I agree as well, I just didn t want to flood the list with a bunch of me too . Louisiana Governor Blanco was also offended by Hastert s comments.Message 1 of 7 , Sep 2, 2005View SourceI agree as well, I just didn't want to flood the list with a bunch of 'me
Louisiana Governor Blanco was also offended by Hastert's comments.
Unfortunately, there will be lots of opposition to rebuilding in a
different spot. I've blogged about the economic effects, how biodiesel is
now cheaper than petrodiesel, and rebuilding New Orleans carfree in this
My readership is near zero and my blog has yet to be indexed by Google, so
unfortunately it probably won't do much good. However, I'm trying to link
to it from a number of places to get the word out. We should try to get
our idea in the heads of lots of people right away; it should be in the
back of their mind when discussions begin on a larger scale. I suggest a
call to arms from everyone on this list to post about the issue, or at
least link to like Joel's Carfree Times which talks about it.
> I myself agree with you, Doug. I think opposition to our view will be
> fierce, and indeed, Mayor Nagin has already excoriated Hastert for saying
> hwat he did. However, there are dozens of reason to let the present site
> of New Orleans revert to wetland--not least of which, along with human
> safety, is the health of the Gul of Mexico itself, which is suffering
> greatly from agricultural runoff; this is something a large wetlands in
> that area would alleviate somewhat. Sinc emuch of the Gulf Coast economy
> depends on fishing, even a partial rehabilitation of the Gulf's present
> "dead zone" would help offset the costs of relocating New Orleans farther
> inland, or wherever. Joel, who worked on flood issues in NO, would have
> better suggestions than I.
> A carfree or partially-carfree city in a new location, with an extension
> to the present French Quarter, would provide an opportunity not only to
> rebuild a healthy community but to maximaze tourist-income potential, as
> many have already pointed out on this list.
> Overcoming inertia, short-term thinking, and plain human stubbernness will
> be difficult, though. But we oughta try.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Salzmann <doug@...>
> It is clear from recent postings that Joel, Todd and I agree that it is
> inadvisable (to put it mildly) to expend the massive resources necessary
> to rebuild New Orleans, if that means doing so on an "as-was, where-is"
> basis. Such an effort would result, simply, in recreating a human-rich
> target for the next similar disaster, which is very likely to arise within
> a few decades, at most.
> Post messages to: carfree_cities@...
> Unsubscribe (blank message): carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
> Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
5 days after Katrina? I¹m trying to think what my reaction would be to a suggestion we move and rebuild a flooded London less than a week after it happened.Message 1 of 7 , Sep 2, 2005View Source5 days after Katrina?
I¹m trying to think what my reaction would be to a suggestion we move and
rebuild a flooded London less than a week after it happened. It¹s a bit like
talking about the will before the funeral.
There is a delicate balance between bold and sometimes ruthless creative
policy thought and ill timed insensitive logic.
From: Doug Salzmann <doug@...>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
To: Carfree Cities List <email@example.com>
Subject: [carfree_cities] Only three of us... plus Denny Hastert?
Do you all simply disagree, believing that rebuilding New Orleans in that
bowl near the edge of the Gulf is actually a good idea?
Is it your view that, for some reason or reasons, we should not advocate a
relocation/redesign of the ravaged city, although that might be a good
idea under other circumstances?
Help me out, please. What am I missing here?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
... You bet, Simon. And not a moment too soon. Unless it is diverted at the very start, it will probably be utterly impossible to to resist theMessage 1 of 7 , Sep 2, 2005View SourceOn Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Simon Baddeley wrote:
> 5 days after Katrina?You bet, Simon. And not a moment too soon.
Unless it is diverted at the very start, it will probably be utterly
impossible to to resist the emotion-driven, fuzzy-headed groundswell
(encouraged and led by self-serving politicians and their constituents --
the ruthless, thoughtless capitalists who can already smell the *vast*
sums of money about to rain down on the region) that will arise insisting
that New Orleans be rebuilt exactly as before, but behind better, safer levees.
