The initial actions came from the state and from local citizens. These planning efforts involved
dramatic and expensive redevelopment plans that would have entailed re-subdivision of land, increased
open space and a redevelopment and change in ownership in large portions of the Parish. Two primary
bodies initiated post-disaster planning activities in the community. The St. Bernard Parish Citizens
Recovery Committee (CRC) was formed from active pre-Katrina homeowners, and it worked with
Waggoner & Ball Architects and the Tulane Regional Urban Design Center to form a plan starting in the
winter of 2005. The state, through the Louisiana Recovery Authority brought in the new urbanist firm
Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Company, to conduct a charrette with returning residents and create a plan.
Activities for these plans occurred between December of 2005 and April 2006, and included residents and
those who were staying elsewhere but willing to come back to the Parish to participate (Louisiana
Recovery Authority 2006b).
The state plan, led by renowned architect Andres Duany, was unveiled to hundreds of residents.
Planned by outsiders to the community, it incorporated transportation, town squares and large amounts of
open space to serve as mitigation for future events and would require billions of dollars in investment for
redevelopment (Louisiana Recovery Authority 2006b). Created by early returners, the plans include
medical, government and collegiate campuses, extensive transit, golf courses and recreational kayaking
courses into redevelopment plans that would eliminate large areas of residential development and
127
form, and car-based lifestyle that existed in St. Bernard prior to Katrina. Instead, it favored popular
middle-class redevelopment movements that ran counter to the St. Bernard experience.
In addition to being impractical culturally, the funds needed to implement the redevelopment would
likely never be generated by the working-class community struggling to rebuild. Chief Sutton considered
the effort a detriment to long-term recovery in the community, leading some residents to opt to relocate
when it looked as if their homes were being planned as part of a park footprint. He also knew an
unrealistic plan when he saw it.
I called it the Duany wet dream. Because that’s what it was. It was fantasy. How they were going to come in and make it a new model community, and they’re showing all these great drawings. And that’s perfect. We could look like we live in Disney World if someone would give us the money to for that. … . It was beautiful, but it wasn’t realistic. … But of course you realize it was a waste of the state’s money because nothing ever came of it but a bunch of drawings.
The recovery plan that residents created in the wake of the catastrophe did come from involved
residents, and from a group that grew organically from early returning St. Bernardians. It, too, called for
an increase in open space and redevelopment in some areas, though its plans were less expensive or
dramatic. There was a recognition that areas farthest from the river, especially those in Buccaneer Villa
and Carolyn Park in the northern areas of Arabi and Chalmette would need to have a lower density to
prevent a repeat of the damage done by Katrina during future disasters. The CRC members considered
land swaps and working with large landowners in the Parish to develop land for the purpose of swapping
(St. Bernard Parish Citizens’ Recovery Committee 2006). Brian, a member of the CRC, would have been
one of the residents asked to swap, and said at the time, he would have traded for a smaller lot. Full of
hope, the CRC presented plans that, just like the high-cost DPZ plan, never came to be. As Brian
described the experience:
It was the government that was charged with putting it back, and they were not necessarily the smartest that were in charge at the time, and the people in the government were scared to make tough choices. Still, it was amazing to see all these great ideas coming from the committee fall on deaf ears.
128
Brian understood the position the government was in, financially and possibly legally constrained
from discouraging anyone to rebuild. He knew it was also dealing with a catastrophe with just limited
staff. Still, the pace of recovery was not encouraging. He relocated, and despite being an active and
engaged citizen prior to Katrina, and during the early recovery period, today he no longer even visits the
Parish routinely. That trajectory was not uncommon among parish leaders on the CRC. Figure 7.8 shows
the results of an organizational membership analysis, using 2012 White Pages and Facebook to determine
the current locations of members listed in the 2006 recovery plan. While the majority of members live in
St. Bernard Parish today, 40 percent live elsewhere, with some maintaining businesses in St. Bernard.
With nearly half of the post-disaster citizen recovery planning committee members no longer in St.
Bernard, it calls into question the value of planning for recovery when the process is under way. The
population, in flux, may experience additional uncertainty about their housing future when plans show
alternate uses. Frustration with the planning process may frustrate citizen-leaders like Brian, still engaged
in his own household and business decision-making. Two informants mentioned planned green space for
their property as a factor that motivated them to look elsewhere.