SharksFan22 said:I like breasts. A lot. Those displaced flashers are more than welcome to migrate to San Jose during Mardi Gras this year.![]()
wdlove said:A very sad situation. This just goes to show that some thorough research needs to be done prior to rebuilding. Lengthy deliberation is needed.
wordmunger said:Now, see? That I could live with. But I don't think that's what Clay is saying.
LethalWolfe said:Actually, Clay said that in post #12.
Just making the levees better is only a short term fix and it's that kind of thinking that got NO in the mess it's in today. As we all know the Gulf of Mexico is actually moving closer to NO. Projecting 50 or 60 years into the future w/a worst case scenario what modern marvels need to be built today to protect NO in 2050? How much money will it cost to keep NO from becoming a below sea-level peninsula jutting out into the Gulf? And there is nothing mankind can build that Mother Nature can't destroy, so at what point do you cut your loses?
Lethal
Lacero said:They should nuke a mountain and truck the debris to fill in New Orleans. I guess it's pretty easy to fill up 20 feet of dirt in a 90,000 square mile area.
encephalon said:Um, explain to me how moving an entire CITY is less expensive than building an effective levee system.
Blue Velvet said:you're talking about their home.
Sweetfeld28 said:Why not just flood the city, and start all over. I don't understand why people don't like learning for their mistakes. Or, at least the the French's mistake for building it below sea level in the first place.
New Orleans was founded in 1718 by the French as La Nouvelle-Orléans, under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville. The site was selected because it was a rare bit of natural high ground along the flood-prone banks of the lower Mississippi
In August 2005, almost the entire city of New Orleans was flooded due to a levee breach caused by Hurricane Katrina. The French Quarter was one of few areas to remain substantially dry, since it was built on dry land that predated New Orleans' levee systems and sits 5 feet (1.5 metres) above sea level.
thedude110 said:... I for one would not cry foul at a one time, one month "New Orleans" tax (structured to take more from the rich, of course) so long as that money were properly spent toward rebuilding.
Sweetfeld28 said:Well, lets see. In-order to fix the levee system they would have to reinforce an older, weaker system [which was designed 50 yrs. ago to only with stand a category 3 hurricane], or build a completely new system which would take 15 years to complete.
encephalon said:... I'm sure as hell glad nobody with that solution is in charge.
wrc fan said:The French didn't build it below sea level. The selected the site because it was above sea level (see quotes below taken from Wikipedia). The problem is that people later on moved to areas below sea level, but this was long after the French no longer controlled the area.
encephalon said:In order to relocate the city we would need to build new transportation and utilities systems, new schools (K-12 and colleges), hospitals, government buildings, industries, businesses, and residential housing for over a million people. Don't tell me that is less expensive than building effective levees. Don't tell me that would be a faster solution. And definitely don't tell the citizens of New Orleans that you've given up on them and their city.
Relocation is a pipe-dream, and I'm sure as hell glad nobody with that solution is in charge.
clayj said:And it will happen again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
Time to pull the plug on New Orleans.
Blue Velvet said:What makes me really uncomfortable about all this talk of not rebuilding the city is the lack of any consideration or seemingly any compassion for the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined by this and for them, you're talking about their home.
Anyway, there was a contentious yet interesting piece in The Guardian this morning by Naomi Klein.
This is turning into the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans.
Phatpat said:Could they use NEW technology to make the city safer where it is now?
That land is valuable, it shouldn't be abandoned unless absolutely necessary. I think this is one of the next great engineering challenges.