Posted on 09/04/2008 1:28:31 PM PDT by BGHater
Short term, yeah, probably.
Long term?
What is the geological disposition of the area?
Sinking?
Already below sea level right?
Choice will be made by nature eventually.
We have as a country greatly depended on the Mississippi and its tributaries for transport. NO is a very important port. Keeping NO operable is a national security issue for the United States.
It is NOT the duty of the federal taxpayer to pay for the construction of their city."
Yes exactly! This is the same as all those that build those homes down on the beach in NC, SC & Georgia and when just a tropical storm comes and the surf is high enough or even a storm surge, they're washed out into the Atlantic. Owners expect to get storm insurance or Federal help to rebuild in the exact same place. It's nuts, but if you must have you beach house with the Atlantic view, then they should not expect taxpayer's money to pay for it. Or, even other homeowner's insurance to rise because those that build their homes on the beach.
If we as a country are in a mature stage where we can say "No regrets, move that city to higher ground and throw off vain things" ... We can do it. But not til then.
Why even put a time limit on it and, if you do, why not 100 years like they do with the "100 year flood plain" imposed on many insurance policies? I'm not purposely picking on NO. I oppose ANY public funds used to rebuild private property unless it is self-funding, and even then I'm suspect. I don't believe the gov't should even be in the insurance business (the national flood insurance program), or making business loans (SBA), or any other business activity. Other than providing social overhead capital (e.g., a public road system, legal system, etc.) and national defense, I don't see the gov't engaging in any of these types of businesses.
Not as far as I am concerned.
New Orleans is N O T worth it. It’s outrageous that taxpayers bail out this city over and over and eventually it will be destroyed completely anyway. It’s outrageous that we waste so much money that is badly needed elsewhere for so many other causes than saving a doomed city.
Instead of bulldozing them, why not just set a limit as to how much money the federal government will give a city/town over a certain period of time for recovey from disasters.
It is NOT the duty of the federal taxpayer to pay for the construction of their city.
________________________
Same thing as saying no, it’s not worth it. The taxpayers of New Orleans couldn’t even support themselves so I think we can forget them saving their own city.
I say not another dime until NO cleans its own house first.
______________________________
That’ll never happen as they keep electing the same crooks over and over again.
The scary thing is that it’s not a matter of “didn’t bother to insure it”. Many of them DID insure it, but the only insurance available is the federal government’s taxpayer-funded flood insurance system. In a few cases (like the midwest farm belt) there may be a legitimate reason for federal subsidy of flood insurance. Severe flooding is fairly infrequent in that part of the country, and is NEVER accompanied by complete helplessness of the local residents. And the flooding is due to the very flat geography which is simultaneously of critical importance to the agricultural productivity of the area, whose agricultural products are of critical importance to the entire nation. There’s nothing productive going on in New Orleans that couldn’t be done as well or better in a location not prone to catastrophic inundation. Only the adjacent shipping channel and ocean and river ports are legitimate economic activities of national importance, and they’re mostly located above sea level and clearly profitable to the nation to keep open.
I'm afraid you're right. Alas, it happens all the time. Look at Ted Kennedy...talk about getting away with murder and still getting reelected every time. And is there anyone who really believes Vince Foster committed suicide on the eve of testifying against the Clintons? Or that Ron Brown's plane "malfunctioned" just before he was to testify? Politics is a slimy, and dangerous, business.
What?
I don't recall that.....
Educate me.
The Port of New Orleans is absolutely vital to this nation an needs to be protected and, if necessary, rebuilt.
The City of New Orleans is a mistake that nature keeps trying to correct. We need to let it go and build on higher ground (above sea level, at least!).
If I were to wait until low tide, walk out 28 feet BELOW SEA LEVEL and build a 2 million dollar house before the tide came it, people would call me crazy! I also would not be able to get a bank loan for the building project OR home owners insurance on the house. To top it off, when the tide came back in and washed it all away, no one in their right mind would pay me a red cent to pay for the loss or to rebuild again. What I have described are the cold hard FACT concerning New Orleanes. So why in the world are the American tax payers being forced to rebuild it? The whole area should be written off and abandoned. It would be cheaper and more fiscally responsible to build everyone there a free home in a NEW location that is ABOVE sea level that it is to keep pouring money down the toilet.
Sorry for the spelling errors; I am just so steamed over the fiasco that is NO that I failed to properly check it before posting.
N.O. is definitely worth saving. If we don’t keep it, right where it is, the N.O. population will move somewhere else... maybe even into our own neighborhoods.
If for no other reason, we have to keep N.O. on the map. Every time the residents are evacuated, some poor city/town/etc has its crime rate triple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.