- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,891
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
That does not answer the question.
That does not answer the question.
I keep asking the same question.How does one move an entire city and who pays for it?Wouldn't continuously rebuilding a failing area cause more suffering?
Wouldn't relocating the city lessen that suffering if the city was moved to a more stable environment, one not below sea level?
I keep asking the same question.How does one move an entire city and who pays for it?
Why do people keep avoiding that question.
Houston is not on the Mississippi River.
Instead of paying for a reconstruction of the city, take the funds and use them to build a new city, on land above sea level.
Great idea,but the problem here is that the sociopaths here don't want to pay for it.
Houston is not on the Mississippi River.
True, however it does connect into the Inter-Coastal Canal/Waterway. If shipping fees in New Orleans were at the rate that would be need to maintain that port and maintain the levies, going to Houston then cross shipping over the the river would be much more economical. But then again, anything needing to go onto the river could aslo go to Baton Rouge or even Memphis.
Having been to New Orleans a few times I cannot even begin to fathom what that would cost - even if you could find the proper location and get the cooperation of everyone involved.
Any estimates?
I know that Katrina cost us 110 billion dollars in damages and would likely cost that amount again if a similar hurricane hit. Masdar City in the UAE cost roughly 18 billion to support 50,000 people, 1,500 businesses, 60,000 commuters, and a solar plant. If you multiply that to equal the population of New Orleans, the cost is about 414 billion.
WOW!!!!! That is a whole lot of money.
Thank you for that information.
What's the "War on Terror" cost us???????
Not as much as it would cost us to lose it.
The point is, we always find a way to pay for things we deem important.
How much money have we wasted on Pakistan and Iraq over the last few decades?
Trillions?
Not as much as it would cost us to lose it.
Then shouldn't we do that for anyplace in this country that gets hit with tornadoes,earthquakes,cyclones,floods,wildfires,etc?
The point is, we always find a way to pay for things we deem important.
How much money have we wasted on Pakistan and Iraq over the last few decades?
Trillions?
Iraq was only wasted because we turned tail and ran instead of completing the job.
I happen to absolutely LOVE the city of New Orleans. I would go there in a heartbeat for a vacation providing we were not in the summertime.
Its a great town with great people, great restaurants, great culture and is like no other place in America. It is a national treasure and we should not be so quick to write it off.
There was no clearly defined "job" in the first place. If anything, the money we put into Afghanistan the first time was wasted because we ran over to Iraq instead of actually finishing what we set out to do there. Then we had to go back and start over at square one.
Nor as much as it would cost us if we were fighting it here instead of over there.
I don't think it would've cost trillions if we never went to war in the first place.
The Job in Iraq was to take down SoDamned Insane. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld didn't realize that that also included small things like helping the people after we blew their infrastructure and government to kingdom come. No plan, no ideas and the biggest circle jerk you could imagine as a result. Of course, Bush has to take ultimate responsibility, since he wasn't bright enough to figure out just how dumb Rumsfeld was to begin with. Took him until his second term to actually start listening to Condi and dump Rumsfeld.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?