Disaster prone areas - should humans inhabit these areas?

[HayGan]

I often wonder when disasters like Hurricane Katrina occur, is this Mother Nature's way of telling us that humans should not inhabit certain areas. As humans we can only do so much to ofset the effects of nature and often times (in cases such as this) we lose. I understand why people are attracted to living near water but it has to be the most dangerous place on Earth to live (in general terms.) As much as I love New Orleans, I wonder if we, as a nation, should rebuild it or make it the Atlantis of modern times. We could spend Billions of $$'s rebuilding an entire area that could be destroyed in a few hours shortly there after. If it would happen again, what then just rebuild it again? Should the $$$ be spent re-establishing communities in a safer area. I just can't help thinking (especially when they keep saying it) about that New Orleans knew that this would happen - it was just a question of when.

It is not just New Orleans but any area that is at high risk for destruction. I feel the same way about people/businesses in my area that insist on living/operating near our rivers.

I honestly don't mean to offend anybody with this. I understand that people love their homes/areas. I just always wonder why we as a nation continue to rebuild areas that are likely meant for humans to inhabit.

I'm just curious as to what others think and maybe the rational for continuing to inhabit such areas.

[jgmklmhem]

I would ask the question though where should we then live? Granted we know hurricanes come every year....but the midwest is always ripe for a tornado or flooding, California is always ripe for an earthquake, etc etc. There is a map out there someone posted once that pretty much showed that there are very few places in this country where you are safe from a natural diaster.

[Luv2Roam]

I agree with jgmklmhem. Every place has potential for danger. Volcanoes, mud slides, earthquakes, floods, tonadoes, hurricanes, fire, flood.
Where IS a safe place?

[*Fantasia*]

I would ask the question though where should we then live? Granted we know hurricanes come every year....but the midwest is always ripe for a tornado or flooding, California is always ripe for an earthquake, etc etc. There is a map out there someone posted once that pretty much showed that there are very few places in this country where you are safe from a natural diaster.
Live in Michigan. No earthquake, no hurricane, no flooding... and tornado is very rare (which I am thankful for). So what if it's cold... the bldgs and homes here are still here... and they have been here for many many years. And you'll never have to worry about hurricanes ever again... nor earthquakes.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Sure--but then where would we inhabit? The cornfields?

[va32h]

Live in Michigan.

Are there enough jobs, houses, and schools in Michigan for an extra 500,000 people?

[Luv2Roam]

Maybe we could spread out into MN. :sunny: ;)

[*Fantasia*]

Sure--but then where would we inhabit? The cornfields?

Well.. I am sure not just Michigan... there's Ohio and Indiana too... and Illinois. Sounds like the Midwest is a good place to live. There's tons of open land that can built into communites.. There's still developing communites near by my area.

[*Fantasia*]

Are there enough jobs, houses, and schools in Michigan for an extra 500,000 people?

It's called working together. And not just in Michigan... There's NY too and other northern states. It's the governments problem to worry about jobs. If there's a will... there's a way.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Well.. I am sure not just Michigan... there's Ohio and Indiana too... and Illinois. Sounds like the Midwest is a good place to live. There's tons of open land that can built into communites.. There's still developing communites near by my area.

Sure--we'll just relocate all of Florida, SC, NC, AL, MS, LA, and California to there.

AS someeone said on another thread. NOLA has been there for 200 years.

[HayGan]

There are plenty of areas which aren't as prone to disasters of such a great magnitude on a frequent basis:

Montana
Idaho
The Dakotas
Oregon
Washington
Utah
Arizona
New Mexico
New England states

Practically every state has areas which a far less likely to be exposed to a disaster of such great magnitude.

Sure other areas have natural disasters which cause destruction but very few areas outside of California, Florida and the Gulf Coast region have such frequent and costly disasters.

Personally, I wouldn't live anywhere where my home could possibly be destroyed on a regular basis. If I did, I wouldn't expect others to cover the costs of re-building/repairing it time after time. Although those in these areas pay much higher premiums, it is no where near what it costs to rebuild these areas.

[*Fantasia*]

Sure--we'll just relocate all of Florida, SC, NC, AL, MS, LA, and California to there.

