Instead of spending the billions it would take, how about distributing the money instead to the land owners there?
2006-08-27 08:14:05 · 17 answers · asked by WhiteHat 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Still would be easier to move the ports alittle further north wouldn't you say?
2006-08-27 08:24:47 · update #1
If we start abandoning things that are costly and difficult, where will that lead? Maybe the next place "they" decide to abandon will be my home?
I think the situation in New Orleans is very complex and won't likely be solved by throwing money at it. I'd like to see the government set up some real programs that allow the people there to have more a stake in the rebuilding process. We are much more invested in keeping things up when we have a hand in building them. That's the whole idea behind Habitat. Maybe some organizations like Habitat could offer genuine help.
2006-08-27 08:23:36 · answer #1 · answered by nobadkids 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your right we should not rebuild where there is hurricanes.
That is the entire east coast and the gulf of mexico.
Don't rebuild in California where they have build houses by the ocean on muddily hill sides. Where the Santa Anna winds blow and cause fires. They build on top of St. Andreas Vault earthquake prone eppa center. Or San Francis because there could be an Earthquake. Sacramento is only 17' above sea level.
The San Joaquin Valley would fill up like a bowl of water if there was an earthquake. It is almost sea level kind of like New Orleans. Arizona has no water and depends on huge amounts pumped in to them. Colorado has 10 Blizzards every year.
The entire East coast could get a herricane and destroy the whole place. Then there is Tornado alley, in Oklahoma.
Don't rebuild there either. They have fires to. The Dakotas have floods every year and people still rebuild there, what is wrong with those people. Maybe because it is there home and they love it there. If you want to know what I think. No one should have to live in New York City.. It is way to crowded.
And it has herricanes. So were are we going to live?
2006-08-27 08:26:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that New Orleans is go to come back at a steady pace and the City of New Orleans is going to be bigger and better. The area around the Superdome was devastated after Hurrican Katrina and now that area is coming back to life. Although I have never been to New Orleans, I would be interested in going in the future.
2006-08-27 08:24:29 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that the 'cultural' center of N.O. should remain as should the port facilities. They should build elevated mass transit facilities that goes to higher ground outside the flood plain for residential units.
2006-08-27 08:29:07 · answer #4 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, those are peoples homes that you are talking about. N.O. has been around forever. It is an important part of American history. Why would you want to do something as drastic as making a ghost town out of it.
2006-08-27 08:30:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
New Orleans is about the most important port of entry in the US.
2006-08-27 08:16:19 · answer #6 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let George Bush decide, after all he rules the world lately.
2006-08-27 08:20:38 · answer #7 · answered by frankmilano610 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who actually owns the land, the banks that own the Federal Reserve? We need to put more into it, or risk losing it.
2006-08-27 08:20:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO
Whats wrong with you people calling for abandoning New Orleans???
Must be the same batch of crack
2006-08-27 08:17:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
So the money goes to Dubya's pockets?
2006-08-27 12:16:47 · answer #10 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