Conditional Disaster Aid
Every time there is a hurricane, flood or any other cyclic natural disaster, you'll hear someone, admittedly on the right, make an argument like this:
They decided to live in a dangerous place. If they didn't take the right precautions, then they made their bed; let them lay in it.I think this is a hard line to take, but I think there is a good argument hidden beneath the rhetoric. We're an incredibly rich nation, and it would be outrageous to let one of our cherished cities go to waste, but if we're going to rebuild it, let's apply some conditions to the funding:
- Rebuild levies that can handle a class 5 hurricane. This is not an overzealous precaution for a port city below sea level.
- Maintain said levies.
- Set stringent building codes to protect buildings from wind damage.
- Require flood insurance for high value sites to reduce de facto federal exposure for future storms
3 Comments:
At least for this storm, my sense of apathy comes not from the rhetoric you mentioned above (which I've used before, by the way) but from the fact that everyone and their grandmother knew what a risk New Orleans was and always has been. We're not talking about a freak volcano that popped up in the middle of the city or an asteroid hit just perfectly to devistate everything in the city limits, we're talking about a hurricane in the Carribean. This is like being surprised about getting a girl knocked up after screwing her for a year with no condom.
I first learned of New Orlean's risks from a National Geographic special we were shown in school about hurricanes and tornadoes immediately following Hurricane Andrew. We have known beyond question for years now that hurricanes are capable of 30+ foot storm surges, not only possible but likely to strike in that area of the US, that city is BELOW sea level and their flood protection is only good for an untested 18 feet.
Everyone knew this could happen and yet somehow, a majority didn't care or never paid attention thus landing themselves in the situation they are in now.
I see the same attitude every day in my profession from building owners. They complain up and down and six ways from Sunday when a building code or insurance reg. requires a sprinkler system (or any other kind of fire protection measure) in their building because they feel they will never need it. That the cost does not justify the benefit. And yet quite a different tune is sung when their building burns to the ground instead of a one room fire and a little water damage.
All these years the people of New Orleans have been protected only by extreme hope that a big storm won't strike.
This lax attitude towards risks people choose not to learn or understand about and two cents will get you a big fat I don't give an F from me and my wallet.
By Marc Moseley, At 12:51 PM EDT
I work in real estate and it's amazing how much attention is paid to seismic risks on California properties and how little attention is paid to storm and flood risks in the Gulf Coast and Florida. This place is a madhouse trying to figure out if our investments are still standing.
By Tim McGuire, At 12:55 PM EDT
I agree with your relief contingency suggestions. It's ridiculous that New Orleans was so unprepared for the storm. An 18-foot earthen levee was holding back a 600 sqmi lake.
Although I believe any major high-value development in New Orleans would have required said flood insurance to get financed. Still, that should be part of the building code.
By Tim McGuire, At 1:03 PM EDT
Post a Comment
<< Home