -- which is all over that area -- was this time in the Levee Authority who had spending their money (mostly Federal) on everything BUT maintaining the levees. New Orleans did dodge the bullet with Katrina. Then the levees failed."

I heard that if the wetlands there were as extensive as they had been earlier then the storm would have hit the city itself less too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801458_pf.html

"...For decades, the [Army] Corps [of Engineers] has waged an unrelenting war on nature to protect New Orleans from the Mississippi River, but one result has been the destruction of wetlands that helped protect the city from the sea. And when Corps engineers finally took up hurricane protection in the 1960s, they designed projects based on economic analyses that did not take into account the cost of human lives but promoted development of low-lying wetland..."

Meanwhile, the destruction of waterfront residential areas, whether public housing or posh 2nd homes or whatever, reminds me of this:

http://www.touregypt.net/historicalessays/lifeinEgypt11.htm

"...It was of course the peasant farmer whose links with the soil were strongest. He had learnt to cultivate it to perfection and gradually extended the area of his fields to wherever the annual floods reached..."

Modern-day powers that be who decide what gets built were ought to read some more history.

People, come on. New Orleans is an old city with a lot of history and families that go back many generations. It is utterly simplistic to suggest NOT rebuilding there. It's their home. Don't tell them they have to go somewhere else just because their local government can't get it together. Half the city has already been displaced. What we need to be talking about is political reform and economic development so a) people have some incentive to stay there and b)it actually becomes a safe place to live.

As for the public housing, I find it strange that they are taking away possibly the only affordable housing option left in a city whose housing costs have doubled since the hurricane because there aren't enough liveable units for even the reduced population. Mixed income communities are actually a good thing--they help break down barriers between economic groups so there isn't that ghetto vs. white picket fence division. But it only works if people can afford it, so that's the issue that needs to be addressed. Not trashing New Orleans. That is disrespectful to the people who are proud to be from there.

cheekykitten: I, at least, and probably some other commenters, want them to put in low income housing in New Orleans, just in a place that is safer from flooding and less likely to be destroyed the next time there is a hurricane, such as on higher ground.

i was raised in NO, albeit in the 'burbs. i have a few comments on this. I have some seriously mixed feelings on this...

i totally disagree with the idea of taking affordable housing OUT of circulation in a market so in need of low cost shelter.

however the projects in question were shitholes, and were poorly designed and poorly maintained. they warehoused the poor of new orleans, and b/c of their locations, they often made it very hard for residents to GET to where jobs and services were located. Of course they were the first to get flooded - the sites were the crappiest in the whole of metro NOLA.

they were poorly oriented (e.g. big glass expanses facing due west and east) poorly designed energy hogs that left residents socially isolated, and constantly impoverished by utilities costs. They were bereft of landscaping or amentities of any type.

i'm not sorry they're being pulled down b/c to fix them up would be the proverbial lipstick on a pig.

That said, because of the corruption of my home town, i despair of the affordable component of the replacement housing ever really being built out properly. i worked as an architect on some so called 'mixed use affordable housing' in Washington DC - and it was usually studio apts that were labeled 'affordable'. That works 'great' if one is trying to lift young professionals up from 'poverty', but less well for extended families.

I also have to note that public housing contracts are not particularly lucrative and are often farmed out to some of the biggest hacks in architecture, so i'm not hopeful that they'll be well detailed or designed. 'Young' firms like to do these projects, too for idealistic reasons and they too tend to design for their portfolio rather than for the needs of the users. i despair of the reuse of such lousy sites. I'm also willing to bet that these new developments will be as bereft of amenities as the old ones.

i'm torn. the present stuff is god awful and the pending stuff will be just as bad. at the very least they could select better sites.

"People, come on. New Orleans is an old city with a lot of history and families that go back many generations."

Are you using the "it's part of their culture" argument?

"cheekykitten: I, at least, and probably some other commenters, want them to put in low income housing in New Orleans, just in a place that is safer from flooding and less likely to be destroyed the next time there is a hurricane, such as on higher ground."

Indeed. Millions of gallons of salt water don't know or care how long your family has lived below sea level.

"...i totally disagree with the idea of taking affordable housing OUT of circulation in a market so in need of low cost shelter.

"however the projects in question were shitholes, and were poorly designed and poorly maintained...

"...i'm torn. the present stuff is god awful and the pending stuff will be just as bad. at the very least they could select better sites."

Yeah, good points. You might also find this article interesting:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aec6MwCIclhY&refer=muse

"...Proponents of demolition have framed the controversy as obstructionist aesthetic elitists versus the voiceless displaced. Actually, it's about a more important issue: What kind of neighborhood will these vast tracts become?..."

"...That works 'great' if one is trying to lift young professionals up from 'poverty'..."

And/or if one is trying to lift young low-income singles up from poverty. Some people out there seem to think that everyone in poverty is in single-mother-and-several-children households, but poverty hits all kinds of households.

i totally disagree with the idea of taking affordable housing OUT of circulation in a market so in need of low cost shelter.
Authorized degree | MBA degrees

buy wow gold
cheap wow power leveling
my wow gold
cheapest wow power leveling
BUY wow gold
cheap wow power leveling
CHEAP rs gold
good wow power leveling
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
CHEAPEST wow gold

Indeed. Millions of gallons of salt water don't know or care how long your family has lived below sea level.free online games