33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9

[Dodson Mae]

Rafael Morales wrote:

4. Neighborhood Revitalization - Learn about some of the most inspiring
community development projects in America ..."

Ed Dodson here:
The one, perhaps most important, question regarding New Orleans -- and all
populated areas located "in harm's way" -- is the wisdom of repeated
rebuilding in the face of repeated destruction.

Certainly, we as members of the larger society ought to have compassion for
those victimized by such disasters. At the same time, there is a serious
need for rational decision-making in how public funds are utilized in the
process of providing humane assistance.

The scientific community studying the environmental and climate issues is
not being heard in the political arena, it seems to me. What happened to New
Orleans ought to be understood as a clear warning of the future. Absent a
Netherlands-style flood-containment infrastructure investment, the work now
being done in New Orleans is not likely to survive the next severe hurricane
that makes its way into the region.

So, the question occurs to me, is this a conference that will address the
very real ongoing risks associated with the current rebuilding effort, or
will reality be brushed aside in pursuit of short-term objectives of the
private and public redevelopment interests?





This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

Mr. Dodson -
As natives of the Gulf Coast, please understand that our opinions in this matter are clearly biased ... yet at the same time, we find your email highly irresponsible.* Yes, there are graver climate concerns to be addressed, studied, and prepared for ... however why has the question of rebuilding only begun to come up with regard to the rebuilding of the City of New Orleans?* Have you ever been to New Orleans?* Have you spoken with any locals, or more importantly, any locals still displaced by the storm?
*
Why is Florida rebuilt every year, even though we know it will undoubtedly be slammed by the next spate of hurricanes entering the Gulf from the Atlantic?* Why are large American cities built along active fault lines, alongside rivers, or in tornado zones?* No matter where you live, no place is immune to natural disaster.* Unfortunately, there are no "safe zones".* If we never used public funds to rebuild disaster-affected areas, where would we be living today?* We humanely disburse disaster relief funds all over the globe--why not for a disaster on our own shores?*
We realize you are trying to make a point about investing soundly in infrastructure, but surely you must realize that the purpose of community development is to provide people with tools to bring about long-range economic empowerment.* If you have ever attended a NFCDCU conference, you would surely understand the long-term impact of the Federation's investment in its members, and vice-versa.* The Federation has nothing to gain from short-term private and public redevelopment interests, and its objectives are far more strategic than your question implies.
We hope you will attend the conference--you would most assuredly have many opportunities to engage in real and meaningful dialogue about the need for community re-investment all across the country.

Respectfully,
Shannon Cian and Sarah Taylor,
ASI FCU


-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Dodson [mailto:ejdodson@comcast.net (ejdodson@comcast.net)]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:45 AM
To: 'Community Development Banking LS (Community Development Banking Listserv)'
Cc: 'Rafael'
Subject: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 - New Orleans, LA

Rafael Morales wrote:
4. Neighborhood Revitalization - Learn about some of the most inspiring
community development projects in America ..."
Ed Dodson here:
The one, perhaps most important, question regarding New Orleans -- and all
populated areas located "in harm's way" -- is the wisdom of repeated
rebuilding in the face of repeated destruction.
Certainly, we as members of the larger society ought to have compassion for
those victimized by such disasters. At the same time, there is a serious
need for rational decision-making in how public funds are utilized in the
process of providing humane assistance.
The scientific community studying the environmental and climate issues is
not being heard in the political arena, it seems to me. What happened to New
Orleans ought to be understood as a clear warning of the future. Absent a
Netherlands-style flood-containment infrastructure investment, the work now
being done in New Orleans is not likely to survive the next severe hurricane
that makes its way into the region.
So, the question occurs to me, is this a conference that will address the
very real ongoing risks associated with the current rebuilding effort, or
will reality be brushed aside in pursuit of short-term objectives of the
private and public redevelopment interests?





This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

I have to agree. Not long after the catastrophe, a friend here in LA
said she had been invited to attend a conference on how to best rebuild
NO and asked if I had any suggestions.

