Ten minutes to write. Less time to read.

I understand there is a discussion raging about whether to rebuild New Orleans on its current site, which is considerably below sea level, or whether to rebuild at another location, presumably more favorable to hurricanes.

I’m not sure which side I would come down on, which makes me a fence sitter in the best tradition. I can see why it would be significant to rebuild on the old site, given the historical significance of the area. De la Salle claimed the area for France in the late 1600s and it’s been packed with history ever since. I once stood on the very spot where de la Salle stood, at least according to local historical markers; and I must say I felt awed.

At the same time, given that so much of the city is in ruin, I can understand the desire to rebuild on a safer plain, one that will stand the test of another three hundred years. One that creates a greater city which will contribute even more to the country at large.

And what are those contributions to date? In the past – that is, pre Hurricane Katrina – they included Mardi Gras, jazz, the French Quarter, Cafй du Monde, Louis Armstrong, great local cuisine, and an historical perspective that was unique to our country. I can’t stress the history enough. There were the Spanish, the French, the Creoles, the Cajuns – a unique blend of cultures that cannot be found anywhere else in our country.

So before we uproot the heart of the city and relocate it elsewhere, we need to ask ourselves what the value of this history is. Is it worth preserving in the first place? Is it worth being devastated by another hurricane? Is it able to be transferred to a clone of New Orleans on higher ground?

I can’t answer these questions. I’m not sure anybody can. I only hope that they be considered in the final decision regarding the city’s fate.