![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Katrina - rebuilding a city
Aug. 30th, 2006 11:03 amI generally don't post on things political, and anything related to Katrina and the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast will be viewed in a political light. So, please don't think I am an apologist for ANY political faction in this debate, left OR right. However, looking at previous city-wide disasters (San Francisco 1906 and Chicago 1871) three trends are apparent. They are:
1) Rebuilding takes time. I was recently in San Francisco, and there are several historical sites with plaques on them to the effect of "destroyed 1906, rebuilt 1908." In both cities, people were living in temporary housing for years after the disaster. Sound familiar?
2) There will be a turnover of population. Some folks loose everything, so they take what's left and move on. Others, attracted to the opportunities created, move in.
3) The city may not be what it was before. In Chicago's case, the rebuilding is credited with bringing Chicago up to a world-class city. In San Francisco, which was the premier city on the West Coast, its disaster became Los Angeles' gain.
I think New Orleans is especially vulnerable to factor #3. The city was in economic decline prior to the hurricane, being eclipsed by Houston. The main reason for a city being there was as a port. Although shipping is important, it's becoming less labor-intensive, so that would argue for a population decline.
You won't see or hear any of this in the so-called "MSM" or "Main Stream Media." (I hate that term, by the way). The MSM seems unable to provide perspective on much of anything, with exhibit #13,453 being the JonBenet Ramsey case. This is a shame, both because the consumers of the MSM need the information, and those that can (or think they can) put perspective on it for themselves do so, resulting in a loss of respect for the MSM.
1) Rebuilding takes time. I was recently in San Francisco, and there are several historical sites with plaques on them to the effect of "destroyed 1906, rebuilt 1908." In both cities, people were living in temporary housing for years after the disaster. Sound familiar?
2) There will be a turnover of population. Some folks loose everything, so they take what's left and move on. Others, attracted to the opportunities created, move in.
3) The city may not be what it was before. In Chicago's case, the rebuilding is credited with bringing Chicago up to a world-class city. In San Francisco, which was the premier city on the West Coast, its disaster became Los Angeles' gain.
I think New Orleans is especially vulnerable to factor #3. The city was in economic decline prior to the hurricane, being eclipsed by Houston. The main reason for a city being there was as a port. Although shipping is important, it's becoming less labor-intensive, so that would argue for a population decline.
You won't see or hear any of this in the so-called "MSM" or "Main Stream Media." (I hate that term, by the way). The MSM seems unable to provide perspective on much of anything, with exhibit #13,453 being the JonBenet Ramsey case. This is a shame, both because the consumers of the MSM need the information, and those that can (or think they can) put perspective on it for themselves do so, resulting in a loss of respect for the MSM.
