Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrTia
The only problem with this philosophy is that if we start abandoning our cities based on the possibility that they might fall victim to natural catastrophe, we’ll wind up abandoning most of america. should we abandon california because of the prospect of earthquakes? should all the people near the mt. st. helens volcano move? what about the floods that plague the midwest? should everyone clear out of there? i live in washington, should i move because the risk of terrorist attack here is so high?
|
At some point we have to look at the real costs. Contrary to the Shock Doctrine, government will drive redevelopment of New Orleans not the private sector. If not for government subsidies the city would not be rebuilt the way it was. If not because of the promise of the government protecting the city from floods using pumps and levies the city would not have grew the way that it did. There is a big difference between a 100 years flood plain and an area that floods on average every 11 years. Governments are not more powerful than nature. In spite of what some believe government is not the solution to every problem.