If a city, like New Orleans, ?

Question

is surrounded by water on 3 sides, is below sea level, and is in a hurricane zone, how much money are taxpayers willing to spend to bail out the city before they say enough already and just let the city be abandoned?

Answer 1

It is impossible to stop people from living there. Free choice. I don't believe we should spend millions every year so these folks can go back for the Madi gras festival.The place has historical significance I suppose.

Answer 2

Hooray!  Clap clap for your question.

Many socialist minded people will have you believing that every area of the United States is one big disaster area, and we should just all pool our money into one giant communist fund to bail everybody out.  

That couldn't be further from the truth.  Insurance companies would be the first to tell you that certain areas/states of our country are MUCH more likely to be hit by disasters as studies have shown.

We need less government and taxes in our lives and more freedom.  This repeated bailing out of cities and states in coastal territories is preposterous.  We don't need government in this role.  We need people to start using their common sense.  

There's a reason most people don't live in the desert, there's no water.  There's a reason most people don't live on the North Pole, it's too cold.  But apparently people who live on the southern and southeastern coasts haven't figured out why they shouldn't be living there.  

It's time for the federal govt to get out of the insurance industry and let these people live with their own decisions.   If they make a bad decision, than I am all for family, friends and charitable organizations giving them the help they need.

Edit- Much as I suspected, most of the socialists popped up for this question.  I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to live a life of relative freedom.  Do you want the government in your life for only a small role like national defense and law between citizens?  Or do you want a big government with big taxes involved with every aspect of our lives.  Clearly, the socialists want the latter.  I wasn't raised with an expectation that I would be equal to everybody.  I knew that some people would be smarter and work harder than I did and that some would not.  I knew that some would inherit wealth from their parents hard work and some, like me, would not.  That was o.k. with me, I don't want, or need, the government to equalize wealth.  Socialism is branch of totalitarianism, and I want no part of it.

We are free to choose where we reside in this country.  Life is a risk itself.  You either stand for freedom, or you don't.  Responsible personal freedom doesn't mean equal pay and living conditions for all and happy endings.  It means, freedom to make your own decisions and live with them, so long as they don't intrude on someone else's liberties.

I am not opposed to insurance, I just don't think the government should be the one providing it.  We should leave that to private business.  Between family, friends, charitable organizations and most importantly, private insurance, there are plenty of options to help you with disasters.  Even if the you believe the gov't SHOULD provide this "insurance", than at least those states/areas at greater risk percentage wise, should have to pay a larger share of the tax burden.

Socialism is like forced charity and is therefore corrupt by it's very nature.  Who makes the decisions on where the funds go?  Elected officials?  Voters? So you mean because the majority votes for it, that makes it legit?  That's preposterous.  Democracy is 2 people voting to s***w the 3rd person.  There is nothing free about that.

Once again: this belief that the United States is one big disaster area is a smokescreen thrown up by the socialists.  While it may be true that every state has had a disaster, or could have a disaster, percentages tell us that some states or regions have a MUCH higher percentage of disasters.  FEMA's website shows Texas, Florida and Louisiana in the TOP 6 states with # of declared disasters.  Want to take any bets on which parts of those states specifically were involved ?(Hint: might be areas near the water).

As an example, go to harborinsurance.com and click on consumer information, disaster guides, natural disaster risk map.  As you can see clearly about 1/3 of the U.S. is at virtually NO risk to natural disaster.  And when you eliminate the areas with "extreme" liklihood of hurricane, tornado or earthquake, you are still left with about 80% of the country.  Anotherwords, if you live in the 20%, give or take, of the country that is at extreme liklihood, than guess what?  

You can't stand for freedom and socialism at the same time.  You have to draw a line in the sand and pick one. Is a socialistic United States more free than most countries?  Perhaps.  But I have hopes for a greater destiny than just "half free."

Answer 3

The French guys who built New Orleans before selling the Louisiana Purchase to us are probably laughing their butts off wherever they are right now.  Yes it is below sea level but amazingly our Army corps of engineers has completed the project and the levees held.  

