|
It is true (as stated) that the problem is not with businesses or affluent, who can move elsewhere. The problem is with the poor, including “working poor”. The people who were stranded were, by and large, this group.
As was pointed out, the only thing that will keep them from going home is not pumping out the water.
But consider the cost of pumping, keeping pumping, and rebuilding essentially dikes. If you start from the proposition that the houses under water are already destroyed, and that as housing for the poor they were not expensive structures anyway… does it really make sense to pump out the sea, rebuild the dikes better and stronger than before, improve the pumping system, and rebuild the housing just so it can happen again at some point?
Is hugely expensive and at least somewhat dangerous below sea level construction really the most cost-effective way to house poor people?
|