[fintstone]

Originally posted by Mule
Flint, you and I usually agree. Does it make more sense to build a city araund the 4th largest port on earth, one of the largest oil & gas reserves in the US and some of the richest fishing grounds in our country and then protect it as our activity washes away the protective coastline, or is it better to build a city in the desert where water has to be dammed and piped hundreds of miles so we can have access to slot machines and whores?

As a southerner myself, I have nothing against LA or New Orleans... I am just trying to apply logic. If the natural attributes of the city/location are that wonderous enough to warrent living there in spite of the risk (and they may well be)...there should have been plenty of revenue/reason to build the levees and buildings properly. It should be in the building codes just as much as hot water heater retaining straps are in the code for areas prone to earthquakes. bad local (good old boypolitics) government and squandering of revenue is the problem in Louisiana.

If I build my home in the desert, I would not expect FEMA to bring me water if I had a drrought/dry well....or provide A/C if the temperatures were excessive. There are limits to what federal govt should/can do. Now, if I wanted to get together with other residents of the desert and build a pipeline, dam, well, etc to provide myself more water for (insurance)...that would be different.

I own a house in North Carolina that was built in the 20's. As all the homes in that area of that era...the site was selected carefully. Noone in the 20's expected the govt to bail them out if they did something stupid. (note the French Quarter and much of the older areas did not flood badly) Recent floods washed away/damaged several homes that were built more recently..on very low lying plots. There was no damage to my home. Should I be taxed to build some sort of diversion to protect their homes in the future..or to rebuild the damage...even though they knowingly built them in a flood area?