Or would it be cheaper to pay all of the insurance claims and so forth after the disaster? If the government believes the sea level is going to rise and take those cities, should they worn them in advance?
2006-12-31 14:24:17 · 7 answers · asked by anybody 3 in Social Science ➔ Economics
As a resident of Baton Rouge, I can tell you that I and many, many, many people I know believe it is completely ridiculous to rebuild much of New Orleans.
No one needs to move out. But it should be made perfectly clear that anyone who lives in a disaster area should be responsible for the potential consequences of living there. New Orleans has been flooded by a hurricane 3 TIMES in the last 110 years. This was no surprise to any of us living down here. Maybe to the rest of the nation, but we all knew it would happen again and did not need to be warned.
I am not amused by the complete disregard of taxpayers who have to bail people out because they live below sea level or expect the government to spend taxpayer money building HUGE flood walls. There are over 300 miles of levees in the New Orleans area.
One problem is the National Flood Insurance program. It encourages people to live in flood prone area because the government-subsidized insurance is cheap and someone else pays to rebuild your home WHEN, not if, a flood occurs.
It is never good for the economy when government spends billions after a disaster. Much of it gets wasted or stolen (exactly what is going on in New Orleans right now). If it were just insurance money, that would be one thing. People who live below sea level would have to pay higher premiums to cover the cost of potential disaster. But when Katrina happened, the people just expected the government(taxpayers) to spend billions rebuilding the city.
People should simply prepare for the natural disasters that occur where they live, or live somewhere else.
2006-12-31 15:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by Zak 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not. We, the taxpayers, should pay for large sea walls to hold back the water and spend large amounts of our taxes making sure that people can live below sea level safely, and keep rebuilding their flooded homes every time the tide comes in and washes their homes away.
Making people move away from erupting volcanoes and other predictable natural disasters deprives them of the right to live wherever they want to and to receive large investments of taxpayer money to supplement their right to be rescued from repeated stupidity.
2006-12-31 14:38:20 · answer #2 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
God did no longer enable hurricane Katrina ruin New Orleans. i think that President Bush has at his disposal a climate device with the aid of The Russian Federation that he used to create hurricane Katrina to kill 3 birds with one stone: -effectively disable a large style of African human beings with out blame -clean out New Orleans citizens and disperse them to different cities with a view to rebuild New Orleans in a extra white collar image -Have an excuse to ask for an obscene quantity of money to play conflict with think of roughly it.
2016-11-25 19:20:17 · answer #3 · answered by cronkhite 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The sea level isn't going to rise in a week.
2006-12-31 18:35:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really ; what if they all run into the back of a semi leaving town ? Think of the cost of cleaning up the roads .
2006-12-31 14:41:11 · answer #5 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah, people rebuild not matter how much damage, and human are creative engouh to cheat nature and other elements. if they have to build floatation devices they will figure out how to do it.
2006-12-31 14:58:00 · answer #6 · answered by ram456456 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in the long run, yes. if global warming is happening and what scientists say is true, then those in coastal cities will have to relocate.
2006-12-31 14:30:42 · answer #7 · answered by bldskd9 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