AS someeone said on another thread. NOLA has been there for 200 years.
If they want to.. that's their choice. Sorry... I don't know NOLA.

[HayGan]

Are there enough jobs, houses, and schools in Michigan for an extra 500,000 people?

Business locate where the resources are - people are often the greatest factor. Should resources be spent on building up other areas instead of ones that were practically made inhabitable?

[Lisa loves Pooh]

NOLA is New Orleans, Louisina.

[DisneyCP2002]

We all have to live somewhere and sometimes those are not the best places.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

But Haygan--homes are not destroyed on a regular basis.

For that matter--we shouldn't have towns/cities near any bodies of water at all.

You cannot run away from Disaster. I do think due care should be made. But there is no way they will write off an entire city of 1.3 million....and not to forget all the areas that flooded around it and above it....and that Katrina brought tropical storm force winds to Tennessee.

Andrew was 1992....so 13 years...and we just got another hurricane of that magnitude.

The environment should be respected....but you do what you can with what you have.

[jgmklmhem]

Business locate where the resources are - people are often the greatest factor. Should resources be spent on building up other areas instead of ones that were practically made inhabitable?

And much of the resources we use come from the sea either by shipping or as food or oil etc. Cities usually spring up where there is some natural resource or natural advantage to being there. The coast while it definately has its disadvantages also provides great resources as well.

[Serena]

My daughter was making the comment the other night when Katrina approached, that Indiana is a pretty good place to live after all.

I do think some places are disasters waiting to happen. I mean, with the forefathers of NOLA, who had the bright idea that building a city, beneath sea level near the coast was a good idea.
But even with all the predictions of what could happen. That city has been there for a long time. It's a part of our history. And I truly don't see many people caving in to mother nature there.

[Planogirl]

I've heard comments on the news that part of the reason why NOLA was hit so hard was the deterioration of the delta. Maybe if we planned to keep natural barriers intact, many problems could be averted.

As for relocating those on the coast, where would they all go? That's a massive amount of people. Besides, what about the historical buildings and the like? If New Orleans has anything that will help it come back, that's the French Quarter and other historical sites.

[Sparx]

Sure--we'll just relocate all of Florida, SC, NC, AL, MS, LA, and California to there.

AS someeone said on another thread. NOLA has been there for 200 years.
What about TN? we flood and have tornadoes.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I just wanted to say I didn't vote b/c I didn't think the choices are there. Just b/c of my locale -- doesn't mean I don't care about the environment.

And my home is no less important than anyone elses. I am just as entitled to aid for damage from natural disaster as anyone else in any other portion of the country.

It is lovely that there are a few states immune to disaster---but then we are basically saying move the entire population to the north.

There is no perfect place to live in the United States that is immune to mother nature.

I personally think it is rediculous to suggest that we not rebuild places and such. But it isn't the only place in the world that gets touched by travesty. It also doesn't mean it is a magnet to tragedy either.

[cati]

Hate to say it but Michigan is not safe either then
http://memaonline.org/weather/tornado_michigan.htm

I use to live in Indiana - hated these nasty storms. Yep, I am one that as soon as I can retire, I am moving to the beach. I love the beach. Really you never hear about the mountains having an earthquake, but you know, there is a major fault line that runs all the way through North Carolina. Oh, and I guess none of us could live here last year when the hurricane hit Florida, but caused our mountain counties to be flooded. So much so, that our roads were washed out, houses were wiped out.

[CherCrazy]

The OP does have a valid point though. I saw a 20/20 a few years ago about these multi-million dollar homes on the rocky coast of Oregon or Washington. Every few years they would wash into the ocean. Guess who pays to have them rebuilt? US!!!

How is it fair to the taxpayers of the U.S. to use OUR tax $$$ to rebuild on a spot that they KNOW is going to fall into the ocean? And please...I am in no way comparing this to the devastation in our southern states.

There's an area not too far from us in South Jersey that is always prone to flooding. The government finally relocated the homeowners, razed the homes, and put parkland in place of the homes. Good idea but long a coming.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The OP does have a valid point though. I saw a 20/20 a few years ago about these multi-million dollar homes on the rocky coast of Oregon or Washington. Every few years they would wash into the ocean. Guess who pays to have them rebuilt? US!!!

