--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because much of that land is probably owned by Republican property > owners who will lose their shirts and whine like babies if they are told > they can't rebuild there.
...and which study are you citing that shows that that land is owned by Republicans? Louisiana is a Democrat stronghold and has been since Reconstruction. > > shempmcgurk wrote: > > >Why? > >by Robert Anderson > > > > > >Shortly after Jean Baptiste Lemoyne founded New Orleans in 1718, a > >priest-chronicler named Charlevoix described it "as a place of a > >hundred wretched hovels in a malarious wet thicket of willows and > >dwarf palmettos, infested by serpents and alligators." From its > >origins in a hollow at the angle of a deep three-sided bend in the > >Mississippi River, New Orleans slowly spread out for miles on a > >narrow alluvial strip between the River and Lake Pontchartrain. > >Today most of New Orleans lies either below sea level or at least > >below the level of the River and Lake. Only the levees, most of > >which were constructed beginning in the early part of the twentieth > >century, have kept the city dry. > > > >Until Katrina! Mother Nature has a unique, and sometimes deadly, > >way of reminding us of the penalty for defying her will. New > >Orleans, geographically, can best be described as an historical > >mistake. It would be unthinkable to construct a city in such a > >location now. Even if private developers wanted to do it, the > >political environmental lobby existing in America today would never > >tolerate such a violation or exploitation of the Mississippi River's > >wetlands. For decades governments have restricted or outright > >forbidden any sort of habitable development of America's wetlands. > >America's wetlands have become "sacred ground" to be preserved in > >perpetuity by the force of government edicts. > > > >So what's going on in the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans? > >Governments are about to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to > >reconstruct a city in a geographical depression below sea level next > >to an ocean subject to hurricanes. To describe the land area of New > >Orleans as merely wetlands is the ultimate understatement. Much of > >the city would be part of the ocean but for the levees! In fact, > >the whole of Louisiana from the existing site of New Orleans south > >is slowly returning to the sea. Virtually everyone knows the entire > >area is a high-risk area to both hurricanes and continual flooding > >from the Mississippi River. If nothing habitable existed there > >today, nothing ever would under existing governmental edicts > >protecting wetlands. So, why is government about to expend tens of > >billions of dollars to do something which they would forbid any > >private developers to even consider doing now? > > > >Nobody is asking that question, let alone answering it. Even to ask > >the question subjects one to criticism for not being compassionate > >toward the refugees evacuated from the cesspool which once was New > >Orleans. Guilt is imposed upon anyone who would selfishly suggest > >it's an insane idea to rebuild another city in an ocean. And yet it > >is! Why build a government-funded city where it can only survive > >until another failed levee again returns it to the sea? Why build a > >government-funded city below sea level when dry land exists all over > >America not exposed to flooding or hurricanes? And finally, why > >should Americans be taxed billions of dollars to build an "American > >Venice" facing annual hurricane risks? > > > >Perhaps the most serious question which must be asked is why anyone > >would choose to live below sea level next to a high hurricane- risk > >ocean? The historical reality is New Orleans evolved through > >inertia more because that's where it began three centuries ago than > >because that is where it would be built today. The demographics and > >economic circumstance of New Orleans in recent years has made it > >into a modern day anachronism. While the Crescent City was quaint > >and colorful, it's hardly a geographical location toward which > >people would gravitate today if it didn't already exist. > > > >The funding of a new government-built city on the old location of > >devastated New Orleans can only be viewed as an act of historical > >restoration underwritten by taxpayers and/or as a response to the > >perceived compassion of the American people for the plight of the > >refugees. Certainly it would never occur if dependent upon the > >marketplace to voluntarily fund it. Sadly, what people would never > >do with their own wealth, their government is about to do with > >wealth exacted from them by taxation. > > > >Can governments save New Orleans? Of course not! That which has > >been destroyed can never again be recovered, by a government or > >anyone else. The question is why consume resources, either public or > >private, to rebuild anything which will only be destroyed again by > >the forces of nature and government neglect? While Katrina got all > >the attention, it was the breeching of the government levees that > >destroyed New Orleans. Nature's wrath started the holocaust, but it > >was the failure of government dikes that flooded and destroyed the > >city. > > > >For those who argue the city must be rebuilt a final caution: At > >what cost, who pays, and what will be forgone from doing so? Already > >estimates of $300 billion are anticipated just to recover from the > >damage. That's over $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in > >America today. Is a new government-funded New Orleans worth > >foregoing all the potential benefits every man, woman, and child in > >America could enjoy if that same $1,000 consumed by government for a > >below-sea-level building project in Louisiana was left in their > >pockets? > > > >One tends to have a different perspective toward feelings of > >compassion and guilt when the cost of building a below-sea-level > >city next to a hurricane-prone ocean is coming out of the pockets of > >people who have chosen to live out their lives on high ground out of > >the path of an angry sea. > > > >So, why do it? > > > >September 10, 2005 > > > >Robert Anderson [send him mail] taught economics at Hillsdale > >Collage and was executive secretary of FEE. > > > >Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To subscribe, send a message to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Or go to: > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > >and click 'Join This Group!' > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
