New Orleans: The Next New London?
With New Orleans in worse shape than I've ever seen any American city, one has to wonder who is going to rebuild it. We're talking about one of America's poorest cities; how many people had proper insurance?
What if Club Med, Hilton, Riu and the Ritz offer to buy much of the high value land promising to rebuild it? What if GM, Ford and Toyota offer to buy the low value land promising to rebuild it? If you're a local government official, would you be tempted to sell off your city to vultures given the expanded taking powers granted you by the Kelo decision?
It will be interesting to see how this develops. You know that New Orleans will be forever changed, but hopefully Kelo isn't the catalyst for this change.
What if Club Med, Hilton, Riu and the Ritz offer to buy much of the high value land promising to rebuild it? What if GM, Ford and Toyota offer to buy the low value land promising to rebuild it? If you're a local government official, would you be tempted to sell off your city to vultures given the expanded taking powers granted you by the Kelo decision?
It will be interesting to see how this develops. You know that New Orleans will be forever changed, but hopefully Kelo isn't the catalyst for this change.
10 Comments:
You know, that actually might not be a bad idea.
How about this:
- GM, Ford, Toyota can buy and develop for their own purposes X amount of low-value land, provided they also buy Y amount of low-value land and built Z low-cost housing units
- Club Med and Hilton can buy and develop high-value land at a discount, provided they also form a community development organization to promote returning small business and new development
Or some such arrangement. There might be a way for private companies to profit AND to contribute positively to New Orleans' redevelopment.
By Tim McGuire, At 10:54 AM EDT
True if it's voluntary. The case I was worried about is one where people are forced to sell.
By Ben Polidore, At 11:08 AM EDT
I wouldn't be worried about anything like that. Say you're Bob Lutz and your company is hemorraging from low profits from poor products and high worker pay and pensions from an already way oversized manufacturing infrasturcture- the last thing you would want to do is spend money on something that will only cost more money and has a high risk of being washed into the Gulf.
Even if your company isn't in poor financial shape, the only reason for so much petrochemical industry there was simply because of convenience of location. No CEO's with a stable mental capacity think risking a large part of their production capability in a location built in a rock bowl surround by water on all sides is a good idea. I don't care how incapable some CEO's are nowadays.
By Marc Moseley, At 12:58 PM EDT
What if there was a referendum?
If your entire neighborhood was destroyed, wouldn't you prefer to give up a portion of it in exchange for assistance in rebuilding your house or small business? I suppose some people will still be forced to sell and relocate, but can New Orleans and its residents really afford to hold out and rebuild their city from scratch?
By Tim McGuire, At 12:59 PM EDT
A referendum to take other people's property.
I mean, if there was a referendum in New York to turn the Bronx into a state park, most people would probably say yes.
By Ben Polidore, At 1:26 PM EDT
OK, that's a straw man, of course you wouldn't bulldoze an entire city for a park for no reason. But if the Bronx was burned to the ground--and I mean like 80% destroyed--and very few people had insurance, you don't think they'd support some land reassignment in exchange for a huge amount of aid in rebuilding?
By Tim McGuire, At 3:00 PM EDT
They probably would, but what I'm saying is that it would end up displacing most of the people from the area, even if they could afford to rebuild. The deal probably wouldn't go through unless these companies could obtain large, contiguous pieces of land.
The point is coersion. If I had the money to rebuild my house, I might be in a situation where I wouldn't be able to do so because of the deal my local government made to help those people who couldn't rebuild their houses. This is hardly fair.
By Ben Polidore, At 5:26 PM EDT
I understand that, but a couple of rebuilders blocking a plan like that could mean millions of development aid lost. That's hardly fair either.
By Tim McGuire, At 6:49 PM EDT
Hey Ben, just saw this site ... some nice discussions going on here.
I sincerely doubt the Kelo decision will influence the rebuilding of NOLA. According to a recent Economist article, polls show that 90 percent of the American public disagrees with the decision, and some states, including nearby Alabama, have already passed legislation restricting the government's ability to seize private property. It would be political suicide to allow corporate behemoths to snatch up cheap land in the wake of such a tragedy.
That said, I wonder just how much of the existing city and infrastructure they can salvage.
By chad ellinger, At 11:41 PM EDT
I think it's certainly possible, but the discussion was just more of a thought experiment about how Kelo could be used.
By Tim McGuire, At 1:41 PM EDT
Post a Comment
<< Home