How is it fair to the taxpayers of the U.S. to use OUR tax $$$ to rebuild on a spot that they KNOW is going to fall into the ocean? And please...I am in no way comparing this to the devastation in our southern states.

There's an area not too far from us in South Jersey that is always prone to flooding. The government finally relocated the homeowners, razed the homes, and put parkland in place of the homes. Good idea but long a coming.

With these multi-million dollar homes--you aren't paying for it...there insurance is. There premiums were calculated for how at risk their home was from destruction.

[ktink]

I think that we should be able to take advantage of the beautiful coast lines that our nation offers and whoever chooses to live there should. Is there a danger in living there? Yes, but this hurricane effected areas that were very far inland while still at a tropical storm stregnth. So I don't think we should say. "Well, you had it coming. That's what happens when you live in such an environment."

I, personally wouldn't want to live on the ocean. But I know the people who do know that such a danger exists but I'm sure some people have never had a hurricane hit their area. I think we all live with the, "it couldn't happen to me" attitude at times and we can always hold out hope that it won't.

[HayGan]

With these multi-million dollar homes--you aren't paying for it...there insurance is. There premiums were calculated for how at risk their home was from destruction.

Everyone's premiums of higher because of cases like this. Their premiums in no way cover the expense of replacing these homes. Just as in Florida (with as expensive as your premiums are), no one ever pays as much in premiums as the cost of the replacement of their homes.

And we pay for it in other ways. Government funds reused to rebuild infrastructure and may for rescue and recovery. As well as the FEMA funds (as limited as they may be) that are paid to disaster victims. All the donations that we (freely) give to organizations such as the Red Cross. All these are costs realized by people not living in those areas. Some of those costs are voluntary but most are not :sad2:

[georgina]

My daughter was making the comment the other night when Katrina approached, that Indiana is a pretty good place to live after all.

My DD said the same thing about PA - provided you don't live along a river or creek, that is. I would not choose to live near a body of water that could flood my house. However, during bad rains last year, people in my neighborhood were flooded due to clogged storm drains. Some things can happen anywhere.

[lbgraves]

When someone builds an extravegant expensive home on a piece of land that is a potential target of a natural disaster. Flocking to beach front property for vacation homes doesn't get much sympathy from me and I do have a problem with my tax dollars rebuilding their mansions. The areas affected by Katrina are not like this, however. Everyone lives in this area. I know that in NO the rich & poor are scattered like I have never seen anywhere else. One block is a nice neighborhood & the one next to it is full of project shotgun house. It is like a checkerboard if you map it out. The central part of the city itself is built on the edge of the river, which results in the people living close by for work.

[Laurabearz]

New Orleans is more than just Mardi Gras... How many rivers empty into the Ocean thru there??? It is a MAJOR hub for exporting American goods....

the ports must re open, the rivers cleared. And the area will slowly make it's way back.

[lbgraves]

Everyone's premiums of higher because of cases like this. Their premiums in no way cover the expense of replacing these homes. Just as in Florida (with as expensive as your premiums are), no one ever pays as much in premiums as the cost of the replacement of their homes.



This is very true! Here in NC it is almost impossible to get home owner's insurance. I know people who have had their policy cancelled for no reason. They don't need to give one. :( Our rates have gone way up even though we aren't in a flood zone & didn't flood during Floyd. We just need to cover the payments they had to make.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Everyone's premiums of higher because of cases like this. Their premiums in no way cover the expense of replacing these homes. Just as in Florida (with as expensive as your premiums are), no one ever pays as much in premiums as the cost of the replacement of their homes.

And we pay for it in other ways. Government funds reused to rebuild infrastructure and may for rescue and recovery. As well as the FEMA funds (as limited as they may be) that are paid to disaster victims. All the donations that we (freely) give to organizations such as the Red Cross. All these are costs realized by people not living in those areas. Some of those costs are voluntary but most are not :sad2:

We pay for many things courtesy of our tax dollars that are put in place to allow federal assistance in disasters beyond the control of the locale.

