That was my thought for a long time, but...New Orleans is the ninth-busiest area port in the nation. In FY 2004, nearly 134,000 ocean-going containers—huge, apartment-sized boxes—and more than 680,000 air and sea passengers and crew passed through the six ports.
New Orleans is also a very valuable part of the United States history and culture--the cajun food; the Mardi Gras festivals...
Modern engineering and 'leasons learned' should manifest a wall that will stand.
Many of its residence LOVE their HOME in New Orleans---some just need to learn to evacuate!!!
2007-01-08 13:56:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jeff W 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
New Orleans is both a musical and cultural mecca that happened by accident. There is no other city in the United States that values these diversities like New Orleans does. The residents of this city is it's soul. Without the people it is lifeless and dead. It is not the only city in the world that needs to be protected from being below sea level, yet the other cities manage to do it and do it right. Since it is one of the busiest sea ports in the United States, it should have been protected properly in the first place. The levies should have never been allowed to deteriorate to the level that they were.
2007-01-08 15:04:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by DONNA W 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Your statements make perfect sense. The location where New Orleans is situated is certainly not the most appropriate from a standpoint of safety and avoiding natural disasters, and rebuilding it is a waste of time and funds that could be better used to assist those that were displaced from Katrina.
So what us keeping the government from doing something that seems prima facie to be common sense. Simple, the government’s motivations aren’t about engendering what is best for people. It is about winning political brownie points. To rebuild a city, though unwise, has a symbolic significance, especially to a vocal minority who historically has felt marginalized. Sometimes the appearance of change captivates the hearts and mind more than real positive reform.
2007-01-11 05:44:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lawrence Louis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree. We should also move Malibu. Does no one else realize that it keeps catching fire.
San Francisco is also a problem. It's on a fault line. We should get together all of the taxpayers' money and move it somewhere safer.
And don't get me started on Denver. Do those people not notice all the snow?!?
And what's gonna kill everyone in Hawaii first, a volcanic eruption or a tsunami?
I could go on and on, but let me end with this. Know that when you get up in the morning and look in the mirror, yours is the face of ignorance. And when you voice that ignorance with words of misinformation and prejudice, it becomes the face of stupidity.
2007-01-10 02:28:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by RedneckBarn 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Think about it.....it was doomed from the begenning, so be it! Naturally, if you look at the bigger...picture, this city was almost as bad as Vegas, a way of drug, sex, prostitution, girls/guys/and others going wild... mostly known and visited by those who added to the NO SOUL zone, this place was widely known for voodoo, witchcraft...and black magic which are all pretty much pure evil... GODS wrath is exactly that... the time came and HE made the decesion of what he wanted done....not all the money in the world could rebuild what he brings down, a good point is...he wanted all and everyone gone including the remains of the deadf ones thats why so many saw the bodies being lifted from graves... think about it.....
2007-01-08 13:53:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Because there is history there about 200 plus years. People would not stand for the government to do such a thing even if it saved money.
2007-01-08 13:41:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Let them rebuild where they want, It gets atleast afew idiots off the planet each time it floods an people can't get out its gods way of helping keep the population down if we didn't rebuild in areas such as this CA wouldn't have people living in it due to earthquakes CO wouldn't due to avalanches and KS,TN, WY wouldn't due to tornados, FL, AL, MS and parts of TX wouldn't due to hurricanes with roughly 8.5 states in geographically dangerous areas and over 300 million people in the country where do you plan to put everyone?
2007-01-08 13:55:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by topgunpilot22 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes that seems like a good idea because over the years it will just keep happening!! It was a mad place to build a city
2007-01-08 13:42:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by ausblue 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
it is an unavoidable place to have a city, as it is positioned where the Mississippi meets the Gulf. There are resources down there that need to be harnessed. (fish, oil, etc.)
2007-01-08 13:45:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
i agree with you on this. i mean you could still build it close to the area but just not in a giant fish bowl. It has to be built somewhere because it is a great american city but why ask for another catastrophe that may be avoided if built on higher land.
2007-01-08 13:40:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