The New Orleans Diaspora : a tinfoil hat theory

[GarySeven]

What is the purpose of dispersing the entire population of New Orleans to so many states - after forcing that population from their homes, whether they want to go or not?

Well, here's one theory, presented here half-seriously, half not:

What IS the City of New Orleans if not its people, who invest their money, time and souls into making the place unique? Without them, New Orleans is simply a piece of real estate. After Katrina, New Orleans is little more than a whole lot of property that must be condemned and razed - but it is property that still has a certain value.

But the people who own it - or who have invested in it - are no longer there. They have been dispersed to the four winds and many, if not most, will have to make new homes where they are. Being scattered as they are, they are not organized - as they might be if they were in one place. They cannot form a "city in exile" to speak with one voice about what will happen to their homes; whether they will be valued properly, whether they can return and under what conditions, etc. Some folks might even suggest that they have DELIBERATELY been dispersed this way so that they might not speak with one voice. Being in different states means they no longer have access to their elected representatives at both the local, state and federal levels. Decisions will be made about their homes and property by those officials - but they, the people most affected by those decisions, will be represented by new people.

Why not move all the evacuees into one or several locations that are geographically close, allowing them a chance to create a "city in exile" where they can communicate with one another, decide their destiny as they used to, etc.? Well, it may have a lot to do with that property that is about to be condemned.

New Orleans is a tourist mecca, but it is - or was - "owned" by the poor people who lived there. Its potential to be an entertainment center, on the order of Las Vegas, has been limited by the fact that so much of the real estate (it is a confined space, like Manhattan)is owned by a black population. Now, the dynamic is suddenly changed. The black population has been moved out, dispersed, disorganized. Their property is subject to condemnation. Now there is a real opportunity for gigantic development firms to argue (thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling) that they can make better use of the property than the original owners. The city is now controlled by the federal government. The federal government is controlled by a Party that really, really, really likes developers.

In short, the forced removal of the city's population and the intentional disruption of their political unity makes possible the real looting of New Orleans - not by impoverished black residents, but by men in suits who donate heavily to the Republican Party.

Anyway, this is just a theory - presented, as I say, half seriously, half-not. What do you think?

[BrklynLiberal]

1. The evil that lurks in the hearts of those men.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4669920&mesg_id=4669920

[Land Shark]

2. this is not really a "theory"; people have been dispersed and land values

have dropped considerably. What else do you really need? Oh, a speculator to somehow purchase or adversely possess the property. This WILL happen, the only question is to what extent.

Did somebody/anybody INTEND this from the beginning?
why bother though speculating on the unknowable when the basic facts above can't be contested. Nobody needs to have an organized plan in order for the massive transfer of property to speculators to take place...

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. kick

:kick:

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Additionally, it was a blue enclave in red state America --

with its inhabitants dispersed, scattered throughout the surrounding red states, that voting block disappears.

[FloridaPat]

5. A big part of Louisiana is destroyed. It's very hard to move 1/2

million people to the same place. They could have brought in tents like they did with Hurricane Andrew. I can image the screaming on that. Just too many people and a lot of places had the space. A least get them out of the weather, into ac buildings with food, clothing, and a chance to rest.

The real estate thing will be interesting. Depends on what the houses are like. A lot were historical. THere is also a toxic dump half-way between the lake and the SuperDome. Depends on what leeches out of that.

[GarySeven]

9. My argument is that the Mayor and council should be with the city

wherever the city has been moved to. These people have been separated from their political leaders; the normal structure of democracy has been disrupted. Now, if this had to be done temporarily because of an emergency, OK - but it is inexcusable to allow this disruption to continue for a prolonged time. The political unity of New Orleans must be preserved or the city itself will cease to exist (except as a piece of prime real estate). The Mayor and Council, if not the state legislature, should be insisting that an effort be made to recreate the infrastructure of the city's political units at a place of refuge to ensure that people with the most interest in the future of New Orleans can act accordingly and legally.

[yourout]

6. I would love to have film of that leavy when it let go or.....

blew up or what ever.

[Skink]

8. Only weathly cotton barrons here...

MOVE along now nothing here...

[Lindsay]

7. The word diaspora has been going through my head

all day.

My heart aches for them and all they've lost.

[leftofthedial]

10. population dispersal--yes

but the poor of New Orleans are not the property owners.

[Swamp Rat]

11. Bingo! n/t

[highplainsdem]

12. A 6/27/05 editorial on developers' plans for New Orleans

from The Louisiana Weekly is interesting.

Found this while Googling the keywords new orleans gentrification -- the page itself was inaccessible but not Google's cached page, at

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:PGm6p6UlYL8J:www.louisianaweekly.com/cgi-bin/weekly/news/articlegate.pl%3F20050627d+new+orleans+gentrification&hl=en

Hope that link will work -- I had to switch off the emoticons to keep a smiley from appearing in the middle of the URL.

Here are a few paragraphs from the last part of the editorial:

Several years ago, Saints team owner Tom Benson expressed interest in tearing down the Iberville housing development in order to acquire land on which to build a state-of-the-art football stadium in the Central Business District.

While there was a strong negative reaction several years ago to those plans from black elected officials, that may change in a couple of years when more white voters return to the Crescent City and gain influence over local elected officials and their political aspirations. Developers are already making plans to tear down the Iberville and replace it with a biomedical complex for Tulane and LSU medical students. In addition to attracting more federal funds to New Orleans for research, thereby stimulating the economy, supporters of the demolition of Iberville see the housing project's residents as a major deterrent to the so-called renaissance on Canal Street.

It seems that the biggest headache an escalating violent crime rate represents to business and political leaders is the threat of discouraging white tourists and affluent families from moving back to the city.

If one looks closely, he can see blacks being herded and driven off valuable pieces of property in New Orleans in order to make way for "progress" like the construction of shopping malls and other cash cows. These are communities that are allowed to run their course, deteriorate and eventually be restored and refurbished by opportunistic developers seeking to satisfy the demands for suburbanites no longer willing to endure long commutes, suburban sprawl and flooding in communities on the Northshore and elsewhere.

[GarySeven]

13. Well, there you go ...

The political opposition to this kind of development has been effectively shattered. One begins to see that this is nothing more than a windfall for those forces whose plans for the city were stymied so long as there was an organized political force in their way. The Mayor and Council should be demanding access to their constituents (if only to legitimize their positions) - unless, of course, they have other agendas congruent with the forces of development. I would argue, however, that if the city population has gone away then the Mayor and Council no longer have any political power, since it theoretically derives from a population now dispersed.