Answer 4

In response to another post, exactly where is it safe to live in this country? The answer is nowhere. In the northeast, there are blizzards. In the midwest, there are tornadoes. In the west, there are earthquakes, mudslides, and brushfires. In the south, there are hurricanes and in the northwest, there are volcanic eruptions. People choose to live in locations based on job opportunities, families, and quality of life. They are well aware of the risks and once in a great while, something does happen. It's nice to say that family, friends, and charitable organizations should help out people when they lose their homes but what if that person's family or friends can't afford to help or don't want to?  Also, charitable organizations are notoriously inefficient. Most of the relief supplies that are donated never reach the people they are intended for. Remember how foolish the Red Cross looked after 9/11, when they admitted that they had thrown away most of the donated blood they received?

Answer 5

when tornadoes level whle towns here in the midwest year after year, should we not rebuild, when wild fires burn business and homes in the west, should we not rebuild, when flooding along the Mississippi covers over towns, should we not rebuild?  by your logic, any place in which natural disasters are prone should be abandoned.  good thinking.

Answer 6

Awesome first response...however you left off my all time favorite - the homes falling off the western shore due to earthquakes!

Answer 7

Alot, I'm afraid... Afterall- Oklahoma City, has been struck almost 100 times by Twisters in its History...-but we keep paying to rebuild it... San Francisco sits a-top one of the most seismicly active Fault-lines in the World, -it's already been destroyed once (& will AGAIN, any day now...)- but we WILL rebuild it... The East Coast has 10's of MILLIONS of people living along its immediate shores just WAITING for their OWN "Katrina" to come along one of these weeks- and we WILL end up paying for it's reconstruction... ... Our's is not a Country that knows the meaning of "Enough..." -If it WERE, most of us wouldn't be 50 pounds overweight- or up to our ears in Credit Card debt...  :(  

Answer 8

There is a widespread myth that New Orleans is "built below sea level”, but that is not true.  Most of the city is above sea level, and the parts BSL are neighborhoods built in the 20th century on drained swampland.  Swampland subsides after it is drained.

In any event, New Orleans is not optional. History, architecture, culture, and the fact the city is home to many people are usually mentioned when the topic of the city’s future is discussed.  However, those factors (while significant) are NOT why NOLA is important to the rest of the United States.

First, New Orleans is a metro area of almost 1.4 million people – not some small town that could be easily relocated somewhere else.

More than 35% of America's energy is either produced in Southeast Louisiana or imported through here, and the infrastructure is focused on New Orleans. What may be the largest oil field on earth was discovered offshore of Louisiana in 2006, and it will be exploited via New Orleans.

The Port of New Orleans is the largest or second largest port in North America each year (tons of cargo) and one of the top ports in the world each year. The Port of New Orleans is not replaceable.

More than 25% of America's petroleum refining capacity is in the New Orleans area. That percentage will increase due to a new refinery already under construction and the planned expansion of existing refineries.

A large percentage of America's non-petroleum chemical industry is here.

New Orleans is one of only three principal east-west transportation points for the USA, and the resulting convergence of water, rail, pipeline, electricity, and highway links is not replaceable.

A large percentage of America's ship building & repair industry is in New Orleans.

NASA builds essential parts for the space shuttle in New Orleans, and will build components for the next generation of spacecraft here. Other manufacturers (ex. Bell-Textron) have factories in New Orleans.

A large percentage of America's seafood comes from SE Louisiana, and the distribution network is focused on New Orleans.

And so on….

It is theoretically possible to move the industry and the population, but only at horrific cost. The Mississippi river, Gulf of Mexico, and the oil fields cannot be moved. To even attempt to replace New Orleans would cost Trillions of Dollars and the attempt would fail.

In contrast, New Orleans can be protected from future hurricanes with the expenditure of about $15 Billion (that should have been spent before Katrina) spread out over a period of a decade.

Note that New Orleans is NOT "prone" to hurricanes or being flooded. The last one to hit before Katrina was in 1965 and before that was in 1947. Neither of those flooded the city proper like Katrina, which was the strongest storm ever recorded to strike North America.  

Realize that nowhere is without risk. NYC and Miami are at more risk from hurricanes than New Orleans. Los Angeles and San Francisco are at risk from earthquakes and fires. Seattle is threatened by volcanoes and Tsunamis. The Midwest is hit by tornadoes every year. However, I don’t hear anyone claiming New York, Florida, California, Kansas, or Washington (state) be abandoned, or even not rebuilt after the next disaster.

However, people routinely claim New Orleans should be abandoned, or that we somehow don’t deserve help after Katrina.

Why is that?