I was very saddened to read of you negative experience from your single visit to New Orleans. I concur with your description of alcohol and loud music, as reflected in my story, but beg to differ since the French Quarter (sic!) encompasses more than Bourbon Street, and New Orleans is much more than the French Quarter, its larger vicinity not withstanding.

As for your conclusion, it seems that you should formulate a letter to the people of NOLA (and any other qualified peoples), saying something like:

Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

Based on our aesthetics criteria, our assessments have deemed you to be bellow par, hence unsuited for public and civic participation. Therefore, we are to notify you that under the 2006 CURE Act (Criteria for Ugliness and Revolting Exhibition), you are to remove yourself from appearing in public within 48 hours. If you are unable to perform the required self-immolation due to ugliness incapacitation, please contact our office immediately to acquire expert assistance.

Well Ron, as someone who loves dark humor, I like your replay.

But to me more serious, let us look at the issue this way:

New Orleans city start as a port city- and it is and probably will remain an economically important port. For that (and other people pointed that already) you do not need such a huge city.

The city is far below sea level. With the increase number of Hurricanes and the rise in sea level who accompanied the global worming, the chances of another Katrina are quite good.

Most of the poor resident (and most of the resident were poor...) who had to leave the city for the first time in their life, do not want to go back- it was their once in a life time chance to improve their life.

The cost of renovating the city is enormous.

So- why to bother?

Again, being serious, no one would think about destroying New Orleans 2 years ago, but it happened by “force major”

The Q is- should we stick to the old faulty-developed city, or take this chance and admit, with all the sorrow, that it was a mistake.

Well now, you have changed your argument. No longer do you refer to the ugliness of the inhabitants and their environ, and its affect on their deservedness for preserving what is theirs. Of that I was very serious, no humor dark or otherwise was intended.