Our premiums are up generally for many many reasons. Heck, mine went up b/c of wildfires out west.

I don't know much about the whole stastistical gambling of insurance---but they rate areas accordingly and they bank on the stastical probability of something happening.

I didn't get a hurricane this year--but my rates will go up anyway. I didn't get 1 lick of insurable damage last year after 2 hurricanes (didn't meet deductible--had we known how much fencing would be, we would have filed)...but in any case--no damage to my home whatsoever. So why should I pay anymore than a neighbor who had crappy shingles?

This would be a federal requirement restricting homesteading. It is so easy to say--well you shouldn't do this or shouldn't do that. Looks great on paper. Has many consequences.

[Caradana]

"Is it rational to continue to inhabit these areas?" Well, maybe we can think about it in the capitalistic ideal that we tend to judge most things in America. It's a rational move if the points in favor outweigh the points against. For most, the points in favor of living in Nola included: family, history, employment, homeownership, culture, while the points against included: risk of natural disaster, crime, some economic stagnation. In most cases, it was a rational choice. We also have to remember that most of these homeowners are insured, and the economic loss they'll suffer won't be as dramatic as the roof-high water levels we're watching on TV. That's hard to remember two days after a massive natural disaster, though.

If it isn't rational to live somewhere that carries with it risk of natural disaster, crime, and some economic stagnation, maybe we should move people out of Southern California? (earthquakes) Puerto Rico? (hurricanes) Western Iowa? (tornadoes)

[totalia]

I often wonder when disasters like Hurricane Katrina occur, is this Mother Nature's way of telling us that humans should not inhabit certain areas. As humans we can only do so much to ofset the effects of nature and often times (in cases such as this) we lose. I understand why people are attracted to living near water but it has to be the most dangerous place on Earth to live (in general terms.) As much as I love New Orleans, I wonder if we, as a nation, should rebuild it or make it the Atlantis of modern times. We could spend Billions of $$'s rebuilding an entire area that could be destroyed in a few hours shortly there after. If it would happen again, what then just rebuild it again? Should the $$$ be spent re-establishing communities in a safer area. I just can't help thinking (especially when they keep saying it) about that New Orleans knew that this would happen - it was just a question of when.

It is not just New Orleans but any area that is at high risk for destruction. I feel the same way about people/businesses in my area that insist on living/operating near our rivers.

I honestly don't mean to offend anybody with this. I understand that people love their homes/areas. I just always wonder why we as a nation continue to rebuild areas that are likely meant for humans to inhabit.

I'm just curious as to what others think and maybe the rational for continuing to inhabit such areas.

I think its mother natures way of telling us that we are screwing too much with it. The storms have gotten worse and worse in the past couple years everywhere.

The last two years in NO have had worse and worse storms.

Hell, my own area had 3 years of droubt followed by three years of rain in only a few months.

That's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

[katerkat]

Don't move to Washington/Oregon, etc. We've got the Cascadia fault line on one side and the Yellowstone supervolcano on the other.

[Caradana]

Hell, my own area had 3 years of droubt followed by three years of rain in only a few months.

That's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

Totalia: American History can teach you a lot about that. See below.
So can Canadian History - I know you'll be adopting a new country, maybe they'll make you read about it for citizenship.
Hope your leg is doing better.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~barkerc/photos/ok_dust_bowl_1935.jpg

[bsnyder]

I think its mother natures way of telling us that we are screwing too much with it. The storms have gotten worse and worse in the past couple years everywhere.

The last two years in NO have had worse and worse storms.

Hell, my own area had 3 years of droubt followed by three years of rain in only a few months.

That's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

Your timeline is way too short. For climatology changes, you need to be thinking in the hundreds of years.

[totalia]

Its been happening for a long time. The earths average temperature over the last century has risen a full degree according to my university classes (can't remember which class it was).

Thats not good.

[Nicolepa]

Don't move to Washington/Oregon, etc. We've got the Cascadia fault line on one side and the Yellowstone supervolcano on the other.


I was going to say about the same thing. We've got 2 active volcanoes. Just because Ranier hasn't blown in a long time doesn't mean it won't and if it does, it will be bad. We have Mt. St. Helens which hasn't erupted for 25 years but has been very active this year.

