Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give about a million people a one-way, $100 ticket and that's that? They take nothing with them they can't carry and when they get someplace else...well, that's not your problem is it?
You're not even trying to make sense.
Question: Should we abandon Galveston, TX too? After all, it has to have sea wall to keep the ocean out.
Yep, that about sums it up, right.
If your clothes are gone, if your house is gone, then you've got nothing to carry.
If you rented, you don't have a job because thats gone. So you'll have to find a new job anyway. Maybe tax breaks for those that higher relocated workers. Anyway, find a new house to rent, and if the job is there, you're good to go. Many places donate free clothes or discounted clothing that can be obtained with a jobs income.
And if you owned a home, and had insurance, then you're going to have the money to buy a new house wherever you'd like to go also.
Galveston doesn't have massive levys where water always runs over them. They have emergency levys, but thats it. Emergency levys are fine. New Orleans needs levys just to exist at all.
What if a tornado like Joplin's swept through huge population base like Dallas?
It would probably turn out about the same. Dallas isn't any more dense than Joplin in most places and the path of destruction for F-5 tornadoes are pretty similar. The key determinate would be how long it stayed on the ground.
According to the article, the issue is that the rebuilding is being done with pretty much ONLY federal aid. The state has a fund, but has not tapped it yet and has instead pushed the cost off onto the feds. People in Joplin have been just as reliant on FEMA, including living in FEMA trailers and the like.
I've no idea what this has to do with New Orleans, other than as a veiled attempt to yet again somehow blame people for their own misfortune.
Yes, what happened in Joplin is horrible, but, there is absolutely no comparison between this and the damage caused by the flooding in New Orleans nor is there any comparison to the size of the area and overall number of people who were impacted.
And, clearly, someone hasn't been paying attention to what has transpired in New Orleans since that disaster.
New Orleans has already lost half its population. Most of the citizens in New Orleans are unproductive.
The French Quarter and Business District didn't flood. Much of the city hasn't seen a white person since the storm.
New Orleans will always be a popular tourist definition.
""The city has become older (the median age rose from 34 to 38.8), less diverse (the white non-Hispanic population increased from 25.8% to 30.9%) and a bit wealthier (median income rose from $31,369 to $39,530)," says the Nielsen report. "
"A study released Monday says 8.75 million tourists visited the New Orleans area last year.
The University of New Orleans Hospitality Research Center says that's an increase of about 462,000 from 2010.
The study estimates the visitors spent a record $5.47 billion, up $180 million from 2010."
The problem with New Orleans is that, while it can be rebuilt, it will most certainly be hit again by another hurricane in the future. How far into the future, no one knows, and how severe that damage will be, no one knows.
When someone moves to New Orleans or Joplin or Dallas or anywhere else in this country, there is a likelihood of a natural disaster. Whether it be fires or mudslides or earthquakes in California, to floods along the Mississippi and the coasts, to Tornado's in the Midwest. We know there are risks we are taking, and our property could be destroyed. I live in Oklahoma, and my house could be hit by a tornado tomorrow. This is the perfect month for Tornado's in Oklahoma.
The question is, if my house gets hit by a tornado tomorrow, what should happen? Should I just have to take the loss? Should the government build me a new house?
The truth is, most people have insurance on their property. If you believe the government should give people money and replace lost assets as a result of a natural disaster, then you effectively believe the federal government should basically be an insurance company, with no premiums.
The problem with that logic is that, the cost of premiums is helps to deter people from making bad decisions. People don't build in flood plains for instance, because the cost of insuring a home in a flood plain would be ridiculous, and thats if you can even get insurance at all.
But these poor people in New Orleans, who lost their homes, will get on TV looking for sympathy saying, we either couldn't afford insurance, or there were no insurance companies that would cover our property, and we feel sorry for them.
The question is, if I bought a bunch of cheap land somewhere, which was cheap because it tended to flood constantly. Then I went to buy insurance for my home but it was either too expensive, or wasn't even available. Should I be able to use the federal government to provide me with insurance for my property, which obviously I should never have purchased and developed to begin with?
When we talk about federal aid, it is almost always the case that responsible people are giving money away to irresponsible people. And this subsidization of stupidity creates nothing but more stupidity.
While I feel a certain amount of sympathy for people, whose only assets were their homes, which they lost in the hurricane, or simply can't sell now that the storm is over. The truth is, people lose money and assets every single day. The truth is, the people who put all their money into homes in hurricane-prone areas made a bad decision. Whether or not they were aware of that bad decision or not, doesn't mean it wasn't a bad decision. I can guarantee you that there are tons of people who lost money in the late 90's after the tech bust, or the great recession, or just every single day of the year. Hell, I invested in commodities, and I'm down more money this year than most of the houses in the 9th ward are even worth. Should the government be responsible to rebuild the net worth in my portfolio?
Detroit has basically been abandoned, the city says it is going to tear down a large chunk of the city, and will not be rebuilding it anytime soon. Should Detroit get a bailout, for people whose houses might have been worth 100k at one time, and now they can't hardly give them away? I don't believe so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
