I know this question has been asked over and over since Katrina and before... but no one seems to be able to answer it. People make it sounds like blasphemy when anyone suggest the option of relocating the city further inland. I think it only makes sense and it wouldn't be the first time this has happened. All emotional attachments aside, it is ridiculous to insist on doing something that mother nature doesn't seem to agree on. About the only sure this in all of this is that we are going to keep sinking (pardon the pun) tons of money in a sinkhole of a town that has been grossly neglected and the best solution is to start all over. I can see spending billions of dollars on a new city but this fixer upper is on its last leg.
2007-08-26 11:49:43 · 3 answers · asked by Marc 2 in Local Businesses ➔ United States ➔ New Orleans
Good question. The fact is that even if the levees are fixed, most of NO is build on silt ... no very stable. At some point in the future a Category 4-5 hurricane is going to level it ... Katrina hit land as a Category 3.
2007-08-26 12:57:42 · answer #1 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well while we're at it we need to move L.A.,and San Fransisco too because they are on a fault that repeatedly causes earthquakes. Actually those earthquakes happen more often than New Orleans gets hit with a hurricane.
2007-08-26 16:31:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not meaning to sound too technical...Yea...What Barry said. (That guy really has a penchant for typing long answers. They usually make sense, as does this one.)
2007-08-27 14:28:44 · answer #3 · answered by Don 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