Let's also not forget, that the downtown city of Seattle, is built on top of another city, that was destroyed in an earthquake. When we get the big earth quake, which the "experts" guarentee will happen someday, Seattle will be destroyed, because there is no ground below it.

I think you just have to deal with the disaster when it happens. My husband, who grew up in Florida and I disagree about whether we'd rather be in an earthquake zone or a hurricane zone. I say earthquake because it's a few minutes and it's done, you deal with the mess. I don't want to have to worry for days, every year, about something happening. He says hurricane because you have time to evacuate. Anyway I digress. I'm really not sure there is a safe place to live. Some are safer than others, but none is totally safe.

[bsnyder]

Its been happening for a long time. The earths average temperature over the last century has risen a full degree according to my university classes (can't remember which class it was).

Thats not good.

But you weren't talking about that. You were talking about hurricane strength. If you look at the numbers since accurate recording keeping began, they haven't intensified in strength. It goes in cycles. About 10 years ago, we entered a cycle of more intense storms. And we'll probably be dealing with it for another 20 nail-biting years.

[Caradana]

Its been happening for a long time. The earths average temperature over the last century has risen a full degree according to my university classes (can't remember which class it was).

Thats not good.

I think it's cool that you've been taking environmental science classes. Hopefully your professor presented the counterpoints, showing the Earth is eons old and we only have about 100 years woth of data, we're very likely just mapping one too-short time frame in estimating a 1 degree climb. For example, it's just as likely that the temp dropped 2 degrees over the 1700s and 1800s, and we're actually colder today than we were in 1699? We have no data, so it's incredibly difficult to say for sure.

[N.Bailey]

I don't think it's a proven fact yet, but we do know storms build up their pressure and intensity from warmer waters. I'd like to know why they don't invest some money to try to lower the temps so the storms are minimal at best? I'm not sure it would be effective, but I think they should try something. I know that's a lot of water, but surely they could come up with something. I'm not talking lowering them to the North Atlantic temps, but a few degrees for Katrina would have made a huge difference.

[N.Bailey]

I also want to add that these storms; as terrible as it is to admit, help the economy. Look how many people will be in need of all new furnishings, clothing, you name it. Construction jobs will be quite abundant too. The government does end up getting some of that money back in the long run.

It doesn't replace loss of life, but....

[JennaTX]

My thoughts are if you can afford a beach front/second home then you should not ask for FEMA, or any other federal program to help you! If you are a shrimper, someone who works on the oil rigs, etc. then that is a different story.

That said, God Bless everyone who was in the path of Katrina!

[Mysteria]

Natural disasters can happen anywhere. The northeast US (including southeastern Canada) is not immune. Ice storms as we learned, though rare, are always a possibility.

Myst

[NMAmy]

I really don't believe that anywhere is a disaster-free zone. Fantasia mentioned Michigan but even here there are big, gorgeous houses on the shores of Lake Michigan that are falling into the lake due to erosion or falling into sink holes. My grandfather used to joke that he figured in 50 years he'd have lakefront property (our cottage is about 1/2 mile from the lake) and although it hasn't gotten that bad, it's still an issue. Tornados and flooding do occur here as well.

Someone else mentioned New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. These states are already having water issues--but in this case it's not enough water to sustain all those who live there. There are also wildfires and flash floods to consider along with drought. DH's house came perilously close to being burnt down by a wildfire a few years ago.

I think the thing that really bothers me are those who live directly on the ocean and build big multi-million dollar homes only to have them knocked down time and time again. If you know it's just a matter of time, why keep rebuilding there?

[bcvillastwo]

I answered Yes, but the people should bear the cost themselves. This is a free country and over the years people have fought and died to keep it free. I agree with some that our freedoms have slipped some in the 20th century but overall we probably have more freedom than any country on earth. So, being as we have considerable freedom her in the U.S. of A. people are entitled to live where ever they please. Where I draw the line is when people live in a natural disaster prone area with the expectation that if things go south Uncle Sam will step in and bail them out. (actually they are expecting their neighbors through the long arm of the government to help pay for their folly).

