Will it be a sensible thing to relocate all New Orlean residents?

Question

That town can be made a transit town just for business with just hotels and support structures so people only travel there for short periods etc

Answer 1

New Orleans is not optional. History, architecture, culture, and the fact the city is home to many people are usually mentioned when the topic of rebuilding is discussed.  However, those factors (while significant) are NOT why NOLA is important to the rest of the United States.

First, New Orleans is a metro area of almost 1.4 million people – not some small town that could be easily relocated somewhere else.

More than 35% of America's energy is either produced in Southeast Louisiana or imported through here, and the infrastructure is focused on New Orleans. What may be the largest oil field on earth was discovered offshore of Louisiana in 2006, and it will be exploited via New Orleans.

The Port of New Orleans is the largest or second largest port in North America each year (tons of cargo) and one of the top ports in the world each year. The Port of New Orleans is not replaceable.

More than 25% of America's petroleum refining capacity is in the New Orleans area. That percentage will increase due to a new refinery already under construction and the planned expansion of existing refineries.

A large percentage of America's non-petroleum chemical industry is here.

New Orleans is one of only three principal east-west transportation points for the USA, and the resulting convergence of water, rail, pipeline, electricity, and highway links is not replaceable.

A large percentage of America's ship building & repair industry is in New Orleans.

NASA builds essential parts for the space shuttle in New Orleans, and will build components for the next generation of spacecraft here. Other manufacturers (ex. Bell-Textron) have factories in New Orleans.

A large percentage of America's seafood comes from SE Louisiana, and the distribution network is focused on New Orleans.

And so on….

It is theoretically possible to move the industry and the population, but only at horrific cost. The Mississippi river, Gulf of Mexico, and the oil fields cannot be moved. To even attempt to replace New Orleans would cost Trillions of Dollars and the attempt would fail.

In contrast, New Orleans can be protected from future hurricanes with the expenditure of about $15 Billion (that should have been spent before Katrina) spread out over a period of a decade.

Note that New Orleans is NOT "prone" to hurricanes or being flooded. The last one to hit before Katrina was in 1965 and before that was in 1947. Neither of those flooded the city proper like Katrina, which was the strongest storm ever recorded to strike North America.  

There is a widespread myth that New Orleans is "built below sea level”, but that is not true.

Realize that nowhere is without risk. NYC and Miami are at more risk from hurricanes than New Orleans. Los Angeles and San Francisco are at risk from earthquakes and fires. Seattle is threatened by volcanoes and Tsunamis. The Midwest is hit by tornadoes every year. However, I don’t hear anyone claiming New York, Florida, California, Kansas, or Washington (state) be abandoned, or even not rebuilt after the next disaster.

However, people routinely claim New Orleans should be abandoned, or that we somehow don’t deserve help after Katrina.

Why is that?

Answer 2

A wise man builds his house on a hill. A fool builds it in a swamp. Some day the U.S. taxpayers will run out of money saving the fools from themselves.

Answer 3

I think it would be more economical to equip it's citizens with snorkels and diving suits.