The For, or Against, New Orleans - Case Study Example

The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Part A Economically, New Orleans is highly prosperous and this is evident from the expenses of visitors, when it hit an all-time high in the year 2012 with “$5.3 billion,” and the city has aggressive policies to develop these numbers ("Mission 2010: New Orleans", 2010). In the year 2010, leaders launched a master strategy with the objective of attracting “13.7 million visitors by 2018” (Travel and Tour World, 2013). New Orleans is very significant to the US as a city, both in terms of finance as well as the economy. New Orleans provides the US with a competitive benefit in terms of great trade as well as exports and seafood. In financial terms, New Orleans makes better profits through its port and this is excluding the tourists’ income. Tourism has a financial impact of an excess of $6 billion in the city, “providing 78,000 jobs and critical funding for city services, schools, and infrastructure” (Travel and Tour World, 2013). New Orleans’ largest organization is intending to create a smart development strategy, with an objective of reaching “13.7 million visitors and $11 billion in visitor spending and the creation of 30,000 jobs by 2018, the city’s tricentennial” (Travel and Tour World, 2013). The Cost benefit analysis for rebuilding the New Orleans considers the cost as well as benefits in arithmetical terms and includes the direct costs connected with rebuilding the public services, amenities, dock and educational structures. Cost Benefit Analysis Costs (In Billions) Facility Cost (in billion $) Businesses 10 Hospitals 8 Schools 6 Government agencies 7 Roads/Streets 6 Construction crews 5 Levees to withstand level 5 Hurricanes 32 Coast lines/ Docks 12 landscaping 2 Electricians 4 Cement Workers 4 Houses 2 Road Crews 2 Total Costs 100 The cost shown in the above table represents billion dollars and this includes the various facilities and services aimed at rebuilding the city. The price for building group 5 flood protection systems is estimated to be $32 billion. The advantages of redeveloping New Orleans can be separated majorly in three classes, which are: financial, economic and miscellaneous benefits. The economic benefits include the contribution of the New Orleans city to the overall wealth of the country. The financial benefit mainly relates with the funds produced by the city of New Orleans. The main financial benefits are in terms of the cash created by the docks of New Orleans, as these are a source of direct monetary benefits. Other miscellaneous benefits include the future increase in the population as well as the further progress of the economy of New Orleans, continuation of port business, continuation of seafood business and preservation of coastal wildlife. Decision Tree: A Decision tree is normally used with deductive reasonable thinking. It is used to assist in making accurate decisions and it is also used when there is any difficulty in reaching the end result. “Decisions are based on whether there is a net benefit or cost to the approach, i.e. total benefits less total costs” (Kaplan, 2012). Following are the assumptions for preparing the decision tree: • Chances that an event like Katrina occurs is 0.63. • Chances that an event less than Katrina occurs is 0.37. • Levees relating to New Orleans boost the risk of nearby areas to 0.25. • Citizens of New Orleans will lose their homes as well as livelihoods in case of Katrina like event. • The chances of residents losing their jobs and home is 0.4 in an event less than Katrina. • The mayor of the city faces the threat of losing New Orleans in case of Katrina like event. • New Orleans Federal and state government will share the price of reestablishing housing and other compensations on a 50% basis, in case of an event less than Katrina. • The federal government will be liable for all the expenditure in case of severe damages caused by a Katrina like event. • Damages resulting from price, that is, 100 billion dollars have been estimated through Cost based analysis. • The benefit is supposed to be 50 billion dollars and the benefit price includes only direct benefits for the following years. Following is a model of the decision tree: The decision tree evaluates the two options: redeveloping when a less than Katrina-like event occurs and redeveloping when a Katrina-like event occurs. The purpose of decision tree study is to determine the viability of the redevelopment of New Orleans. “The best cost-benefit analyses take a broad view of costs and benefits, including indirect and longer-term effects, reflecting the interests of all stakeholders who will be affected by the programme. It is thus important to ensure the analysis is as comprehensive as possible” (Kaplan, 2012). The probability of occurrence of Katrina like event is 63 percent in excess of a period of 100 years. These events have the potential to almost wipeout the entire city, thus, causing total loss of Fed investment in redevelopment of the city of New Orleans. The total loss reduced from the savings of $100 billion for the reason that the redevelopment will give financial and economic benefits to the federal government as well as the city. In contrast, the redevelopment of New Orleans in the occasion of less than Katrina-like event yields positive results when the city is equipped with a level 5 flood protection systems. Containing the loss and benefits of the mayor, residents, nearby fed and regions, the savings in redevelopment of New Orleans yields positive returns of $3.2 billion. Decision Pitfalls: Each constituency while determining the chosen method is susceptible to a variety of decision pitfalls. The important pitfall affecting the decision of federal government is the higher costs connected with the redevelopment of the city. The redevelopment of the city stands at a direct cost of $100 billion with an indirect cost of $80 to 90 billion. Residents of the city are vulnerable to the decision of moving out of the city to have a more steady life due to social heuristics. Economically, New Orleans is a developed city and offers its residents increased employment and income. Therefore, residents would be willing to continue living in New Orleans, having guaranteed better facilities and services. Moreover, with the level 5 flood protection measure, city is better equipped to be safer than before in the event of floods and hurricanes. Relevant Expected Utility: The “expected utility” arises from the decision tree which has been arranged based on the cost benefit analysis (Li et al, 2009). It is the sustained