The political crisis over the viaduct, coming just weeks after a crippling snowfall, is cause to wonder how the Seattle area would handle a true emergency. Do we have what it would take to rebuild the city better?

The mayor, the city council, the county executive, legislators and the governor have all weighed in on the viaduct. The city is holding a non-binding election on the issues at a cost of $1 million. Yet there’s still no sign of a decision (which is why a surface/transit compromise seems likely).

The fact that we can’t find a plan to fix a major transportation corridor that may collapse in the next earthquake shows what we’re up against.

Consider that even resourceful residents are fleeing New Orleans, according to a New York Times article Friday: “Their reasons include high crime, high rents, soaring insurance premiums and what many call a lack of leadership, competence, money and progress.” Comparing Seattle and New Orleans may seem a stretch, but considering the mess we’ve made here, can we assume things would be any better if we had a disaster?

In New Orleans, the dedication of residents to make the city better has been a key theme. The article quotes novelist Poppy Z. Brite on the peoples’ devotion to the city at all costs: “If a place takes you in and you take it into yourself, you don’t desert it just because it can kill you. There are some things more valuable than life.” At a time when so many people in the Seattle area are clamoring for the cheapest transportation fixes and seem unwilling to think more creatively, I wonder if the same claim can be made here.