Possible Fallout From Writing Off any City

Shortly after the major flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina, author Tom Piazza's book that addressed the question of why New Orleans matters in terms of its history, its culture, its people, and its soul. I think he made a very good case; he definitely loves the old city. 

It's getting to be rather predictable of late: when any disaster or civil troubles strikes New Orleans, there are the usual shrill voices from elsewhere that scream that the location of the city and its climate make it highly susceptible to flooding, disease, and other natural shocks the flesh is heir to. Okay, granted that New Orleans has serious location issues (and governance and corruption issues); but it has a lot of positives as well: its history, cultural diversity, cuisine, and so on. But maybe, in addition, New Orleans was and is distinguished as being a place where human frailty and indulgence is not just suffered, but celebrated! Bienville did not found a City on a Hill.* Thank God we weren't inflicted with the Puritan clergy; I would prefer pirates, anyway.

The people (and years ago some editorialists) who argued that it should be shut down and the population moved elsewhere in effect were willing to condemn Orleanians into being strangers in a strange land. Tennessee Williams once observed, 'America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everywhere else is Cleveland.' 

But I'm going to raise some different issues.

First of all, we have to recognize that New Orleans is not alone: other major cities have natural perils to be concerned with: to give a short list, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Memphis, Miami, Houston, Charleston, Tampa Bay, and possibly New York, Washington, and Boston. In 1871 Chicago had a major fire. In 1900, Galveston was totaled by a hurricane. San Francisco had its major earthquake of 1906. A few years ago Tuscaloosa was trashed with a tornado. Conceivably, some sizable Texas cities could be severely damaged with tornadoes.

In short, in the inelegant language of these currently ungentle times, shit happens.

Would the same voices also be prone to write off those other places? If so, what kinds of criteria would be used to exempt some other places from doing likewise to them?

Is a "too big to fail" criterion to be used to exempt places? That could be used as a pass for NYC, Chicago, or L.A. Of course, the larger the city, the more costly it would be to recover it.

How about current importance? Hey, a free pass for Washington and the service industry it plays host to.** 

A criterion for salvation might apply to places inhabited by the wealthy or influential. Well, there's the free pass for New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, and a few other places. After all, limousine liberals are considered an endangered species in modern America.

How about being the subject of a Tony Bennett song? S.F., for sure. And San Francisco has a lot of natural charm and beauty, if you discount Fisherman's Wharf. Seriously, San Francisco is incredibly beautiful! To my knowledge, Tony Bennett did not consider leaving his heart in Bakersfield.

Or a lot of cop shows? Like Miami, Los Angeles, or New York feature prominently there. But would the frequency of police procedurals there be considered an asset or debit? 

But using these possible criteria, there are a lot of places that just don't measure up to any of these possible reasons to exempt them from being written off. You can name a few of these just off the top of your head.

My point is that disasters can happen anywhere. And we shouldn't just write off cities without opening a general precedent for the future. A precedent that can snap back and bite you on the butt, or make you look self-serving in the process! 

*Thank God John Winthrop did not accompany Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville in the settlement of New Orleans.

**Some might wish a calamity on this modern-day Babylon on the Potomac.