As a geographer, I responded "Either raise the whole city up 20 ft or
more, or move it inland."

NO is built in a swamp, and due to ground water pumping and the levees
on the Mississippi River, it is below water level. History is replete
with sunken cities and cities which have been rebuilt over and over
after natural and human-caused disasters, from Alexandria and Troy to
the modern cities of Europe.

We have to stop pretending that we can keep doing the same thing and get
different results -- New Orleans is not located in a sustainable place,
and unless we are willing to keep pumping public and private capital
into rebuilding it over and over, we need to move it or raise it up from
the inevitable floods to come.

Tim O'Connell

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Edward
Dodson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:45 AM
To: 'Community Development Banking LS (Community Development
BankingListserv)'
Cc: 'Rafael'
Subject: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 -
New Orleans, LA


Rafael Morales wrote:

4. Neighborhood Revitalization - Learn about some of the most inspiring
community development projects in America ..."

Ed Dodson here:
The one, perhaps most important, question regarding New Orleans -- and
all populated areas located "in harm's way" -- is the wisdom of repeated
rebuilding in the face of repeated destruction.

Certainly, we as members of the larger society ought to have compassion
for those victimized by such disasters. At the same time, there is a
serious need for rational decision-making in how public funds are
utilized in the process of providing humane assistance.

The scientific community studying the environmental and climate issues
is not being heard in the political arena, it seems to me. What happened
to New Orleans ought to be understood as a clear warning of the future.
Absent a Netherlands-style flood-containment infrastructure investment,
the work now being done in New Orleans is not likely to survive the next
severe hurricane that makes its way into the region.

So, the question occurs to me, is this a conference that will address
the very real ongoing risks associated with the current rebuilding
effort, or will reality be brushed aside in pursuit of short-term
objectives of the private and public redevelopment interests?






This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Kathryn Dodge]

I agree and think a conference on THIS would be very instructive. A good
dialogue on this is probably very important in the global climate change
perspective. In Alaska we are spending millions to move communities
whose shores are no ocean floor. How do we make these decisions? What is
the process? What is the criteria? These are important considerations.
Kathryn Dodge

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1469155-4991387@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1469155-4991387@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connell
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:28 AM
To: Edward Dodson; Community Development Banking LS (Community
Development BankingListserv)
Cc: Rafael
Subject: RE: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June
6-9 - New Orleans, LA

I have to agree. Not long after the catastrophe, a friend here in LA
said she had been invited to attend a conference on how to best rebuild
NO and asked if I had any suggestions.

As a geographer, I responded "Either raise the whole city up 20 ft or
more, or move it inland."

NO is built in a swamp, and due to ground water pumping and the levees
on the Mississippi River, it is below water level. History is replete
with sunken cities and cities which have been rebuilt over and over
after natural and human-caused disasters, from Alexandria and Troy to
the modern cities of Europe.

We have to stop pretending that we can keep doing the same thing and get
different results -- New Orleans is not located in a sustainable place,
and unless we are willing to keep pumping public and private capital
into rebuilding it over and over, we need to move it or raise it up from
the inevitable floods to come.

Tim O'Connell

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Edward
Dodson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:45 AM
To: 'Community Development Banking LS (Community Development
BankingListserv)'
Cc: 'Rafael'
Subject: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 -
New Orleans, LA


Rafael Morales wrote:

4. Neighborhood Revitalization - Learn about some of the most inspiring
community development projects in America ..."

Ed Dodson here:
The one, perhaps most important, question regarding New Orleans -- and
all populated areas located "in harm's way" -- is the wisdom of repeated
rebuilding in the face of repeated destruction.

Certainly, we as members of the larger society ought to have compassion
for those victimized by such disasters. At the same time, there is a
serious need for rational decision-making in how public funds are
utilized in the process of providing humane assistance.

