Excuse me for perhaps saying something people might find offensive, but I’m legitimately curious:
If the town won’t be livable again for months/years, a lot of people won’t be coming back, right? And if water damage has ruined most buildings, what “is” New Orleans? The people? The roads/buildings? The community? The location? Well, most of that is now screwed, and won’t be the same exactly later, but you do need a place for all these people, and a lot of people love the city…
Might it be better to just not rebuild New Orleans where it is now? Just keep it flooded, don’t fix the levees, and instead just rebuild the town up north, out of harm’s way.
Name all the roads the same, keeping their same proportions, keep all the same crazy laws, give title/deeds to the same people in the same spots, etc. I mean, they have to do all that anyway, so why not do it in a new spot. Not like they’re going to have to relocate people any more than they are now.
Plus the current location provably blows, and global ocean water levels aren’t falling anytime soon. Maybe New Orleans should see this as an opportunity to relocate the city. Hell, just look at all the trouble Venice is going through lately. They don’t have much time left either.
I propose the name of the rebuilt city be named “Newer Orleans”. Or maybe just “no-linns” so tourists will be able to pronounce it correctly.
This post had no structure. The end.