It is below sea level near the cost and bordered by a river and a lake. Should tax dollars be spent to rebuild?

Dupe

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=384211

Yes, and we should build housing in Death Valley while we're at it.....

Dupe....and no, at least not with my money.

Yes, it is a key port.  NO is the furthest deep ocean going vessels can get up the Mississippi River, so it is one of the busiest ports which means a city needs to be there.

Quoted: home.comcast.net/~labradorx3/cj_45877.jpg

NO

NOLA was built by the French several hundred years ago. They built in the fall. The next spring they flooded so they built a wall.......fast froward and they are still building walls. The city has interupted the flood plane of the Mississippi and marsh land is sinking at the rate of a football field per hour because it is not replinished by natural flooding. Twenty thousand miles of pipeline are in the area and the sinking land is impacting the pipelines. 18-20% of our oil travels in the pipeline. This would not be the case if the city and docks were further inland and out of the flood plane. There is a 14 Billion dollar plan to build locks and artificially flood the marsh lands to stop the loss. THE CITY IS STILL SINKING LOWER EVERY YEAR.

I ask again should it be rebuilt or would the money be better spent relocating?

What I want to know is, where can I send my donations to the looters directly?  Does the Red Cross have a looters fund?  I heard there was a Nigerian company that was accepting donations for the looters but I can't find any info.  Does anyone have a link or phone number?

Why would the city be rebuilt with public money?  The majority of the city proably is private property.  God forbid if they rebuild the city, Public money should only go to public property.  The gov should not bail those out who did not have the proper insurance.

Matt

NO.  Not with my tax dollars.  Shit, why don't we just build a city under water and call it New Atlantis!

I've noticed a familiar theme during a lot of the interviews I've seen over the last week.  The interviewee spends several minutes discussing how this disaster was inevetable due to the geography of the city.  This portion of the interview generally includes at least some bad mouthing regarding the lack of foresight and preparation prior to the current disaster.  Then, the interview concludes with statments  that the city should be rebuilt.

Eveyone says that hindsight is 20/20, but you really don't need the benifit of hindsight to see how rebuilding NO will turn out, just turn on the news.  To sit there and say that we should have seen this coming because it was inevitable and then in the next breath state that NO will have to be rebuild just seems stupid to me.

In the end, I think a portion of NO will be rebuilt, but the city will be much smaller than it was before.