The scientific community studying the environmental and climate issues
is not being heard in the political arena, it seems to me. What happened
to New Orleans ought to be understood as a clear warning of the future.
Absent a Netherlands-style flood-containment infrastructure investment,
the work now being done in New Orleans is not likely to survive the next
severe hurricane that makes its way into the region.

So, the question occurs to me, is this a conference that will address
the very real ongoing risks associated with the current rebuilding
effort, or will reality be brushed aside in pursuit of short-term
objectives of the private and public redevelopment interests?







This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

I tried to stay quiet but...
I have to disagree! I echo the comments made by Cian, etc..and I add:
I hear a cold unreal response to the devastation of the Gulf Coast Area. I
ask that you place your home base and that of your parents and grandparents
with their long histories of calling a place home IN THE EQUATION and ask
yourselves if there should be more considered here than "simply" what makes
sense from an intellectual standpoint. The short answer is just as you
said. The long answer is " this is not about dollars and cents", but about
lives, about losses that will never be replaced (baby pictures, grandma's
dresser, the quilt, etc). Can we ask our fellow Americans to give up even
more?
BEFORE YOU DECIDE, WALK A MILE AS CLOSE TO THEIR SHOES AS POSSIBLE AND SEE
IF YOU WILL AGREE THAT WHILE WE HAVE AN UNLIMITED BUDGET TO REBUILD "IRAQ"
AND OTHER PLACES...WHY NOT USE OUR TAX $$$$$ FOR AMERICANS.

IF YOU HAVE NOT VISITED NEW ORLEANS SINCE THE HURRICANES...TAKE THIS CHANCE
TO COME AND VISIT AND SEE THE PILES OF DEBRIS THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL OF THE
LIVES OF RESIDENTS...SOME SO POOR THEY WILL NEVER ACCUMULATE MUCH AGAIN...
AND MEET FOLKS LIKE ME AND OTHERS WHO ARE SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT SOME
THINGS CAN NOT BE VALUED IN DOLLARS AND CENTS! Rebuilding New Orleans may
not make sense to most who are far removed from this area, but it makes
sense to ones most affected.
We love our country and most Louisiana residents love each other...It is
very personal with us!
By the way, in this great scheme of moving whole cities, Where do you see as
LA's safe place?

Helen Godfrey-Smith
President/CEO
Shreveport Federal Credit Union
P. O. Box 3261
Shreveport, LA 71133
318-795-2720 office
318-795-2719 fax

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1469155-5282179@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1469155-5282179@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connell
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:28 PM
To: Edward Dodson; Community Development Banking LS (Community Development
BankingListserv)
Cc: Rafael
Subject: RE: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 -
New Orleans, LA

I have to agree. Not long after the catastrophe, a friend here in LA
said she had been invited to attend a conference on how to best rebuild
NO and asked if I had any suggestions.

As a geographer, I responded "Either raise the whole city up 20 ft or
more, or move it inland."

NO is built in a swamp, and due to ground water pumping and the levees
on the Mississippi River, it is below water level. History is replete
with sunken cities and cities which have been rebuilt over and over
after natural and human-caused disasters, from Alexandria and Troy to
the modern cities of Europe.

We have to stop pretending that we can keep doing the same thing and get
different results -- New Orleans is not located in a sustainable place,
and unless we are willing to keep pumping public and private capital
into rebuilding it over and over, we need to move it or raise it up from
the inevitable floods to come.

Tim O'Connell

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Edward
Dodson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:45 AM
To: 'Community Development Banking LS (Community Development
BankingListserv)'
Cc: 'Rafael'
Subject: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 -
New Orleans, LA


Rafael Morales wrote:

4. Neighborhood Revitalization - Learn about some of the most inspiring
community development projects in America ..."

Ed Dodson here:
The one, perhaps most important, question regarding New Orleans -- and
all populated areas located "in harm's way" -- is the wisdom of repeated
rebuilding in the face of repeated destruction.

