But basically you're saying that white people get to rebuild and black people do not.
Not at all. I'm saying that people who can't afford to rebuild in highly risk-prone areas shouldn't expect the government to rebuild for them. This goes equally well for poor whites in South St. Louis County (where there's been an insane amount of building on the 100-year floodplain of late) as it does for poor blacks in NOLA.
Let me ask you: How much funding should the Federal government make available to each person who wants to rebuild after a natural disaster? What criteria should they use to select recipients (if only to prevent fraud) and what strings should they attach to the use of the funds? Make it a good answer, because you're not only talking about New Orleans, but potentially every Gulf city, every town in a floodplain, every municipality in every earthquake zone, and so forth.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to say, for instance, "We will give you the funds to rebuild, but not someplace that's 20 ft. under sea level." As I said, I think that they have a responsibility to impose conditions like this in the interest of not sowing the seeds of a future crisis.
Because we can't afford to secure New Orleans?
Because it's not possible to secure NOLA. It's built in a swamp on a delta. And flooding isn't the only problem: All that's keeping the Mississippi from changing course entirely is the antiquated Old River Control Structure above Baton Rouge. When that goes--and I'm frankly surprised it's still standing--NOLA will lose its most important source of fresh water and corrosive salt water will flood the old Mississippi channel. I've never heard an estimate on the cost of completing rerouting and replacing the water supply systems for the public and every enterprise in the entire Greater New Orleans Area, but you can bet it won't be cheap.
Plenty of businesses and individuals with the capital and mobility to relocate elsewhere have already re-evaluated the risks and decided that NOLA isn't worth it--just ask the Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce. Thousands more probably should follow their example, but lack the wherewithal. The Federal government, as well as other bodies, could furnish that, at least in part. But the discussion of what is wisest to do seems to be drowned out by defiant emotional vows to "rebuild" and screams of "ethnic cleansing".
Moreover, your arguments about funding are as misguided as King's. If it doesn't make economic sense to rebuild all of New Orleans, then it doesn't regardless of other funding commitments. Politics says, "Since you're wasting money on your dumb things, we should get to waste money on our dumb things, too." Common sense should say that none of that money should be wasted at all.
Or just because you're a hard-hearted neocon?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I deliberately choose to live in an area which is not prone to earthquakes, tornados, flash floods, hurricanes, brimstone from the sky, wildfires, and the like and I don't understand why a chunk of money should be taken from me and given to subsidise those who do.
no subject
No, mostly on data produced by the USGS National Wetlands Research Center and the State of Louisiana's Office of Coastal Restoration and Management. As far as know, neither of these is dominated by neocons, but perhaps you know more about their constitution than I do.
But basically you're saying that white people get to rebuild and black people do not.
Not at all. I'm saying that people who can't afford to rebuild in highly risk-prone areas shouldn't expect the government to rebuild for them. This goes equally well for poor whites in South St. Louis County (where there's been an insane amount of building on the 100-year floodplain of late) as it does for poor blacks in NOLA.
Let me ask you: How much funding should the Federal government make available to each person who wants to rebuild after a natural disaster? What criteria should they use to select recipients (if only to prevent fraud) and what strings should they attach to the use of the funds? Make it a good answer, because you're not only talking about New Orleans, but potentially every Gulf city, every town in a floodplain, every municipality in every earthquake zone, and so forth.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to say, for instance, "We will give you the funds to rebuild, but not someplace that's 20 ft. under sea level." As I said, I think that they have a responsibility to impose conditions like this in the interest of not sowing the seeds of a future crisis.
Because we can't afford to secure New Orleans?
Because it's not possible to secure NOLA. It's built in a swamp on a delta. And flooding isn't the only problem: All that's keeping the Mississippi from changing course entirely is the antiquated Old River Control Structure above Baton Rouge. When that goes--and I'm frankly surprised it's still standing--NOLA will lose its most important source of fresh water and corrosive salt water will flood the old Mississippi channel. I've never heard an estimate on the cost of completing rerouting and replacing the water supply systems for the public and every enterprise in the entire Greater New Orleans Area, but you can bet it won't be cheap.
Plenty of businesses and individuals with the capital and mobility to relocate elsewhere have already re-evaluated the risks and decided that NOLA isn't worth it--just ask the Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce. Thousands more probably should follow their example, but lack the wherewithal. The Federal government, as well as other bodies, could furnish that, at least in part. But the discussion of what is wisest to do seems to be drowned out by defiant emotional vows to "rebuild" and screams of "ethnic cleansing".
Moreover, your arguments about funding are as misguided as King's. If it doesn't make economic sense to rebuild all of New Orleans, then it doesn't regardless of other funding commitments. Politics says, "Since you're wasting money on your dumb things, we should get to waste money on our dumb things, too." Common sense should say that none of that money should be wasted at all.
Or just because you're a hard-hearted neocon?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I deliberately choose to live in an area which is not prone to earthquakes, tornados, flash floods, hurricanes, brimstone from the sky, wildfires, and the like and I don't understand why a chunk of money should be taken from me and given to subsidise those who do.