financial and economic benefit to the state from the New Orleans competitive benefit in seafood and sea trade. The populace expects a safer life with the completion of level 5 flood protection method. The expected utility for the near areas are negative and they are against the completion of level 5 flood protection method at New Orleans. On the other hand, the re-growth of New Orleans will definitely give financial and economic benefits to the nearby areas in terms of improved access to seafood, better employment opportunities and enhanced trade opportunities. Part B CASE STUDY of FRERET STREET. Executive Summary: The evaluation of implementation of rebuilding plan in New Orleans is particularly appropriate, as it intends to capture the degree of development that has happened since the city officially announced its strategy of rebuilding plan. Executive summary is based on the findings made on the basis of media coverage, interview with shareholder and insightful evaluation of the implementation of the plan and disaster recovery planning in Freret Street. In the early phases of rebuilding New Orleans, a judgment has to be made on the level of protection of the flood the city should execute. Such decisions are generally based on cost-benefit analyses. I conclude by three recommendation to speak to the cross-cutting issues that emerged from the identified challenges, suggesting that city government and communities of the rebuilding should: 1) develop an internal organization to facilitate for appropriate evaluation of needs and accurate delivery of resources: 2) construct networks and partnership across sectors to bolster efforts of execution at the neighborhood in addition to the city government level. The third suggestion, specific to governments, is to build up mechanisms that allow for synchronization across agencies. Nowadays, in spite of continued criticisms, a citywide rebuilding plan exists, besides a plan for every neighborhood and region across New Orleans. As the process of planning has been concluded and is being assessed, the question of how execution of the plans is unfolding and will carry on to progress is very important. This case study specifies the experience of stakeholders in the Freret community, in brief detailing the history of arranging in the community pre-Katrina, and efforts of recovery in the immediate outcome of the storm. It then focuses on main stages for the community, most notably the first time inhabitants had a chance to come together after the storm, the first attempts to plan, as well as the re-formation of the business of the Freret Street and property owners, and one of the first main projects to be executed on the corridor, the Freret Market. Boasting refurbished housing, invigorated businesses and a varied and committed group of inhabitants, there is general consensus that in the few years leading up to Katrina, the Commercial Corridor of the Freret Street was in a good place and lastly recovering from years of disinvestment. It is significant to note the key stakeholders in Freret Street, both inhabitants and property owners, in addition to the main institutions and organizations that were present in Freret Street long before the storm and those which emerged more vigorously in its aftermath. “Neighborhood Housing Services of New Orleans (NHS)” gives homeownership counselling throughout the area (Neighborhood Housing Services, 2010). It is situated on the Commercial Corridor of the Freret and has been running successfully for over 15 years. Although the major activity of NHS is counselling, they have also been dedicated to target revitalization in the neighborhood of the Freret, partnering with associations of the existing neighborhood and other neighborhood institutions offering assets and other facilities to ongoing initiatives in Freret. Neighbors’ United Association (NU) is the formal body that has symbolized Freret and the nearby Milan residents of the neighborhood for over 30 years. When asked to describe the target area of the Freret, though generally speaking, many would support Milan, arguing that any efforts of revitalization and actions taken in the area would finally impact Freret and Milan. NU has gone through a sequence of stages from being very active in the 80s to being merely informational through the early 2000s, and has frequently relied heavily on NHS for facilitation and capability for much of its existence. Nowadays, while all inhabitants of the Freret community are not aggressively involved in the organization, about 30 populace are consistently in attendance at meetings, up from about 15 usual attendee’s pre-Katrina. The organization continues to develop, seeking methods to draw in more inhabitants, and function independently. There is no record of any planning or organizing specific to Freret Street taking place at this moment. Simultaneous to this period, the city was making desperate efforts to work out a recovery plan. Members of the Freret community were not involved in the early efforts at developing a plan in the course of the FEMA and the Mayor’s ‘Bring New Orleans Back Commission’ procedures. Whereas some acknowledge being conscious of these processes, many were merely unclear as to the purpose or were just not invited to participate in the planning that was taking place. This case study has provided a timeline of what occurred in Freret in the outcome of the storm and the nature of the response of the community both to the process of the planning that transpired and the attempts to execute these plans in the first full year following the completion of the process. References Kaplan, J. (2012). Cost Benefit Analysis. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from http://betterevaluation.org/evaluation-options/CostBenefitAnalysis Li, J., Pollard, S., Kendall, G., Soane, E., & Davies, G. (2009). Optimising Risk Reduction: An Expected Utility Approach for Marginal Risk Reduction During Regulatory Decision Making. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~jwl/index_files/RESS.pdf Mission 2010: New Orleans. (2010). Retrieved October 14, 2013, from http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/solutions/considerations/costs.html Neighborhood Housing Services (2010). Neighborhood Housing Services. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from http://www.nhsnola.org/site.php Travel and Tour World (2013). New Orleans CVB Announces Hiring of New Director of Tourism. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from http://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/new-orleans-cvb-announces-hiring-new-director-tourism/ Read More