Our local paper, The Times-Picayune, really hit the nail on the head with this one. In a an editorial called "Permitting everything," the paper calls attention to the folly of allowing almost everyone, no matter how flooded or low-lying the neighborhood, to just rebuild right back at the same elevation.
I complained about the short-sightedness of this a few days ago, too, and warned that we're dooming our own future.
I keep hearing about the new New Orleans. Still hoping to see it one day.
4 comments:
Right on again, sir.
No leader is willing to do the right thing (which is simple, even if it's not easy):
Tell people, "No."
Tell Orleanians that not everybody can build back where they were, or how low they were.
Tell Americans that they're going to have to give up some nonessential government projects so that the Gulf Coast can achieve mere survival.
Tell a few businesses that they are going to have to operate without the MRGO.
And so on.
Nobody wants to say, "No."
Things can be even better than they were before but people have to look forward instead of backward. That's much easier said than done though.
It'll be around some day. In the meantime, at least we've got Chris Rose to keep us entertained. :-)
Chris Rose's newest piece.
I agree with you. But the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether Shaw has a vested interest in high damage assessments. The question isn't totally out of flat earth land. If Shaw makes money off of demolition (don't know if it does), it shouldn't be doing the inspections.z I also wonder whether there's a built in bias toward high assessments and not just because of the rules about water levels. Nothing nefarious, just the fact that quick inspections might be biased one way or the other, depending on the training of the inspectors. Still, you're right about rebuilding inadequately elevated houses.
Post a Comment