Now, right now, is the *only* time to try to prevent the monumental
stupidity that is sure to result from this disaster and the craven
manipulation of the aftermath.
> There is a delicate balance between bold and sometimes ruthless creativePerhaps. If so, I think you may have misjudged that balance in this case.
> policy thought and ill timed insensitive logic.
I'm much more worried about wasting perhaps a hundred billion dollars
(yes, I mean that) to place tens of thousands of poor people *back* in the
path of near-certain disaster than I am about offending local pride.
One can get over the latter. As is so glaringly apparent at this very
moment, the former has a tendency to kill. Dead people aren't proud.
P.O. Box 1007
Larkspur, CA 94977
Americans are different than Europeans in several respects, and perhaps this is one of them. The decision on whether to rebuild the City of New Orleans on newMessage 1 of 7 , Sep 2, 2005View SourceAmericans are different than Europeans in several respects, and
perhaps this is one of them.
The decision on whether to rebuild the City of New Orleans on new
location versus on existing (former) location OBVIOUSLY must be made
soon. If the decision is to rebuild on new location, buildings could
be going up as we speak. Houses don't take that long to build anymore
the number of homeless families will number in the tens if not
hundreds of thousands.
The sooner the decision is made, the better.
As for my vote, I think they'd be crazy to rebuild the city at the
existing location. The reason is because not only will hurricanes
get more powerful in the future (because the sea temperatures are
predicted to increase), but sea level (without the hurricanes) is
also predicted to rise. Perhaps they could build temporary
structures or design for a 10-year life, but even that would be
This tragedy should open up some eyes, I hope, to the impending much
more calamitous tragedy of global warming, which threatens us all and
succeeding generations even worse: with horrendous heat waves, more
flooding, more drought, more disease, mass animal and plant
extinction, and more famine (not just Africa). The current
administration, with help from the National Weather Service, the
Congress, Exxon, the coal industry, and the mainstream media (among
others) have been lying to the American people on this issue for far
too long, just to maintain the status quo and keep things running
smooth (with Americans continuing to burn more oil in transportation,
to buy more automobiles and SUVs, and so that power companies will
continue to burn more coal in electricity generating power plants).
It's time for Americans to wake up to the reality of the situation
that they are creating for themselves and for the rest of the world.
Sea Level Rises 1880 - 1980 (first graph):
Potential Sea Level Rises
Potential Changes in Temperature
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Simon Baddeley
> 5 days after Katrina?move and
> I¹m trying to think what my reaction would be to a suggestion we
> rebuild a flooded London less than a week after it happened.It¹s a
> talking about the will before the funeral.creative
> There is a delicate balance between bold and sometimes ruthless
> policy thought and ill timed insensitive logic.
... Here is a link to a proposal I wrote awhile back for the state which I live in (State of Wisconsin) to do its fair share in responding to the globalMessage 1 of 7 , Sep 3, 2005View Sourcemtneuman said:
> This tragedy should open up some eyes, I hope, to the impending muchHere is a link to a proposal I wrote awhile back for the state which I
> more calamitous tragedy of global warming, which threatens us all ...
live in (State of Wisconsin) to do its fair share in responding to the
global warming threat. The mechanics of the proposal could be applied
This is the kind of systems-level economic change that I believe is
necessary to confront the global warming threat. Among other things,
it would promote car-free cities by financially rewarding through
annual monetary incentives ("rebates") individuals and families who
can show they didn't drive at all over the year, or drove very little.
This would be verified by using data bases for odometer mileages of
registered vehicles, drivers license records, insurance company
records as well as signed certificates.
The potential rewards ($400 - $1,200/yr.) would have to be enough to
entice middle income families to drive less; but for families at
subsistence level - like many of those who live in the New Orleans
area - they could be the difference between living in a "make" or a
If you can't access it from the above link, you might want to consider
joining "Climate Change Politics":
Below a link to an article posted on the "climatechangepolitics" group
today by the group owner. Patriot Americans, please consider yourself
Katrina comes home to roost
By Sidney Blumenthal
Friday September 2, 2005