Certainly, we as members of the larger society ought to have compassion
for those victimized by such disasters. At the same time, there is a
serious need for rational decision-making in how public funds are
utilized in the process of providing humane assistance.

The scientific community studying the environmental and climate issues
is not being heard in the political arena, it seems to me. What happened
to New Orleans ought to be understood as a clear warning of the future.
Absent a Netherlands-style flood-containment infrastructure investment,
the work now being done in New Orleans is not likely to survive the next
severe hurricane that makes its way into the region.

So, the question occurs to me, is this a conference that will address
the very real ongoing risks associated with the current rebuilding
effort, or will reality be brushed aside in pursuit of short-term
objectives of the private and public redevelopment interests?










This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

First, to correct Mr. O'Connell, just over half of New Orleans today is
above sea level. See the following study, published last month.
Additionally, the challenges posed by the erosion of the Louisiana coast
affect far more places than just the City of New Orleans proper. Even a
clear decision not to rebuild those parts of New Orleans that require
rebuilding would not resolve future issues or avoid difficult public
policy decisions.

http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/...h_that_new_orl
ea.html


Finally, without adding too much more to a debate that is much larger
than this listserv, I would direct interested folks to the following
Washington Post op-ed from Saturday, May 12. The author describes four
specific human interventions that have greatly exacerbated the problems
in the Mississippi Delta, three of which benefit people in the rest of
the country:

1. Flood protection measures extending more than 1,000 miles upriver,
which limit the sediment that is carried by the river and deposited in
the Mississippi Delta.

2. Engineering works that ensure deep water access via the Mississippi
to cities far inland, such as Tulsa, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and
Cincinnati.

3. Thousands of miles of canals and pipelines to access oil and gas
reserves off the Louisiana coast, accounting for roughly 1/3 of the
country's domestic production.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05/11/AR200705
1101985.html
(registration required)

If we are to dispassionately consider abandoning all of New Orleans as a
result of these factors, we should at least also consider whether the
country as a whole has been able to capture the economic benefits of the
Gulf while concentrating the environmental costs on the New Orleans
region, and if so, whether fully paying for those costs would support
the level of infrastructure investment and ingenuity that folks in the
Netherlands have managed. Perhaps it wouldn't, but a comprehensive
public policy debate would surely include this option.

In the end, intelligent and well-reasoned calls to abandon New Orleans
and other disaster-prone areas always remind me of intelligent and
well-reasoned calls to abandon skyscrapers following 9-11. Worth
discussing and thinking seriously about, but ultimately worth
remembering that the most intelligent decisions aren't always the most
linear.

Casius Pealer



-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1469155-5852954@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1469155-5852954@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connell
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:28 PM
To: Edward Dodson; Community Development Banking LS (Community
Development BankingListserv)
Cc: Rafael
Subject: RE: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June
6-9 - New Orleans, LA

I have to agree. Not long after the catastrophe, a friend here in LA
said she had been invited to attend a conference on how to best rebuild
NO and asked if I had any suggestions.

As a geographer, I responded "Either raise the whole city up 20 ft or
more, or move it inland."

NO is built in a swamp, and due to ground water pumping and the levees
on the Mississippi River, it is below water level. History is replete
with sunken cities and cities which have been rebuilt over and over
after natural and human-caused disasters, from Alexandria and Troy to
the modern cities of Europe.

We have to stop pretending that we can keep doing the same thing and get
different results -- New Orleans is not located in a sustainable place,
and unless we are willing to keep pumping public and private capital
into rebuilding it over and over, we need to move it or raise it up from
the inevitable floods to come.

Tim O'Connell

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Edward
Dodson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:45 AM
To: 'Community Development Banking LS (Community Development
BankingListserv)'
Cc: 'Rafael'
Subject: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 -
New Orleans, LA


Rafael Morales wrote:

4. Neighborhood Revitalization - Learn about some of the most inspiring
community development projects in America ..."

Ed Dodson here:
The one, perhaps most important, question regarding New Orleans -- and
all populated areas located "in harm's way" -- is the wisdom of repeated
rebuilding in the face of repeated destruction.

