[geeks] Mr Bill?

[hike]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Mike Hebel <nimitz at nimitzbrood.com> wrote:

> Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
>
>> Mike Hebel wrote:
>>
>>> " " " That's the biggest threat from hurricanes.  Most people are worried
>>>>  " about them increasing in number and size, but a bigger threat is our  "
>>>> expanding coastal city infrastructure and population.
>>>>
>>>> i can't help thinking, when i see the near-total destruction of
>>>> galveston, that this is some sort of sign that folks shouldn't be
>>>> living on barrier-beach islands.  i feel for their losses - but i
>>>> sure don't want them rebuilding there with federal [my] money.
>>>>
>>>> buy them out on condition they rebuild -elsewhere-
>>>>
>>> No idea where I've heard that idea.  Nope.
>>>
>>> *cough*NewOrleansisinaholebelowseasleveltheidiots*cough*
>>>
>>> Couldn't agree with you more though!    ;-)
>>>
>>
>> The only problem with that attitude is that there are many places that are
>> subject to all sorts of natural disasters.  A sizable percentage of the US
>> population lives in an area where certain natural disasters can be expected.
>>  So, if you subscribe to the idea that places subject to flooding due to
>> hurricanes shouldn't be offered Federal disaster aid, then you should be
>> prepared for places that are subject to wildfire, or earthquakes, or
>> tsunamis, or landslides, or volcanoes, or river flooding to be subject to
>> the same restriction.
>>
> Yes but there's an order of magnitude difference for some places.  I'll get
> flamed for it I know but they should _never_ have even thought about moving
> back into New Orleans for instance.  Period.   It _WILL_ flood again and if
>  the rising seas are any indication will be underwater within a decade
> unless they build a damn dome over it.
>
>> I don't necessarily disagree with the attitude, though.  I tend to believe
>> that if you don't have proper insurance for your property, you might deserve
>> to lose your possessions.
>>
> Yes and no.  No insurance might not be a choice.  Rebuilding in harms way -
> definitely your choice.
>
> *hides in flame-proof bunker*
>
> --
> Mike Hebel
>
>
>
> In the end the journey only matters if you've helped people along the
> way...
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>


Mike is correct.

The difference in building on barrier islands and coastal area below sea
level, such as New Orleans, is that disaster WILL strike.  The reason for
rebuilding on barrier islands is both man's greed and desire for beauty.
(These people will pay a lot!  Oh, what a beautiful view!)

More could be said about not rebuilding New Orleans but no politician wants
to bring this up; it would end their political careers.  The racial
overtones are just too loud.

I grew up on the coast of Florida.  We love the beaches of the barrier
islands.  We love the tourist dollars spent on the barrier islands.  I have
seen the devastation of a hurricane running 60 miles off the coast and its
effects on the barrier islands.  It is insanity (AE's quote goes here) to
rebuild on the barrier islands.  It is insanity to rebuild New Orleans.
But, as long as there are suckers out there (PTB's quote goes here), we will
rebuild both.  Crazy, aren't we but we still love the tourist dollars.