Many people believe that people should not be living in New Orleans in the first place. Now that the city was destroyed, many believe it should not be rebuilt. Why are you willing to treat New Orleans differently, as compared to any other major American City?

All areas of this country are prone to some kind of natural disaster. Should we tell all Californians to move because there are earthquakes? Should we tell Kansans, Oklahomans, Coloradians to move because of tornados. Should we tell Floridians to move because they get hurricanes every year? Should we tell Texans, New Mexicans and Arizonans to move because of the extreme heat and fire danger? Should we tell New Englanders to move because of possible blizzards?

I don't understand why we are singling out this city. We should be rebuilding it and securing it so that it never has to face what it has faced. Why are we as a nation willing to abandon this city? Why?

Peace and prayers to all the survivors. Remember Katrina in November
[Edited 8/29/06 10:18am]

not enough white people to care?

im Bronxish

Finess said:

now there's an area that should not be rebuilt says this brooklynite.

cborgman said:

AAAAAmen

Well the illegal immagrants are takin it over..they will rebuild that thing if they have to

You guys, this is a serious thread!

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

butcha looooove me.. so shut up... wooooo

it was a poorly civil designed city to begin with, poor city planning, poor location, just my two cents.

jerseykrs said:

u talkin about Newark or weehawken

Finess said:

Theres a town near here, called Centralia. Theres been a mine fire burning underneath the town for like almost 30 years now. They relocated everyone when I was in like 1st grade or something, and most of the people moved into the town or town near mine. Anyways, a lot of the people REFUSED to leave. And there are still people living there to this day and the government (or whoever is in charge of shit like that ) has yet to do anything about it. So how is New Orleans different?

It's the "chocolate city" thing. If Detroit were to suffer the same disaster, I doubt the federal government would care for it either.

Well, the obvious racial issue is there, of course. If it were a predominantly white area then it would be halfway finished by now. There certainly is NO excuse as to why the rubble itself is still there.

They cleaned up that area of NY pretty damn fast after two 110 story towers fell to rubble.

In some areas of NOLA they STILL don't have power and that's a damn shame.


For the most part, Kanye told the truth.

jerseykrs said:

Beacuse of this there is always the possibility that it may happen again just because of the city location. If I had lived through Katrina I wouldn't want to go back. Also, it is sad but true that because it is a "chocolate city" that it has and will continue to get seconed hand treatment .

nurse said:

Yeah, that's what I meant, I'm positive the race issue is in there to a point, but speaking from a civil planning POV (which I work in), it's just not a good place for the high city it became. Not saying it shouldn't be rebuilt, but that is a cold fact about it.

its gotten more attention, and the rebuilding efforts have wasted more money with little results.
Jersey's right...read the history of NO, and you'll learn that it's actually below sea level to begin with.

jerseykrs said:

But there is something you can do about it. The levees can be built to a standard. There is little people can do about Hurricanes or earthquakes but people still populate those areas and people do not complain.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

it's all about people to you Supa, isnt it.

purplerein said:

Just like Iraq

And the city wasn't established 10 years ago. It's been there forver. People who live there call that home just like anyplace where any of us grew up. Why should they be held to a different standard?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

The cost of building competent levee's that would do the job is ASTRONOMICAL. Who's going to pay for that? The national govt? I don't agree with that.

purplerein said:

Yes. It really is

jerseykrs said:

Why not? The National government sure enjoys the taxes from tourism or oil. Why should the federal government have no say in protecting a large American city?

Besides, if we did what some have proposed and gutted New Orleans and turned it into an oil depot, the levees would still be needed to protect industry. So why not the people?

.
[Edited 8/29/06 11:01am]

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

It's a state issue, is why, Supa"mrpeople"

purplerein said:

To a degree. Like I said, the Federal government enjoys and reaps the taxes from the economy and why did New York receive federal assistance to rebuild after 9/11 if it's just a state issue and responsiblity? What an immoral position to want to leave this city to fend for itself. We would not expect that of any other city in this country.

.
[Edited 8/29/06 11:03am]

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

that's a sad hard fact, industry is more important than people. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it is a truth.

jerseykrs said:

Well if it's a good enough reason to have the levees there then people are a good enough excuse.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

ahhhhh, 9/11 was more of a save face issue really, sad, I know, but that IS why. Politics are a joke.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

the attack of 9/11 was a terrorist act. the rebuilding is being funded by the state and by insurance monies, not the government. The federal loans were just that..loans. that's different then rebuilding efforts

New Orleans is a city, in LA...ergo, a LA issue.

Imago said:

that map at least got the indiana part right!