Vince, I really don't think we are arguing bitterly with each other, and I think we have a lot of grounds of agreement. I want to state that right off.
I was just pointing out that Louisiana is pitiful with corporate welfare, and some of their corporate welfare has been more harmful to the situation rather then helpful. The structure for the new NBA arena requires excavation.. once again a lowering of the base level, as well as an open restructure of an internal city water system that they classified themselves in 1994 as in "serious trouble". So, you rework it to add more hotfixes, so to speak, with tons of additional money, excavate out more ground.. I do agree that some teams bring in more revenue then they cost (NFL is a good example) but in the end, with the NBA and MLB, most communities actually lose rather then gain. The concept of coming up with $50M/yearly, as you point out, fails to put into perspective that the number will go up, considerably, with inflation and difficulty. The more weight applied to the levees, the less stable, level and manageable they are.. the heavier the levee is, the faster it sinks as the soil doesn't have enough base rock value.. this is something that everyone knows, it's something that nature cannot deny.. the more tributaries bring in water and the undercurrent (like the Mississippi) the more you get a shift. Other issues also play into it which make it more difficult as well... anyway, I will agree with you that $50M a year is not only every year, but it is a figure that will go up drastically every year, even with the best upkeep imaginable because of the nature of the problem. So, we put in a bunch of money this time, and a Category 3 strikes again, and you have.. wipeout again. Let's not deny mother nature her due; you can pin her back for a while, but as Camille showed us in 69, and Dog before that, mother nature is a bitch :) So, I tend to go along with a very unpopular recommendation.. in 1993, it was proposed that we consider "moving" the city, basically, by slowly planning for it to go away by just the design of nature. Even several environmental groups lobbied that the demolition of the levees would create a giant boom in natural wildlife and restore the original marshlands much closer to their intended state. I have no problem with that. Move people to more solid ground, make where New Orleans a nice, gigantic national wildlife preserve, and you save all the money.. and you do something nice for mother nature.. and you immediately increase a big area of wetlands which provide for a nice buffer later when you need it ;) CW -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Analyst Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 4:17 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina > Understandable. But to say "where were they to come up with $40-$50M" > is somewhat laughable also.. New Orleans spent over $320M in the last > three years divided between the New Orleans Saints stipend program, > Superdome rebuild, and guarantees in fees paid to the now New Orleans > Hornets. Well, you're singing to the choir in regards to Corporate Welfare for billionaires. However, the money spent on the Superdome came from hotel/motel occupancy tax collections, which is dedicated by law just for that purpose. The money for the Saints was from the state of Louisiana, in the form of a retention program. What revenue would be lost if they now picked-up and moved to another state ? The money for the Hornets was primarily for a new arena, which would obviously be an investment that would have returns over many future years. And all of this, as you stated, was over a three year span. I still contend that coming up with an additional $50 million EVERY year for the foreseeable future would be daunting. Vince