Certainly, we as members of the larger society ought to have compassion
for those victimized by such disasters. At the same time, there is a
serious need for rational decision-making in how public funds are
utilized in the process of providing humane assistance.

The scientific community studying the environmental and climate issues
is not being heard in the political arena, it seems to me. What happened
to New Orleans ought to be understood as a clear warning of the future.
Absent a Netherlands-style flood-containment infrastructure investment,
the work now being done in New Orleans is not likely to survive the next
severe hurricane that makes its way into the region.

So, the question occurs to me, is this a conference that will address
the very real ongoing risks associated with the current rebuilding
effort, or will reality be brushed aside in pursuit of short-term
objectives of the private and public redevelopment interests?







This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Mark Cassell]

I'm extremely sympathetic to Godfrey-Smith's response to Dodson and O'Connell's comments.* The human and financial resources wasted in Iraq could be better spent on the underserved in the United States.* I was also angered and ashamed at our government's reponse to Katrina, and I immediately felt that the American taxpayer should have stepped up to plate to help individuals and communities harmed by the hurricane (much the same way that Germans delayed tax cuts to pay for the rebuilding of areas hurt by flooding in 2002)

At the same time, I think there should be a reasoned discussion about when and under what conditions it's appropriate for government help rebuild an area. When Godfrey-Smith asked us to place our own homes into the equation, I immediately thought of the community in southern California in which I was raised.* In that community I witnessed regular fires in the San Gabriel mountains. In one tragic instance, a fire fighter I knew from high school suffered severe injuries. Yet, despite the constant threat of fires, multi-million dollar homes continue to creep up the mountains with the support and endorsement of local governments.* When I think about the public resources (not to mention the lives) devoted rescuing and rebuilding homes built in areas that all agree are highly risky, I'm left to think that there must be a more effective way to allocate public resources.**


Mark Cassell
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio* 44242
330-672-8945



-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1469256-4991757@list.cornell.edu on behalf of Helen Godfrey-Smith
Sent: Mon 5/21/2007 7:06 PM
To: 'Tim O'Connell'; 'Edward Dodson'; 'Community Development Banking LS (Community Development BankingListserv)'
Cc: 'Rafael'
Subject: RE: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 - New Orleans, LA

I tried to stay quiet but...
I have to disagree!* I echo the comments made by Cian, etc..and I add:
I hear a cold unreal response to the devastation of the Gulf Coast Area.* I
ask that you place your home base and that of your parents and grandparents
with their long histories of calling a place home IN THE EQUATION and ask
yourselves if there should be more considered here than "simply" what makes
sense from an intellectual standpoint.* The short answer is just as you
said.* The long answer is " this is not about dollars and cents", but about
lives, about losses that will never be replaced (baby pictures, grandma's
dresser, the quilt, etc).* Can we ask our fellow Americans to give up even
more?*
BEFORE YOU DECIDE, WALK A MILE AS CLOSE TO THEIR SHOES AS POSSIBLE AND SEE
IF YOU WILL AGREE THAT WHILE WE HAVE AN UNLIMITED BUDGET TO REBUILD "IRAQ"
AND OTHER PLACES...WHY NOT USE OUR TAX $$$$$ FOR AMERICANS.*

IF YOU HAVE NOT VISITED NEW ORLEANS SINCE THE HURRICANES...TAKE THIS CHANCE
TO COME AND VISIT AND SEE THE PILES OF DEBRIS THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL OF THE
LIVES OF RESIDENTS...SOME SO POOR THEY WILL NEVER ACCUMULATE MUCH AGAIN...
AND MEET FOLKS LIKE ME AND OTHERS WHO ARE SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT SOME
THINGS CAN NOT BE VALUED IN DOLLARS AND CENTS!* Rebuilding New Orleans may
not make sense to most who are far removed from this area, but it makes
sense to ones most affected.*
We love our country and most Louisiana residents love each other...It is
very personal with us!*****
By the way, in this great scheme of moving whole cities, Where do you see as
LA's safe place?**