Now for those who are tempted to flame me (I know you are out there). I completely and totally believe in private charity. I believe we (individually) do have an obligation to help those in need. We will see millions of our friends and neighbors do just that to help out in this natural disaster. I just have a problem with the reliance we have come to place on government.

[bcvillastwo]

I think its mother natures way of telling us that we are screwing too much with it. The storms have gotten worse and worse in the past couple years everywhere.

I don't buy this at all. Someone earlier posted a picture of the Dust Bowl of the 30's and there are literally thousands of other examples. No, we have 24/7 news coverage of every immaginable natural event big and small that happens anyplace on the planet so it just seems like we have more natural disasters these days.

Does anyone recall the earth is getting colder scare of the the early to mid 70's? It didn't come to pass then (but it could in the future). You've heard it before, "follow the money" and you will find who benefits from the funding that is being applied to global warming. What we have here (in my view) is the old German cannard that if you tell a lie often enough people will eventually start to believe it.

[chrissyk]

I live in a mandatory-evac. coastal zone. I know the risks of living here, and I choose to take them. Part of the cost of living here are VERY high insurance rates. Again, I accept that as part of my responsibility for living here. I also accept that I'm not going to own a beautiful McMansion...I'm going to own something built to withstand the disasters that hit the area. Sometimes I do have my own doubts that humans should be inhabiting these areas, but for the most part I am OK with where we live. At the very least, we're above sea-level.

Frankly, I lived in a neighborhood in MA that had been wiped off the map 50 years earlier by an F5 tornado. Should that neighborhood have been rebuilt? I mean, it could happen again. Disasters can happen anywhere. I think that we should plan the best that we can, and then learn from our mistakes when and if we do rebuild.

[brerrabbit]

Since the beginning of time people have tended to settle on or near coastlines. It just made sense. Look at the population distribution in the US. The vast majority of the population live within 100 miles of the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico. Even those living inland tend to live near large inland bodies of water, like Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. Does that mean risks from natural disasters? Heck yeah it does. I have lived on the Texas Gulf Coast my entire life and hurricanes, tornado, and tropical storms are ever present. It's the price you pay for living there. In New Orleans, the problem is not where they are nearly so much as it is what they have done. The city has known for years it was sinking. By their own admission the pump system utilized to take water out of the city was only estimated to handle two inches of rain per hour. Further still the pumps are electric and we all know the first thing that happens when the storm hits, you lose electricity. Like it or not New Orleans is built on a river delta, and by definition a river delta is always changing due to the constant flow of the river. The soil is not stable and if a society chooses to live there they must be prepared to deal with it. Don't get me wrong, I love New Orleans, and have visited the city hundreds of times in my life. I have on several occasions been offered the opportunity through my career to live and work in New Orleans which would have meant more money and a better job. I have turned down every offer because I could not ever bring myself to live there. I hope New Orleans is rebuilt and I hope that the city leaders realize the delicate nature of the place where they live. Studies claim and to some extent I agree that the levy system they have has actually contributed to their problems by not letting the natural flow of the river deposit silt where it wants to. This has increased the washout from the city and is the reason New Orleans has actually sunk. It can happen. If anyone wants to see the devestaing effects of an area sinking on the coast look online for the community of Brownwood, in Baytown, Texas. The federal government wound up buying everyone out because the community literally sunk into the bay. Building on the coast in California, and the East coast has its risks, but in most of those areas the coast is more stable and there is bedrock protecting from erosion. Unfortunatly the Gulf of Mexico has a very unstable coastline and it is ever changing because it is made up of all the soil and sand washed downstream by all the rivers that flow into it. That means building on the coast here is in fact very risky. Finally I think the government should get out of insuring high risk coastal homes. Private insurers won't do it so the Federal government steps in and does it at a subsidized rate. That means every taxpayer in the nation is paying to insure expensive coastal homes. Anyone who ever saw John Stosil on 20/20 and the story of his beachfront house in the Northeast knows the idocy of the whole government insurance situation.

[gina2000]

Who are we going to spend money on if not ourselves?

[totalia]

Actually NOLA has been there for 400 years. Not 200.

The original St. Louis Cathedral actually started as a wooden church. The current is about 200 years old.

