Oh my darlin', oh my darlin', oh my darlin' Calamine...

It's been a pretty dry year here, as far as rain goes. The last couple of weeks have been nearly rain-free. Over the past couple of years, I've diligently removed all the ivy from the yard (the leaf cups breed mosquitos), and stealthily thinned the neighbor's ivy farm on the edge of the driveway so that the ground over there will dry out a bit more. No standing water containers to be found, nada. I've also stayed indoors much of this summer, just because, well, it sucks out there.

Today was actually pretty nice though, not too humid, not too hot. So tonight I decided to trim back the azalea bush from hell, and spent about 20 minutes out there.

I have 12 mosquito bites.

On my left ankle.

The rest of me looks similar.

Fuckin' bugs.

Oh my darlin', oh my darlin', oh my darlin' Calamine...

It's been a pretty dry year here, as far as rain goes. The last couple of weeks have been nearly rain-free. Over the past couple of years, I've diligently removed all the ivy from the yard (the leaf cups breed mosquitos), and stealthily thinned the neighbor's ivy farm on the edge of the driveway so that the ground over there will dry out a bit more. No standing water containers to be found, nada. I've also stayed indoors much of this summer, just because, well, it sucks out there.

Today was actually pretty nice though, not too humid, not too hot. So tonight I decided to trim back the azalea bush from hell, and spent about 20 minutes out there.

I have 12 mosquito bites.

On my left ankle.

The rest of me looks similar.

Fuckin' bugs.

A unique opportunity for NOLA...

It occurs to me that NOLA is at a crossroads for how they choose to get past Katrina.

Obviously, the levee system wasn't up to snuff. Obviously, getting it so would be immensely expensive now. Obviously, another Cat 4 (or 5) hurricane *WILL* hit sometime in the future.

People have been talking about how rebuilding on the same spot would be, well, stupid. I understand people wanting to stand their ground, rebuild what they had, and get on with their lives, but... it's not a safe place to build. Period.

The idea has been floated about moving NOLA, but... where? Much of the city, particularly the historical districts and downtown, can also be repaired. They didn't suffer the devastation that other portions did. Moving it doesn't seem practical.

Well, why not take another look at the problem? The problem is that the city was built lower than the water around it. So fill it in.

Yeah, it sounds crazy, but it was done in Seattle after the 1889 fire. 120 acres of downtown Seattle were raised 22 ft, on average. Large section of NOLA have 80-100% devastation, where most of the regions will have to be bulldozed and started over from dirt anyway. The infrastructure is (was) above ground due to groundwater problems, so it's gone too. Why not raise the city level in those regions to the point where future catastrophes like this won't happen? Certainly not *all* of NOLA can be raised, but the sections hardest hit could be.

What's the benefit? The resources that are now stretched thin to protect the entire region can be concentrated on protecting smaller areas of the city. Small concrete retaining walls can be quickly built on the fill area to provide a second level of flood control, instead of relying on massive earthen levees across broad distances. If future calamities occur again, in the still sunken regions, fill them in as they get wiped out.

Raze the sections of the city that need it. Just fill in before you start building again. This will be the *one chance* NOLA has to do this, and get it right for the future. They have a clean slate, and they need to take advantage of it.

If it could be done in 1889, it can be done in 2005.

A unique opportunity for NOLA...

It occurs to me that NOLA is at a crossroads for how they choose to get past Katrina.

Obviously, the levee system wasn't up to snuff. Obviously, getting it so would be immensely expensive now. Obviously, another Cat 4 (or 5) hurricane *WILL* hit sometime in the future.

People have been talking about how rebuilding on the same spot would be, well, stupid. I understand people wanting to stand their ground, rebuild what they had, and get on with their lives, but... it's not a safe place to build. Period.

The idea has been floated about moving NOLA, but... where? Much of the city, particularly the historical districts and downtown, can also be repaired. They didn't suffer the devastation that other portions did. Moving it doesn't seem practical.

Well, why not take another look at the problem? The problem is that the city was built lower than the water around it. So fill it in.

Yeah, it sounds crazy, but it was done in Seattle after the 1889 fire. 120 acres of downtown Seattle were raised 22 ft, on average. Large section of NOLA have 80-100% devastation, where most of the regions will have to be bulldozed and started over from dirt anyway. The infrastructure is (was) above ground due to groundwater problems, so it's gone too. Why not raise the city level in those regions to the point where future catastrophes like this won't happen? Certainly not *all* of NOLA can be raised, but the sections hardest hit could be.

What's the benefit? The resources that are now stretched thin to protect the entire region can be concentrated on protecting smaller areas of the city. Small concrete retaining walls can be quickly built on the fill area to provide a second level of flood control, instead of relying on massive earthen levees across broad distances. If future calamities occur again, in the still sunken regions, fill them in as they get wiped out.

Raze the sections of the city that need it. Just fill in before you start building again. This will be the *one chance* NOLA has to do this, and get it right for the future. They have a clean slate, and they need to take advantage of it.

If it could be done in 1889, it can be done in 2005.