Helen Godfrey-Smith
President/CEO
Shreveport Federal Credit Union
P. O. Box 3261
Shreveport, LA** 71133
318-795-2720 office
318-795-2719 fax

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1469155-5282179@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1469155-5282179@list.cornell.edu (bounce-1469155-5282179@list.cornell.edu)] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connell
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:28 PM
To: Edward Dodson; Community Development Banking LS (Community Development
BankingListserv)
Cc: Rafael
Subject: RE: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 -
New Orleans, LA

I have to agree.* Not long after the catastrophe, a friend here in LA
said she had been invited to attend a conference on how to best rebuild
NO and asked if I had any suggestions.

As a geographer, I responded "Either raise the whole city up 20 ft or
more, or move it inland."

NO is built in a swamp, and due to ground water pumping and the levees
on the Mississippi River, it is below water level. History is replete
with sunken cities and cities which have been rebuilt over and over
after natural and human-caused disasters, from Alexandria and Troy to
the modern cities of Europe.

We have to stop pretending that we can keep doing the same thing and get
different results -- New Orleans is not located in a sustainable place,
and unless we are willing to keep pumping public and private capital
into rebuilding it over and over, we need to move it or raise it up from
the inevitable floods to come.

Tim O'Connell

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu (bounce-1467273-5282651@list.cornell.edu)] On Behalf Of Edward
Dodson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:45 AM
To: 'Community Development Banking LS (Community Development
BankingListserv)'
Cc: 'Rafael'
Subject: 33rd Annual Conference on Serving the Underserved - June 6-9 -
New Orleans, LA


Rafael Morales wrote:

4. Neighborhood Revitalization - Learn about some of the most inspiring
community development projects in America ..."

Ed Dodson here:
The one, perhaps most important, question regarding New Orleans -- and
all populated areas located "in harm's way" -- is the wisdom of repeated
rebuilding in the face of repeated destruction.

Certainly, we as members of the larger society ought to have compassion
for those victimized by such disasters. At the same time, there is a
serious need for rational decision-making in how public funds are
utilized in the process of providing humane assistance.

The scientific community studying the environmental and climate issues
is not being heard in the political arena, it seems to me. What happened
to New Orleans ought to be understood as a clear warning of the future.
Absent a Netherlands-style flood-containment infrastructure investment,
the work now being done in New Orleans is not likely to survive the next
severe hurricane that makes its way into the region.

So, the question occurs to me, is this a conference that will address
the very real ongoing risks associated with the current rebuilding
effort, or will reality be brushed aside in pursuit of short-term
objectives of the private and public redevelopment interests?












This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Dodson Mae]

Shannon Cian and Sarah Taylor wrote:

Mr. Dodson ... why has the question of rebuilding only begun to come up with
regard to the rebuilding of the City of New Orleans? Have you ever been to
New Orleans? Have you spoken with any locals, or more importantly, any
locals still displaced by the storm?

Ed Dodson here:
I realize the sensitivities involved in these decisions. Our footprint on
the entire earth is becoming heavier and heavier. We are everywhere
constructing huge population centers and second home communities in places
where nature is increasingly asking us to pay a price that stresses our
ability to provide basic public goods and services. Yes, I have visited New
Orleans several times but have only viewed the devastation on television and
read about it in the press. My words are not meant to single out New
Orleans, except to suggest that from a public policy perspective, the most
appropriate decision for the region might be very different than
strengthening levees and replacing destroyed buildings in the very same high
risk locations.

***

Shannon and Sarah:
Why is Florida rebuilt every year, even though we know it will undoubtedly
be slammed by the next spate of hurricanes entering the Gulf from the
Atlantic? Why are large American cities built along active fault lines,
alongside rivers, or in tornado zones? No matter where you live, no place
is immune to natural disaster. Unfortunately, there are no "safe zones".
If we never used public funds to rebuild disaster-affected areas, where
would we be living today? We humanely disburse disaster relief funds all
over the globe--why not for a disaster on our own shores?

