While many might expect me to criticize him, I think he’s got a very valid point and I’m glad he brought it up. I’m afraid he’ll be badgered for this comment even though it is a legitimate question.
That said, I’m not sure saying all of New Orleans should be abandoned, but certainly the foot print should be more manageable and the Parshishes below it should not be rebuilt.
UPDATE: I may agree with him regarding the substance of this, but he’s politically screwed up–the statement is taking on a life of its own in the news—New Orleans TV anchors just spent several minutes on it.
I posted a little on this subject while Katrina was sitting out in the Gulf. I’d personally like to see the current site of New Orleans evacuated, have all the toxic waste and chemicals removed, and have it revert back to swampland. After/during the cleanup, a new site for the city should be found, preferably upstream of the diffluence with the Atchafalaya river. That way the Mississippi river can be allowed to follow the course it wants to and the city can be located/built in such a way that it won’t start sinking into the ground again.
Hastert didn’t have a problem with rebuilding downtown Chicago after the 1992 flood, or most of the Midwest a year later. He didn’t have a problem rebuilding San Francisco after the Loma Prieta quake in 1989. So why should he balk at rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina in 2005? Earthquakes are a lot more common in San Francisco, and floods all over the Midwest, than Category 5 storms in New Orleans.
And politically, this comment was not only suicidally stupid, it was galactically insensitive. A million and a half people not even sure they have homes to go back to, and this fat f**k is going to the press and shitting on the ruins of their homes? If he’s got any brains at all, he’ll grovel as necessary to make this go away as quickly as possible. I told him so myself earlier this evening.
It’s one thing to raise the question of whether New Orleans should, in effect, be relocated. That’s a legitimate thing to raise and might be the best idea. I’m also certain that it won’t be what happens.
But to say what he said in that way is idiotic.
He’s already backpedaling
In the mid 1800s, to better manage storm water and sewage, it was decided to raise the street level of Chicago to more than 8 feet above the low water mark of the Chicago River. This meant that entire buildings had to be lifted up on jacks and land-fill dredged from the lake was piled in.
The same thing could happen (or could have happened) in New Orleans, I would imagine, and is probably less of a political quagmire than total relocation of the city.
I wonder if Chicago, since it also was built on sandy, swampy land, would have sunk to below lake level if it weren’t raised.
(this information comes from “The Chicago River: A natural and unnatural history” by Libby Hill, published by Lake Claremont Press, 4650 N. Rockwell, Chicago. Excellent book…highly recommended!!!)
What exactly is wrong with the Speaker of the House, the part of Congress tasked with originating spending bills, starting the ball rolling on exactly how the rebuilding should take place since we all know the Feds are going to pick up the tab for most of it?
What better time than now if we’re going to have over a million refugees on our hands spending months at a minimum away from home discussing whether or not they will resettle in New Orleans or somewhere else? That way they can decide how they want to get on with life. The idea that we’re just going to have the American people pay to return everything exactly the way it was before is more reprehensible in my book than asking what should we do differently to avoid another overwhelming catastrophe.
As far as rebuilding the midwest after the ’93 flood, it wasn’t rebuilt the same as before. In some places, whole towns were moved (like Valmeyer in Illinois). In other places, residences were not rebuilt in low areas prone to flooding – the rule was you had to jack the house up a certain distance above the flood waters, and in some areas that was simply too high.
People seem to be focusing on the word “bulldoze”. Well, if you don’t rebuild a flooded area full of buildings, what do you do if not bulldoze?
As Speaker of the House it’s an incredibly insensitive remark in the middle of a crisis where we literally haven’t started counting the bodies.
As I said, on substance he has a very good point at least in terms of at least improving the footprint that currently exists, but the reality of his timing is he shot any serious reform of the city in the foot with his comments during the middle of rescue operations.
The people who are complaining the most are the people who are going complain no matter how its phrased or when its said.
It just strikes me that a moment like this, in the midst of disaster on an epic scale, people dying, ongoing problems galore, all kinds of major, difficult descisions ahead, is exactly the time for blunt, honest speech. Let’s speak plainly because people are going to be making serious decisions on what comes next. People have lost everything, some even their lives, and we’re worried about sensitivity and hurting some people’s feelings?
Originally, I didn’t see the big deal about the comments, but it has really demoralized many people there from the reaction. Hastert didn’t mean to do that for sure, but it was a bad time for it.
He said it to a local newspaper and didn’t think it was going to be national news–but as the Speaker, he should have thought that through.
We should be blunt about the problems in this case, it just was too soon as people who were trying to figure out what happened to their friends and loved ones as well as their houses, didn’t need to think about their lives being even more uprooted.
I just find it hard to believe that after all they’ve been through, people are demoralized by the self-evident remarks of the Speaker. We all need to take a hard look at what the future holds. I think we can all agree we can’t go back to the status quo ante and that we’re not simply going to abandon the city of New Orleans. So how do we rebuild in such a way as to mitigate the risks of the site? Since speed is of the essence in all phases of the response, it’s not discussion that should be put off.
Honestly, I’d probably be saying the same thing except when it was announced on New Orleans television, the reaction was eerie. I think the one hope they had in their head was they could eventually rebuild–perhaps in denial, but it really shook everyone.
Obviously, on substance I generally agree with you–and think it’s important. I don’t think Hastert had any idea his comments would be national either and so it was probably off the cuff in terms of having a discussion with people he knows relatively well.
As a taxpayer that foots the bill for Hasstrts’ health insurance, I feel we should cut him off. He is grossly overweight, a candidate for diabetes, cornary problems, high blood pressure, hypertension and many other health issues.
Not to mention, if he should perish in his condition we would have the health issues for the 6 bearers that have to carry his fat ass in his coffin. Fuck Hastert. He is just another prick that is unable to exhibit any empathy for common folks.