YES YES YES

[Dr. Shane]

I can hardly believe it. Someone has the courage to say. "The king has no clothes."

House Speaker: Rebuilding N.O. doesn't make sense

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"It doesn't make sense to me," Hastert told the Daily Herald in suburban Chicago in editions published today. "And it's a question that certainly we should ask."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Hastert said that he supports an emergency bailout, but raised questions about a long-term rebuilding effort. As the most powerful voice in the Republican-controlled House, Hastert is in a position to block any legislation that he opposes.

"We help replace, we help relieve disaster," Hastert said. "But I think federal insurance and everything that goes along with it... we ought to take a second look at that."

The speaker’s comments were in stark contrast to those delivered by President Bush during an appearance this morning on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“I want the people of New Orleans to know that after rescuing them and stabilizing the situation, there will be plans in place to help this great city get back on its feet,” Bush said. “There is no doubt in my mind that New Orleans is going to rise up again as a great city.”

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Dr. Shane]

Earthquake damage doesn't compare. The only earthquake in US history that has destroyed as much as Hurricane Katrina was the 1906 San Fransico eartquake which initially killed about 700 but the effects ended up bring the death toll around 3,000. While it measured 8.25 on the Richter scale, much of the damage was due to buildings not being built to withstand earthquakes.

>>> Click on this link <<< to see a list of earthquakes in the US and the casualties.

Of course even with modern construction, another 8+ earthquake in California will kill many and do a lot of damage. However it isn't likely to destroy 80% of whatever city it hits. And remember, New Orleans is nearly a complete loss and history shows this will happen there about once every 40 - 50 years. California will have an 8+ earthquake about once every 100 years and no one knows what part it will be in. So comparing a below-sea-level city on the Gulf coast with California cities isn't really fair.

[cricket]

Quote:

---

“I want the people of New Orleans to know that after rescuing them and stabilizing the situation, there will be plans in place to help this great city get back on its feet,” Bush said. “There is no doubt in my mind that New Orleans is going to rise up again as a great city.”

---

While I am pretty certain that there were likely at least 10 God-fearing/loving Christians in New Orleans, why on earth would anyone want to rebuild a city that is below sea-level? Why would anyone who has faced such devastation even want to return?

This plan to "rise up again" makes no sense to me.

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Christine Wall said:

While I am pretty certain that there were likely at least 10 God-fearing/loving Christians in New Orleans, why on earth would anyone want to rebuild a city that is below sea-level? Why would anyone who has faced such devastation even want to return?

This plan to "rise up again" makes no sense to me.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

For one thing, it is and for many, many years has been, a major port of entry providing goods to the US. Econimics.

naomi

[Ron Lambert]

We could ask the Netherlands why they keep building dykes to hold back the sea so they can build more habitations that are below sea level.

I would never live in New Orleans, for many reasons besides the fact it is below sea level. But that is my choice for me; I cannot deny the freedom of choice of others if they wish to rebuild so they can live there. But I would certain encourage them to build stronger levees, and maybe a system of backup levees within the city, so that even if one or two levees are breached, the whole city will not be flooded.

[cricket]

Quote:

---

For one thing, it is and for many, many years has been, a major port of entry providing goods to the US. Econimics.

---

It may have been a major port of entry providing goods to the United States' economy. But to say that it "is" still a major port is not true. Nothing, save a few desperate people, is getting in or out of that city.

Is it better to rebuild a city that has faced such devastation, or to enhance another city so that the United States economy be revived?

My original question wasn't so much about industry and economics, however. It was more of a question of personal choice. I cannot fathom why anyone who has lived there in the past and has experienced this tragedy would want to return.

I'm not judging them, I'm simply questioning their decisions. There is a difference.

And, while improved levees might withstand greater forces, there is no such levee that can withstand a flood that God will allow.

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Christine Wall said:

It may have been a major port of entry providing goods to the United States' economy. But to say that it "is" still a major port is not true. Nothing, save a few desperate people, is getting in or out of that city.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Chrys, I stand corrected. Yes, it "is" not at this time a major port of anything.

However, I suspect that somewhere along the Gulf Coast the port will revive. Where there is work, people will go.

I'm sure many will not want to return after experiencing this tragedy. I may be wrong, no one may desire to return. I just know the connection people have to the land. It is difficult to explain the connection to an area that one's family has occupied for generations.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Is it better to rebuild a city that has faced such devastation, or to enhance another city so that the United States economy be revived?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I doubt that rebuilding is better. However, I have a feeling that it will rebuild.

Look at all the cities, including the town I now live which in 95 was hit by 2 or 3 F4's, which were wiped out by tornados. When you live in tornado alley you know there is a strong chance of being hit. Yet, people continue to build and rebuild.

An interesting study in human nature.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And, while improved levees might withstand greater forces, there is no such levee that can withstand a flood that God will allow.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Absolutely!

Naomi

[Dr. Shane]

It is a major port but doesn't need to be a major city to serve that purpose. They should pass a law that no residencial properties be allowed to be built below sea level. That would mean only industrial and commercial properies would be below sea level. Building pads can be built up to 5 feet without a problem. That would place the streets below sea level and the homes above. Of course in many areas the streets would need to be brought up a few feet in order to put houses 5 feet above them above sea level.

[cricket]

Quote:

---

Re: YES YES YES [Re: Christine Wall]

#186107 - Fri Sep 02 2005 06:33 PM Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christine Wall said:

It may have been a major port of entry providing goods to the United States' economy. But to say that it "is" still a major port is not true. Nothing, save a few desperate people, is getting in or out of that city.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chrys, I stand corrected. Yes, it "is" not at this time a major port of anything.

However, I suspect that somewhere along the Gulf Coast the port will revive. Where there is work, people will go.

I'm sure many will not want to return after experiencing this tragedy. I may be wrong, no one may desire to return. I just know the connection people have to the land. It is difficult to explain the connection to an area that one's family has occupied for generations.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it better to rebuild a city that has faced such devastation, or to enhance another city so that the United States economy be revived?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that rebuilding is better. However, I have a feeling that it will rebuild.

Look at all the cities, including the town I now live which in 95 was hit by 2 or 3 F4's, which were wiped out by tornados. When you live in tornado alley you know there is a strong chance of being hit. Yet, people continue to build and rebuild.

An interesting study in human nature.

---

Human nature is always interesting, isn't it? I don't know what it is that makes us want to rebuild in a place where devastation is more likely than another. Tornadoes, at least to me, are different than this flood/hurricane. Tornadoes are quick and do severe damage, but usually not to an entire city as this hurricane did.

Living now within the same 5 mile radius as I did growing up, I can understand a person's attachment to "home". Absolutely. If this were to happen to my community, however, my entire family would be devastated. There would be no one to go "home" to. We'd all move our "home" to a new location.

As I say, I'm not judging people. I'm just curious as to what would motivate anyone to return to such massive destruction.

I hope that the ports will rebuild, but I truly hope that the people will take up residence in areas that are safer than New Orleans was.

[Dr. Shane]

What needs to be done is known as >>> Coast 2050 <<<