The city was owned by the French as a penal colony. The original inhabitants were all criminals and extremely poor.

As time progressed, the French wanted more of a face in the country as the English began staking major claims in the Northern areas.

The colony turned into a regular colony as a result.

But there was a problem. The French gvt didn't bank on the fact of the weather and found it extremely hard to do anything with the very bad heat and humidity. It was extremely hard to build anything (to this day, the buildings sink a little everywhere every year. All except those in the French Quarter area that are actually built on a bed of rock underneath them. Almost all areas of the city need to pack dirt under the houses every spring so that the foundation doesn't wash away with the swamp) and difficult to grow anything.

Eventually the French sold the colony to the Spanish. Without telling the colonists.

Can you imagine the colonists faces when the Spanish showed up one day and said they were taking over? The French colonists were quite angry while the French gvt felt like it was just getting rid of expenses it no longer wanted to deal with.

To say the least, the French colonists were not pleased at all. As the story goes, the French colonists actually rebelled against Spanish rule. They gathered up a bunch of the Spanish men at gun point, stripped them bare, tied them to stakes on a barge and sent the barge floating down the river to the Spanish colonies.

The Spanish were livid and came back en force. They asked to have a dinner with the leaders of this little rebellion to "discuss terms". Stupidly the French leaders of the rebellion agreed.

Needless to say, the firing squad was heard that night. The bodies were staked out in the square as a lesson to the surviving French Colonists.

Yes, that all actually happened. And in a small period of time too. With my fiance living there and the possibility that it was going to be my new home, I did alot of research on the history of the city, and of the United States.

I love New Orleans. So beautiful. Such a rich history and a wonderful people.

[*Fantasia*]

Just bumping... I'd like to hear what DISers have to say. I'd like to hear their thoughts on this one. :Pinkbounc

[*Fantasia*]

bump!

[pattyT]

[QUOTE=HayGan]I often wonder when disasters like Hurricane Katrina occur, is this Mother Nature's way of telling us that humans should not inhabit certain areas.[quote]

I agree COMPLETELY in the currect circumstances -
New Orleans is HOW FAR under Sea Level -
as in 'SUPPOSE to be a LAKE!'
I cringe when I currently hear all the comments about rebuilding it too - I know I will be in the minority with my thinking -

however we can not predict such things as hurricane paths etc... blizzards... etc... there is no way to not inhabit all of them - but precautions are being taken the more we learn (aka in Fort Myers there are zonings regs for new buildings) Like mY husband questioned yesturday - "if they were required to build as we are here in the North East would the damage have been as bad?" anyone know?

[GEM]

Better make way in Michigan for all us Oklahomans, too. After all, it's the middle of tornado alley - and, as someone posted earlier, we did have that whole terrible Dust Bowl thing . . . .

[DoeWDW]

I do have a problem with rebuilding expensive beachfront homes over and over again. If you're that wealthy and you want to take the risk, then don't look for federal dollars or a mandatory insurance policy to bail you out.

As far as poorer people go, why would they WANT to rebuild in a floodprone area. This has got to be a major disruption in their lives. They should be offered relocation assistance or left to their own devices if they choose to stay and live in a flood zone.

Rebuilding NOLA?? They're talking about pumping all that contaminated water into the Gulf of Mexico where it will ruin the ecosystem. Wouldn't it be better to just condemn NOLA and leave the filthy water there, instead of contaminating the Gulf??? Yes you'd have to build containment systems to keep the contaminated water from leaking out but that's probably cheaper than rebuilding all the infrastructure (roads, bridges, levees, pumps, electricity, water and sewage systems, etc) that would have to be rebuilt in NOLA.

Face it, the houses in NOLA that ARE left standing have been contaminated with the filth in the water - petrochemicals, benzene, sewage, etc. The very ground is contaminated now. Why not just contain that contamination and declare it uninhabitable instead of spewing it all out into the Gulf and trying to resurrect homes and businesses on contaminated, sinking land????

[HayGan]

Here's the thing, IMHO, that most people are overlooking. Sure other areas are subject to natural disasters. Heck, I live in an area with 3 rivers that constantly flood but very few areas are subject to the level of destruction that we have seen with Katrina. We could literally spend HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of $$'s to rebuild an area that very well maybe destroyed in another year, 5 years, 10 years - WHO KNOWS :confused3

NOLA is a vital part of our country due to the access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf but that doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands of people need to live in those dangerous areas. Development when it is limited can be more focused and protected. I honestly believe that alot of thought is going to be given to the level of reconstruction that goes on in NOLA and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

Very few areas are subject to natural disasters that bring the level of hurricanes. Floods in PA and tornadoes in Oklahoma aren't going to cause $50+ BILLION in damages.

[Lisa loves Pooh]

[QUOTE=HayGan] Like mY husband questioned yesturday - "if they were required to build as we are here in the North East would the damage have been as bad?" anyone know?

Hurricane codes vary-

the problem with hurricanes---is the sudden pressure drops, microbursts, and tornados, and storm surge. Most current codes generally (codes are state and county and will vary from Miami to New Orleans)--homes are built to increase the possibility that a window will not shatter due to debris and that the roof will not fly off.

However--asking for a hurricane proof home is like asking for a tornado proof home which is impossible to do.

Here the big thing is concrete block structures--but just b/c you have CBS does not immune your home to a hurricane.

In the NE, if you had a Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane--it is wishful thinking to assume that the buildings are immune. A hurricane of that mass just cannot be even closed to being compared to a blizzard.

[Microcell]

Live in Michigan. No earthquake, no hurricane, no flooding... and tornado is very rare (which I am thankful for). So what if it's cold... the bldgs and homes here are still here... and they have been here for many many years. And you'll never have to worry about hurricanes ever again... nor earthquakes.


That is exactly what I was thinking! I keep telling my DH because we live in Tornado Alley. Though I know many people are scared of tornados, my DH really makes a good point, that the chances of the damage path being your house are minimal. That is whay people in Kansas go outside to watch. They can see it coming at them that way too!

I see both sides, because it managed to stay out of major danger for over 300 years, which is pretty good. I also have always wondered if this very thing would happen, with NO being under sea level. They also have considered that Los Angeles would sink into the sea. Should we evacuate that city over the course of years in anticipation?

[MAH4546]

[QUOTE=HayGan]

however we can not predict such things as hurricane paths etc... blizzards... etc... there is no way to not inhabit all of them - but precautions are being taken the more we learn (aka in Fort Myers there are zonings regs for new buildings) Like mY husband questioned yesturday - "if they were required to build as we are here in the North East would the damage have been as bad?" anyone know?

The codes in the Northeast are designed for the Northeast and would most likely not have survived a hurricane. New York City, for example, would be a disaster zone if a hurricane hit. The only two counties in the United States that have building codes that require buildings to withstand Category 5 hurricanes are Miami-Dade County and Broward County (Fort Lauderdale-area). Building codes in this city require all windows on new construction to be hurricane proof and withstand 165MPH winds (which is why you won't see hurricane shutters on new buildings) and be built of steel re-enforced concrete. After Hurricane Andrew devastated parts of souther Miami-Dade County, the building codes were revised in Miami-Dade and Broward to what they are today. A proposal to make these codes go state-wide failed, because they skyrocket construction costs, and the construction industry successfully lobbied against them. If you remember scenes of devastation after Hurricane Andrew, they all came from the newly construction "McSuburbs", which were hurridly built to poor standards. It is difficult to find images of damage done to the inner-city areas, like downtown and Miami Beach, because outside of falling trees, some debris, and broken windows, there wasn't much, thanks to strict building codes. Of course, older structures don't have to adhere to these codes. In South Florida, however, older structures were built out of concrete. Concrete withstands hurricanes very, very well. Also, since most of South Florida lies above sea level (barely, though, at 20 feet) and has the everglades to the left to absorb water, the area is not prone to any flooding, which, in the case of New Orleans, has been the major problem. In New Orleans and Mississippi, older structures were built out of brick and wood, which can withstand little damage against a strong storm.

It is hard to say if strict codes would have changed things in the New Orleans and Mississippi areas, because a lot of their damage came from flooding, which is very difficult to protect against.