Should the US tax payers be expected to bail out New Orleans again?

Question

Does it make sense to have a city below sea level?

Answer 1

I don't think the US taxpayers should have to bail out New Orleans or any other city that is built on a coast.  People and businesses who choose to locate in coastal cities should assume 100% of the risk.  I mean, it's not like they don't know ahead of time that they ARE going to be hit with a hurricane one of these days.

And insurance companies that choose to insure buildings along the coast shouldn't be allowed to increase premiums to all their customers to cover the increased risk of their coastal customers.  The insurance companies are SUPPOSED to accept risk - that's the whole point of insurance.  Don't tell someone in Kansas that they have to pay for the insurance company's losses in Louisiana or Florida - tell the insurance company to charge more to their coastal customers or get out of the business.  

Answer 2

no we shouldn't have to do it again and again and again.If they are to stupid to stay then they are on their own.  

Answer 3

In less than a week we will see countless people on the news screaming for their FEMA checks-saying the government failed them and all that nonsense.

Hey, if you insist on living in a area where you know thsi will happen then you should be on your own.

Answer 4

No, to your point some areas are 10 feet below sea level and sinking.  This is no place to have a large population, move the main population 50 miles inland and problem solved.

Answer 5

NO! I understand this is a huge city, but it is because everyone insists on it being that way. They didn't learn after Betsy, they didn't learn after Katrina. Why would you continue to live there? Saying it's your home doesn't justify it, your home was destroyed. It's like touching the stove, getting burned, so then you touch it with the other hand. Same result. I live in STL, MO and we have people coming all the way up here to get out of the area. Ignorant, just stay here!  

Answer 6

Yes as long as New Orleans is in the US they should be bailed out financially and with bailing buckets.

Answer 7

This question is arrogant, selfish and immature. The asker shows sociopath tendencies. Do some more research.

Answer 8

No the us tax payers shouldn't have to bail New Orleans out again. The politicians react on emotion instead of logic. It just doesn't make any sense to build a city below sea level.  

Answer 9

New Orleans is the ultimate in arrogance...when Mother Nature whacks you good once you're supposed to learn your lesson.  If i made a sand castle by the sea at low tide and then the tide rolled in and knocked it down, should i expect someone to feel sorry for me?

IF New Orleans gets hit again then they should let it stay as is...maybe blow up the levees so that the sea can reclaim it.  

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abides...might as well get ready for global warming and give up New Orleans

Answer 10

Ditto to everything NOLAguy had to say!!!!!!!!

Answer 11

Perhaps you should be asking why you are having so many.

Answer 12

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 areas BSL are neighborhoods built in the 20th century on drained swamps. It also shouldn't be a problem, and the city-proper would not have flooded if the federal government had built the levees correctly.

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 rebuilding 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?