why they hell are they gonna live someplace that is below sea level anyway? didn't they ever think about that?
2006-07-07 09:12:25 · 12 answers · asked by chickie27 2 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
well they were just being stupid thats why i live in the mountains
2006-07-07 09:16:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is a question we all ask everytime a natural disaster hits a community so hard. Whether it is a tornado, huricane or in my case earthquakes (I live in southern California) Many people do leave after these happenings but others do not have the ability or desire. Some have deep rooted ties to the region maybe family or the fact that they were born and raised there. Some are to poor to relocate or to scared to leave whats familiar to them. It is hard for any of us to say why we stay knowing the next disaster could happen at any time. I personally love my family, home and 78 degree average yearly temp so I will deal with a shaker now and then :-)
2006-07-07 09:27:49 · answer #2 · answered by BS1015 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only a small portion of the Katrina victims live "below sea level",and they were given reasonable assurance that measures had been taken to stabilize the environment. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level, but they have faith that the engineering that makes that possible will stand. In fact everyday people live in buildings and regions where they are placing faith in man engineered objects to secure their safety. I don't know where you live but it is safe to say there is some type of natural disaster common to your region that could wipe out your home. You would probably want people to respond with compassion and aid rather then criticizing you for living there. Lastly, it is home and people are normally reluctant to leave the familiar and loved surroundings of home.
2006-07-07 09:22:11 · answer #3 · answered by hutmikttmuk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They went to live there because they could get work. Same reason most people live most places. Our taxes were supposed to have made it safe - but the engineers employed by our federal government botched the job.
Losing stuff was not the real problem. The real problem was the loss of lives and the totally shambolic way our government reacted.
However, it has to make you wonder when a developer puts up a bunch of houses in a creek bottom, and the expects the local government to pay when those houses flood.
2006-07-07 09:25:21 · answer #4 · answered by Delora Gloria 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are going to live someplace below sea level possibly because family is there, possibly because their job is there: who are you to judge them? But then again, people who wait for the government to take care of them and don't do anything to improve their situation in a disaster aren't really doing anything useful with the situation that they have been given. I feel sorry for those who lost their lives; I feel more sorry but happy for those who lost their lives trying to help others. I feel pretty indignant about those who lost their lives not doing anything, and very angry about those who didn't lose their lives but aren't doing anything to improve the situation they are in or trying to help themselves survive. Further, with their possesions: who really cares that much about posessions if they are more valuable to a person than their family, loved ones, and friends? That is more important than a house, a car, or any amount of money.
2006-07-07 10:48:15 · answer #5 · answered by musikgeek 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can ask the same question ( why do people live there ) in places where there are earthquakes ( Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego ) or tornadoes ( Kansas, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma ). Where you live is not exempt from natural disasters by the way.
2006-07-07 09:22:29 · answer #6 · answered by commonsense 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point, it is just like the people who live in "Tornado Alley" or the hills in California and still make homes of wood . You must take some responsibility.
2006-07-07 09:32:42 · answer #7 · answered by Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im sure when they decided to live there they were doing what they thought was the right thing and it probally was affordable who wants to really live in a disaster area
2006-07-07 09:48:17 · answer #8 · answered by helphelp 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a lot of cases, no, they never thought of it. Or if they did, they expected the government to handle it.
2006-07-07 09:16:46 · answer #9 · answered by joshcating 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it is sopposed to be nice there.
& plus some people may have lost all their money so they can't live some-where else now.
2006-07-07 09:19:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