Ed here:
You ask many very important and penetrating questions. Perhaps we are now
beyond the point of no return. Our population has nearly doubled since the
1930s; small towns have grown into sprawling cities; small cities have grown
into sprawling metropolitan areas. Areas previously left in their natural
state -- wetlands, coral reefs, river deltas, barrier islands -- have been
destroyed by this development. And, in the process population centers have
incrementally been exposed to greater damage from periodic natural
disasters.

***

Shannon and Sarah:
We realize you are trying to make a point about investing soundly in
infrastructure, but surely you must realize that the purpose of community
development is to provide people with tools to bring about long-range
economic empowerment. If you have ever attended a NFCDCU conference, you
would surely understand the long-term impact of the Federation's investment
in its members, and vice-versa. The Federation has nothing to gain from
short-term private and public redevelopment interests, and its objectives
are far more strategic than your question implies.

Ed here:
I raise these issues as someone who has been committed to the integration of
community and economic development objectives with wise stewardship of the
earth. For a very long time we have engaged in development accepting the
idea we can engineer the control over nature. Nature continues to
demonstrate where the real power rests.

***

Shannon and Sarah:
We hope you will attend the conference--you would most assuredly have many
opportunities to engage in real and meaningful dialogue about the need for
community re-investment all across the country.

Ed here:
Although I cannot attend this conference, I assure you I do realize the need
is very real. As you certainly would agree, in New Orleans and almost
everywhere else around the globe, the people most as risk are those who
because of economic circumstances are forced in live where the risks are
greatest.





This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Dawn Rivers]

Most of the time, I simply lurk on this list but this entire discussion has inspired me to make a few observations, if I may.

First and foremost, I have not yet read a single message in which anybody suggested that we should simply "abandon" New Orleans or just forget about the people who have been so terribly devastated by the natural disaster that visited them there.

What I have heard people suggest is this: given what is known about the geography and the geology and the man-made environmental changes in the area, wouldn't it make more sense to put some real infrastructure investments into re-building it so that we won't have to rebuild it anymore - no matter what hits it?

Why is it such an awful thing to ask, as Ed Dodson did in the message that sparked this debate, what can be done within the context of the rebuilding effort to ensure that the place will be protected when this kind of thing happens again?

Why wouldn't it make sense think about how we collectively make decisions and to consider how we can make the better decisions? What's wrong with setting a community development goal to secure and allocate the necessary funds so that, the next time we rebuild a place - any place - that is repeatedly ravaged by natural disaster, it will be the last time we re-build it?

I don't see any lack of sympathy for what the people of the Gulf Cost have suffered. On the contrary, the suggestion seemed to me to be profoundly humane: Let's see what we can do so that people don't have to go through this anymore.

I don't get what's so awful about that suggestion.

Cheers!

--
Dawn Rivers Baker
Editor/Publisher

The MicroEnterprise Journal
http://www.microenterprisejournal.com
where the nation's business meets microbusiness

The Microbusiness News Briefs
http://www.microbusinessnewsbriefs.com
the smartest ten minutes in your microbusiness week

The Journal Blog
http://blog.microenterprisejournal.com

P.O. Box 41
Sidney, NY 13838
607-428-0521

This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Dodson Mae]

Casius Pealer wrote:
... the challenges posed by the erosion of the Louisiana coast
affect far more places than just the City of New Orleans proper. Even a
clear decision not to rebuild those parts of New Orleans that require
rebuilding would not resolve future issues or avoid difficult public
policy decisions.

Ed Dodson here:
Recognition that the problems face are serious and with a high probability
are likely to recur, should direct public policy along a path other than
mere rebuilding. Is the best we can do is to repeat the mistakes of the
past?






This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list