Reasently it rained six inches in New Orleans, The storm water managment couldn't deal with this influx. Is it a viable thing to "save " This low lying subsisted town? Would it be cost efective to leval the whole city and let the waters take there natural place or spend the moneys to try and stop mother nature? your thoughts?
2006-12-22 12:02:21 · 10 answers · asked by Mad Dog Johnson 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I had hoped to keep the racial aspect out of this but .. wishful thinking...
2006-12-22 12:35:53 · update #1
I think they should take a lesson from Hilo, Hawaii and build back about a mile. It could still be a wonderful city just safer! ( Two tsunami's hit Hilo before it had enough sense to build back from the shore.)
2006-12-22 12:09:19 · answer #1 · answered by limeyfan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the residents want it saved then they should be rebuilding it. The sad part is they aren't lifting a finger. It's not the governments job to rebuild it. New Orleans was a sh!ithole long before Katrina hit.
I used to travel there occasionally and remember thinking to myself when I saw a ship on the river that was above my head what wonderful engineering but there is no way this can last.....it didn't.
If anybody does rebuild it it still will not change the facts that the place is six feet below sea level and when the next storm hits it will be just a replay.
2006-12-22 20:45:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They should do what the original plan was, and that was actually to build the city on higher ground. (Meaning, actually add dirt under and make a new city).
I think it is stupid to save a city that is going to have to be rescued again in a few years.
I have no problem saving the idea of New Orleans and putting it somewhere else. They can re-create it, they do it all the time.
2006-12-22 20:08:48 · answer #3 · answered by Soon2BMommy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should be saved. There is far too much history there. For everyone asking why, since it will simply go under again...Why save California, it will simply be rattled by an earthquake again, and possibly a tidal wave too.
2006-12-24 03:18:47 · answer #4 · answered by arc_angel_1972 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well i think they should save it. that city has to much history and is considered hoem to too many people for it to be flattened and flooded. we shouldn't be the position to be saving it . it should have been better prepared for that storm we change the past but we can keep it from happening again. and no the answer is not to flood the city. save the city.
2006-12-22 20:26:55 · answer #5 · answered by ~*~AmethystMoonBeams~*~ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why don't people wise up and stop worrying about what the NAACP thinks about.
Do we have an obligation to rebuild it because it was full of Black folks?
I say Nay!
2006-12-22 20:07:38 · answer #6 · answered by MrsOcultyThomas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dont Offend Canada!
2006-12-24 08:14:29 · answer #7 · answered by evilzorlac 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Eventually with global warmings it is going to be full of water.
Why try to save it, move in land.
2006-12-22 20:05:19 · answer #8 · answered by Ruth 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, and it is the goverments fault they didn't bleave that this was gonna and they were the one's who built that city there and are still building it in the same spot
2006-12-24 03:58:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there is much worth saving
2006-12-22 20:15:01 · answer #10 · answered by . 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