English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"it would cost too much money", "its a city of sinners or God wanted it destroyed" and "its below sea level" are not the answers I'm looking for

2006-12-05 11:31:33 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

15 answers

Yes, by all means yes.

I live on the Westbank (across the river from N.O) I don't think we're asking for too much (though if the Iraq war could end, we'd appreciate the billions going to that). We're still struggling, esp. with crooked and/or inept politicians (hey,at least our guys are up front about it. Look at Edwin Edwards), but let us look at some facts.

N.O. is a port, a major one. We are the guardians of the Mississippi river and a lot of good go through us every day.

City of sinners? Can't claim that. Las Vegas has a lock on being "Sin City". Trust me, people in Des Moines are doing the same things up there as down here.

God wants us destroyed? For the sake of the few, I will spare the city(a Biblical paraphrasing about good souls amongst the wicked).

Below sea level? Parts, actually. So, would that mean most of the West Coast should not be rebuilt if there's a massive earthquake or mudslides?

Sorry, but this is a bit of a touchy subject for me.

2006-12-05 13:08:29 · answer #1 · answered by robfucious 2 · 0 0

There are many reasons... one rational one.. the Port of New Orleans, which is part of the port of south Louisiana.

(The Port of South Louisiana is the largest volume shipping port in the Western Hemisphere and 4th largest in the world. It is the largest bulk cargo port in the world.

It extends 54 miles along the Mississippi River between New Orleans, Louisiana and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, centering approximately at LaPlace, Louisiana. This port is critical for grain shipments from the Midwest, handling some 60% of all raw grain exports. ... from Wikipedia)

All parts of the Metro area (except for the Lower Ninth Ward, which is only about 1.25 miles from east to west and 2 miles from north to south) have been at least partially rebuilt. Some neighborhoods (patches throughout the city) might only have about 10% living there, but in these neighorhoods people have rebuilt houses and are moving on with their lives. Some neighbor hoods are completely fine.

The Port of SL is the BIGGEST port in the WESTERN HEMISPHERE (for those not so good in geography, that includes America)! Many people in living the NO metro area help keep it running.

Politicians know this, big businesses know this, the media chooses to ignore this (and other facts) for whatever reason. New Orleans will rebuild, but what's uncertain is what private properties will be seized buy the government (by crooked politicians) to be given to which corporations (or friends of the politicians).

2006-12-06 04:03:17 · answer #2 · answered by Amy M 2 · 0 0

I think it should because many people were displaced during Hurricane Katrina. "It would cost too much money", "It's a city of sinners or God wanted it destroyed", are opinions. It's been a city of the U.S.A for over 100 years, and there is no reason for it not to be rebuilt.

2006-12-05 11:46:28 · answer #3 · answered by Ay-me 2 · 0 0

The areas of New Orleans devastated by Katrina and flooding resulting from the collapse of levys will be rebuilt whether you or I think it should or should not be.

Citizens of New Orleans are proud of their history, and many trace their ancestry to before the United States became the United States.

Rebuilding New Orleans is akin to the Cherokee Nation's concept of the Phoenix (a mythical bird) arising from defeat and despair, to rebuild their nation after their removal from Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee on the infamous Trail of Tears.

The Cherokee people survived, established new communities, schools, and maintained their tribal government, facing adversity on every front.

The City of New Orleans will survive, rebuild, and, like the Phoenix, rise from the ashes.

2006-12-05 18:12:27 · answer #4 · answered by Baby Poots 6 · 0 0

New Orleans is a fish bowl, but guess what?, they are in the process of rebuild, as a matter of fact it's almost rebuilt, New Orleans is NOT a city of sinners, it's a city of people, nice people, have you ever been there?. I did, believe me is great..☺

2006-12-05 16:43:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes and no. I believe it should be rebuilt but they should relocate the lower (below sea level) portions of the city to higher ground. With global warming, it is fact that we are losing coastal area's and hurricanes are getting stronger. Yes, we can build levies at tremendous expense, but this is putting a great many lives at stake when they will fail in the future. Even relocating some of the city to higher ground will still require building levies. We all accept risk in where we live (tornado alley, earthquake zones, etc.) but it does not make sense to live in the bottom of a bowl that when it floods you do not have a chance to survive.

2006-12-05 11:46:49 · answer #6 · answered by Jeffrey 7 · 0 0

I think it should and can be rebuilt with some careful input from some major architects.

We shouldn't let cities die especially a city with as much American culture as New Orleans.

2006-12-05 12:56:58 · answer #7 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 0 0

I would like to see it rebuilt so that all of the displaced people would go home. It has made our crime rate increase by quite a bit. They also are receiving free housing that people in my city were on a waiting list for. That is not fair because several had to reapply to get back on the housing list.

2006-12-05 14:15:03 · answer #8 · answered by Chillin-it 7 · 0 0

Yes. But rebuilt correctly without cutting corners to save money. Insurance companies should be responsible for the private sect while the government should try & help rebuilt the business sect since it IS A MAJOR U.S. TOURIST ATTRACTION. That money goes to the local govt so YES, but by the appropriate people. Not the taxpayers...............

2006-12-06 03:29:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, I suppose it depends...if the right type of architecture that was to be installed in the FIRST PLACE would be installed now to ensure that it is to not have such a disaster again, then sure, why not rebuild? Look at it this way - 40% of Holland would be under water if it weren't for those old dutch windmills and other stable technology...if Americans weren't so incredibly inept, they would look to Europe to treat some of our own woundes.

2006-12-05 11:49:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers