Blake over at Nashville files as the question I was asking myself this morning: Should it be rebuilt?
I fall on the side of let it go. I am not saying do not help the families affected (they are just going to end up on welfare anyways), because they need help. I am just not sure we should help them rebuild in the same spot their house just got destroyed. There are not many upsides to rebuilding in this case.
Maybe parts of New Orleans could be rebuilt, the part that did not get flooded. Maybe a partial rebuilding could occur? Leave the most dangerous areas alone and use them as a buffer zone against future storms. I am sure some rebuilding will occur, but we could also use this opportunity to restructure the surrounding area to better protect it from future storms.
cube
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
New Orleans value is mostly as a port. We certainly need, and will have to have, a major port at the mouth of the Mississippi.
While a minor degree of relocation could happen, there is no place near the mouth of the Mississippi that is not subject to flooding and Hurricane damage.
Now, shipping in foundation soil to make the rebuilt New Orleans higher than Sea Level isn't a bad idea though. Whether it is cost effect or not I can't say.
If such a project would cost 5 times the cost of rebuilding as it was, and you would need to rebuild once every 25 years or so, it probably wouldn't be worth it.
I envision New Orleans as being a port town and just that. Kinda like a remote place in Alalska where only the workers live.
It seems to me that if New olreans could reduce it pop by 20-30 percent, use that extra land to create a buffer zone, some good might come out of this situation yet.
Post a Comment