The other day, I passed along a report that the Road Home fund was coming up about $3 billion short, due to funds being paid out for both wind and water damage when the program was funded only to cover flood damage.
Now, I’ve come across a wire service story that bothers me somewhat:
Tucked inside a $14.4 billion blueprint for the rebuilding of New Orleans is a proposal for a Hurricane Katrina monument on a grand, “Homeric” scale, like the Arc de Triomphe in Paris.
The idea is to honor Katrina’s victims and the spirit of New Orleans, and create a tourist attraction.
But with many sections of the city still in shambles and only about half the population back 21 months after the hurricane, some question the need for a $3.5 million memorial, even if it is paid for mostly with private money, as proposed.
I agree that a memorial is called for, and $3.5m is just a drop in the bucket in the cost of recovery. However, shouldn’t the emphasis be on the significantly incomplete recovery, rather than prematurely memorializing it?