If it were up to you, would you rebuild New Orleans?

Question

To me, rebuilding a city lower than sea level – a city that will need to be rebuilt again and again, is just not logical.

Why not build a “New – New Orleans” on higher ground?

Answer 1

If I were this president I would go to new orleans and spend the next 16 months basically building houses, and just veto from where I was building.

That way, at least the taxpayers are paying me for something good

Answer 2

I would never rebuild New Orleans where it previously stood. That's just rebuilding for another disaster. Not a smart use of taxpayer's money.

Answer 3

Not with my own money, but if I could get some sucker like the Federal government to fund the project, I'd build a winter skiing resort in New Orleans.

Ever notice how illogical projects, like rebuilding New Orleans, only seem to be feasible with Federal money?

Answer 4

Individuals build cities. Cities are built because of a financial benefit. No exceptions. If someone thinks there is money to be made in New Orleans, they should move there and set up shop. If people can't find a way to make money there they won't go. Simple as that. Right now, not too many people can think of a reason to move there in order to make money. It's gonna be a way smaller city than it ever was.

Answer 5

Not the same way it was. I agree building the city below sea level makes no sense.

We as Americans seem to think we can tell the Mississippi River what to do and where to go. I think if they rebuilt New Orleans with a mind that the river needs to flood once in a while and left it space to do so, it would be a lot better off. That way the delta could rebuild itself naturally and sheild the city better from another hurricane and storm surge.

Answer 6

What a stupid question. What about the major cities in California that rest on top of fault lines. Just like New Orleans was due for "the big one" so is San Francisco for a huge earthquake. So an earthquake comes and destroys the town and we just abandon it? What about cities in tornado alley? A huge tornado comes and wipes out the entire city. Why rebuild a city that's prone to natural disasters that have no warning or real protection (like Atlanta)? How about New York City, a terrorist's dream target. Let's say another terrorist attack occurs bigger than 9/11 or that we start getting them at a higher frequency. Should people and businesses start leaving the city? The problem is not that New Orleans is under sea level. The problem was the levees which are just another part of the government's failing infrastructure. The city didn't flood until AFTER katrina hit due to the levees breaking. It's just the same as the bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Should THAT be rebuilt? It's an American city and the protection and repair is OWED to the citizens.

Answer 7

hmmmmm...let me see. Should we rebuild New Orleans? What about the Florida Coast Line? should we make it mandatory for people living anywhere along the coastlines to move a certain # of miles inland so that we don't have to worry about federal disaster funds ever being spent on those people just because of where they choose to live? What about San Fransisco and Los Angeles and all of those little places along the fault line...next time an earthquake hits, let's not rebuild them either because they were stupid to build above a known fault line. You can't dictate where people live nor can you control mother nature. If the people of New Orleans want to rebuild,then let them rebuild. But they should expect a hell of an increase in their home owners insurance....as if the insurance companies honored their policies anyway.

Answer 8

I like that idea. You know, Washinton DC was a swamp, I think it was below sea level initially. They filled it with sand, and now do we worry about DC flooding? Not really... if they rebuild New Orleans they cannot leave it in danger of flooding again.

Answer 9

Absolutely not!! Nature is stronger than anything mankind can build, and a city was never meant to be built there in the first place, below sea level and next to huge waterways. Building there again is a waste of money as it's only a matter of time before another level 5 hurricaine comes and takes it all away again, as meteorologists have predicted with the warmer weather and higher ocean temps we now have in that area, the storms are getting stronger.

When Anchorage, Alaska was hit by the huge quake in 1964, all of the land that was build on an alluvial plain where the buildings were destroyed has been turned into a beautiful park (named "Earthquake Park") because the residents realized the futility of rebuilding on the same soil where it would only happen again. Also, when the same earthquake produced a tidal wave that washed out the entire town of Valdez, Alaska, the residents let the ocean keep it and rebuilt the town far higher up on the mountain, where that is not likely to happen again. Why can't the people of Louisiana learn from Alaskans?

Answer 10

I agree. It just makes no sense to rebuild a city under sea level at the ocean's edge.

All of the historical buildings could be moved to higher ground. I don't think a natural disaster means our government should be paying to build homes that are better than what they were in originally. However, I do think that trailers could work until these people find jobs and can afford to build something.

The biggest problem I see is that this is an area forgotten for far too many years. They need a chance in life by providing schools at all levels so these people can get a higher paying job. Those that are home with children should be watching other people's children so they can also make some extra money. Everyone needs to work together.

If people choose to live below sea level, I have no sympathy. It's just a waste of time and money.

You can give a person food and when it's gone they will starve, or you can teach a person to grow food so they have food for a lifetime.