Rebuild New Orleans - Yes or No?
- Thread starter Rebar
- Start date
MeekAndMild
New member
Yes and no.
Sure, any citizen who wants to build on his own nickle or with pure privately underwritten insurance, should be allowed to build anywhere he wants. He can build a $20,000,000 high rise building for all I care and people can pay $500,000 a pop for the condos if they can afford to throw their money away.
But no government housing for people on welfare, no publicly funded buildings of any sort and no government storm insurance!
Sure, any citizen who wants to build on his own nickle or with pure privately underwritten insurance, should be allowed to build anywhere he wants. He can build a $20,000,000 high rise building for all I care and people can pay $500,000 a pop for the condos if they can afford to throw their money away.
But no government housing for people on welfare, no publicly funded buildings of any sort and no government storm insurance!
Agreed. Tax revenue is not generated by the land; it's generated by the people.
I'm with Meek on this one. It reminds me of these people on the barrier islands who want the gov't. to fix the beach so it won't wash away, and so the island won't recede.The barrier islands have been receding for thousands of years. And the delta region has been in transition for thousands of years also.
If people want to live there, fine. But why should I have to pay for it?
I'm with Meek on this one. It reminds me of these people on the barrier islands who want the gov't. to fix the beach so it won't wash away, and so the island won't recede.The barrier islands have been receding for thousands of years. And the delta region has been in transition for thousands of years also.
If people want to live there, fine. But why should I have to pay for it?
IZinterrogator
New member
They produce drunken Mardi Gras revelers. I think that can be duplicated elsewhere.
I am not aware of any other major port cities located below sea level that are subject to catastrophic flooding if a levee fails. I may be wrong on that, but I am positive you don't need to be below sea level to have a port.
Do you want an emotional answer or an economic answer?
If the destruction is severe enough, it might be more economic to rebuild elsewhere or raze everything and start from scratch. In particular, trying to fix a patchwork of dilapidated infrastructure might be much more costly than new construction.
I made no mention of their relationship to sea level only of their being Port cities
The unprotected and above sea level Port of Miami is vulnerable to hurricanes
As is Port Everglades, Port Canaveral, JaxPort.
And what about Hawaii and the Keys.
Getting away from hurricanes what about the earthquake, volcanoes and avalanche prone areas .
Do we just systematically write off any city that suffers devastation the first time with out even trying to revitalize and rebuild.
Do we diminish the land mass of America because we are to greedy and cowardly to face some opposition.
The financial vitality of New Orleans is about to make itself known in the next few months as the impact to the oil, aerospace and health care industries is felt
Why is it always assumed that nobody but the poster has insurance. And nobody asked you, personally, for your help in rebuilding
Why is it always assumed that the insurance companies will remain viable throughout
Where have I asked for an emotional anything?Why is it always assumed that only the poster is thinking rationally just because I disagree with your economic assessment.
Why would it be more economical to developed undeveloped land than it would be to redesign a dike system when the plans are already worked up and bulldoze the rubble into a new city where applicable
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Do we diminish the land mass of America because we are to greedy and cowardly to face some opposition."
???
How would rebuilding New Orleans someplace a little more logical diminish the landmass of the United States?
???
How would rebuilding New Orleans someplace a little more logical diminish the landmass of the United States?
The vast majority of the city needs rebuilt. buildings are not going to be safe after being submerged for months, which it looks like it will be before the town is dry. There are areas in which nothing is going to be left.
All that needs rebuilt. My vote goes to somewhere not below sea level, and somewhere not lower than a huge lake held in by some levees.
All that needs rebuilt. My vote goes to somewhere not below sea level, and somewhere not lower than a huge lake held in by some levees.
And there's the whole sentiment thing again
Where have I gotten sentimental about a city who's residents resemble a third world band of Neanderthals more than a civilized American community..
The fact is that NO is an economically viable city who contributes as much or more as any other city in America.
And now because some are emotionally attached to the idea of their tax dollars being spent on rebuilding a city that they do not live in they are assigning emotion to other's arguments.
Forgetting the fact that NO is just the more popular area to be wiped out
There are many many more.
Many of them have already been destroyed and rebuilt in the past
Maybe those areas to should now be written off on the two or more strike rule.
It's going to cost more to rebuild all of those areas than it will to rebuild NO so why bother
At the same time seemingly forgetting that those same tax dollars were contributed to by the people and city that we now will abandon
Where have I gotten sentimental about a city who's residents resemble a third world band of Neanderthals more than a civilized American community..
The fact is that NO is an economically viable city who contributes as much or more as any other city in America.
And now because some are emotionally attached to the idea of their tax dollars being spent on rebuilding a city that they do not live in they are assigning emotion to other's arguments.
Forgetting the fact that NO is just the more popular area to be wiped out
There are many many more.
Many of them have already been destroyed and rebuilt in the past
Maybe those areas to should now be written off on the two or more strike rule.
It's going to cost more to rebuild all of those areas than it will to rebuild NO so why bother
At the same time seemingly forgetting that those same tax dollars were contributed to by the people and city that we now will abandon