Rebuilding there is pointless; the entire area has been subsiding for years as the levees destroy the marshlands.. the very walls built to protect the communities around the lake are destroying them.
Within 90 years it will all be underwater one way or another; it's time to leave. They should not rebuild.
the tornadoes are just going to keep on coming in the midwest, too. those idiots ought to just quit fixing their houses and leave. and everyone in california. i mean, eventually an earthquake is going to dislodge the whole chunk. time to quit wasting money on it and let it float away. and everybody in florida, or hell, anywhere on the coast. what are they thinking, living in the path of destruction like that.
and fuck Venice, too. what a stupid idea. sure, it's lasted thousands of years despite the naysayers. surely, if they keep naysaying long enough, eventually they'll be right. right?
Well, aside from the fact that severe flooding destroys everything whereas your chances of losing your home to a tornado even in Tornado Alley are very small, and that earthquake nonsense about California is an urban myth.. sure. As for Florida, most of their problems could be resolved via more stringent building codes.
Venice: you might want to visit now because that city will definitely be gone within the next century, barring some new technology within that time frame. Plenty of other cities that lived for millenia died under similar circumstances.. I'm sure there were people then, too, who insisted that nothing would happen because after all, it's lasted this long.
In short, remove the blinders and stop applying emotion to an objective situation.
how generous of you, letting us all know what's best for us. can i assume that you appreciate others sharing such "harsh truths" with you about yourself?
You seem to be doing the same; in this case attempting to shield misterx from a frank discussion of the issues facing this area (which he seems to have no problems addressing), as well as dictate what's appropriate in someone else's LJ. As for the harsh truths you cite, they refer to the decisions that anyone living in that area are facing right now, and do not represent a personal attack or judgement.
Indeed, the only person set on judging anyone here seems to be you.
as if i would ever attempt to "shield" my husband from anything. it would be useless, and not in the spirit of our relationship. i simply take offense to someone from the outside, who is judging NoLa as nothing other than a sterile hunk of dirt and a cost benefit analysis exercise, from deciding whether or not it is worth it to continue living the life that is lived in the place that it is lived. some of the very places that i grew up in are now part of the swamp again, i have no illusions about that. but the decision to rebuild is the decision of those who belong there, not armchair quarterbacks from elsewhere. and as much as was destroyed, there's a LOT that was NOT destroyed. life is going to continue there, it's not a debate it's a fact. it's a peculiar sort of loyalty, but it's very real and it's not going away simply because people lacking real ties to the place theorize that it shouldn't exist.
really, this is more energy of mine than you deserve. the residents of that place are bearing the brunt of the rebuilding pains, they are bearing excruciating expenses in the process ($700 residential electric bills, anyone?) they will bear the brunt of modernized levee systems and other necessary technology, they will make the decisions about their own lives. your words? make no difference. they're just ugly and insensitive to those of us who love Her, who can never stop belonging to Her, that's all.
"but the decision to rebuild is the decision of those who belong there, not armchair quarterbacks from elsewhere."
Since I and everyone else in the United States will be footing the vast majority of the rebuilding tab, I wouldn't say that.
"your words? make no difference."
That's certainly true; I have no doubt that we will pour billions of dollars back into the area, only to see them washed away 20 or 30 years from now. Then we'll probably do it again.
If it were just housing I'd probably agree. If you live next to the river that keeps flooding and washing away your stuff, it really doesn't make sense to live there. Some people will undoubtedly get pissed at me for saying that, but its just logical.
If it were deemed worthwhile, I believe a modernized flood control system could prevent the flooding in NOLA, though nothing will protect the city from the winds, due to it's proximity to the coast. But at what cost, and what justification?
After visiting New Orleans, I feel like there is a wealth of valuable cultural and architectural heritage there that is important to preserve. If I lived there, I would never run out of photographic material. It's amazing to just walk around ... such a place simply doesn't exist elsewhere in the usa. In many ways, it's like a living museum.
So this is how the debate needs to be phrased: NOLA has many important cultural/historical assets found nowhere else in the nation... are they worth the cost of preserving? I don't know the answer, but I think that ought to be the question.
I can agree with that, and I do believe that New Orleans has a large historical value.. but then I was under the impression that most of the culturally significant stuff in NOLA was above sea level anyway. As I recall reading, most of it was built above sea level because they simply had to do so, before they started draining the swamps.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2006-10-07 04:13 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-12 07:59 pm (UTC)I see by your new username you are embracing your hispanic heritage?
no subject
on 2006-10-07 04:31 am (UTC)It is just such a shame that so many lost so much, and how slow the rebuilding has been.
no subject
on 2006-10-07 05:29 am (UTC)Within 90 years it will all be underwater one way or another; it's time to leave. They should not rebuild.
no subject
on 2006-10-07 11:46 am (UTC)Good picture set, misterx. I like the mall shot, and the garage.
no subject
on 2006-10-09 12:29 am (UTC)and fuck Venice, too. what a stupid idea. sure, it's lasted thousands of years despite the naysayers. surely, if they keep naysaying long enough, eventually they'll be right. right?
no subject
on 2006-10-09 04:00 am (UTC)Venice: you might want to visit now because that city will definitely be gone within the next century, barring some new technology within that time frame. Plenty of other cities that lived for millenia died under similar circumstances.. I'm sure there were people then, too, who insisted that nothing would happen because after all, it's lasted this long.
In short, remove the blinders and stop applying emotion to an objective situation.
no subject
on 2006-10-09 12:51 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-09 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-09 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-10 02:19 am (UTC)Indeed, the only person set on judging anyone here seems to be you.
no subject
on 2006-10-10 02:34 am (UTC)really, this is more energy of mine than you deserve. the residents of that place are bearing the brunt of the rebuilding pains, they are bearing excruciating expenses in the process ($700 residential electric bills, anyone?) they will bear the brunt of modernized levee systems and other necessary technology, they will make the decisions about their own lives. your words? make no difference. they're just ugly and insensitive to those of us who love Her, who can never stop belonging to Her, that's all.
no subject
on 2006-10-10 03:11 am (UTC)Since I and everyone else in the United States will be footing the vast majority of the rebuilding tab, I wouldn't say that.
"your words? make no difference."
That's certainly true; I have no doubt that we will pour billions of dollars back into the area, only to see them washed away 20 or 30 years from now. Then we'll probably do it again.
no subject
on 2006-10-10 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-09 06:01 pm (UTC)If it were deemed worthwhile, I believe a modernized flood control system could prevent the flooding in NOLA, though nothing will protect the city from the winds, due to it's proximity to the coast. But at what cost, and what justification?
After visiting New Orleans, I feel like there is a wealth of valuable cultural and architectural heritage there that is important to preserve. If I lived there, I would never run out of photographic material. It's amazing to just walk around ... such a place simply doesn't exist elsewhere in the usa. In many ways, it's like a living museum.
So this is how the debate needs to be phrased: NOLA has many important cultural/historical assets found nowhere else in the nation... are they worth the cost of preserving? I don't know the answer, but I think that ought to be the question.
no subject
on 2006-10-10 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-12 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-12 08:04 pm (UTC)