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

2007-01-31 14:28:55 · 24 answers · asked by aristocrat1.0@sbcglobal.net 1 in News & Events Current Events

24 answers

Yep.


We should do like the Italians did and turn in into our version of Venice!

2007-01-31 14:30:32 · answer #1 · answered by Celeste P 7 · 1 0

Yes it'll flood again sometime. The real problem is that _we_ are rebuilding New Orleans (as in the American taxpayers) rather than _they_ are rebuilding it (as in people who know the risk and who are still willing to risk their own money in the investment). For some reason people have got the idea that it's the government's job to rebuild and pick up the pieces in any natural disaster. This has made people willing to take risks and build in areas where insurers wouldn't sell insurance because it's just plain dumb to build there (flood-prone areas). If it wasn't for the US government flood insurance policy, nobody would be able to get insurance in New Orleans or most places close to the coast, which would be a _good thing_. If you can't get insurance it's a good sign that the people whose business it is to assess risk think anything built there will probably be destroyed, probably before it's paid for.

No we shouldn't let people die or starve after a major disaster, but it should be private charities which help them get back on their feet if they didn't have insurance, not the government.

2007-02-04 15:00:24 · answer #2 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 0 0

Why did they rebuild the cities along the Mississippi River when it flooded? Why did we rebuild San Francisco after every earthquake? We have rebuilt EVERY city after EVERY major catastrophe, WHY NOT NEW ORLEANS!! Why rebuild your house after a tornado rips it apart. Won't a tornado rip it up again? So why are we rebuilding New Orleans, Because it is HOME to thousands of people who have lived there all if not most of their lives. That's why!!

2007-01-31 23:15:49 · answer #3 · answered by trentdavis@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0 0

~Good point. Now, lets follow your logic a step further and save some real money down the road. Let's evict everyone from LA and San Francisco before the quake hits, evacuate Anchorage, Portland and Seattle before the tsunami washes them away, clear off the Outer Banks of NC and the other barrier islands along the east coast before the next storm tide undercuts them into the Atlantic and shut down Vegas and Arizona before the Ogala reservoir is drained dry. Oops, better do something with most everybody on the Plains too, 'cause eventually they're all going to Oz in a funnel cloud.

Now, where to put all the folks we just displaced? I've got it. We'll build more high-rises on Manhatten. Nah, won't work. Too many planes.

2007-01-31 23:13:21 · answer #4 · answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7 · 2 1

Well now that they know what happened and why it happened, theyre going to use that information to build stronger levies and pay closer attention to weather warnings. And cmon, do you really think they would leave an entire city in shreds after such a terrible disaster? They HAVE to rebuild it. If it was your city, I'm sure you would want help too.

2007-01-31 22:32:15 · answer #5 · answered by SpectacularVernacular 4 · 0 0

We are rebuilding it for political reasons. It will flood again, it is below sea level. It should at least be moved to an area that is above sea level.

2007-01-31 22:45:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We have rebuilt places all over the world, even if the disaster could happen again. So why not New Orleans?

2007-01-31 22:39:14 · answer #7 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 0 0

The keep rebuilding Florida after hurricanes, and California after fires, mud slides, and earthquakes. Government folks are all dumb.

2007-01-31 23:01:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

well we have to rebuild it thousands of people live there an if they can't live there then where will they live plus if global warming happens everywhere could flood

2007-01-31 22:37:54 · answer #9 · answered by jackfrostyh 1 · 0 0

Yup. Building a city below sea level doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

2007-01-31 22:31:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers