New Orleans demands $77 billion in compensation

[latino666]

Originally posted by: Squisher
There has been billions spent and nothing to show for it and no accounting for it.

Corruption is the word of the day.




Even with a well run rebuilding plan it's going to be hard rebuild with so many inhabitants and business owners abandoning the city.

NO should just suck up to businesses. Make it dirt cheap for them to open stores, plants and offices.

Also I thought a lot of Latinos moved to NO to help rebuild it. I know a few of my family members went down there to work. They should us that to their advantage as well. Instead of taking this to the courts which will just waste more US funds.

 

[waggy]

The city "looked at everything and just kind of piled it on," Mayor Ray Nagin said


that says a lot right there.

 

[Journer]

i wish NO and all its inhabitance would just vanish into the sea for good >( i friggin hate that city

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: KLin
I'm watching a show on PBS right now about the 2004 tsunamis. I wonder what kind of damage would happen if a seismic event happened in the gulf of mexico and triggererd a massive tsunami to hit the southern US coast?

it wouldn't cause one. Not enough space for a wave that big to buildup

 

[Thoreau]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: KLin
I'm watching a show on PBS right now about the 2004 tsunamis. I wonder what kind of damage would happen if a seismic event happened in the gulf of mexico and triggererd a massive tsunami to hit the southern US coast?

it wouldn't cause one. Not enough space for a wave that big to buildup

Could the US government donate a few nuclear warheads to help the wave size issue? I'd certainly vote for that particular use of government funding.

 

[Balt]

If they actually got $77 million the vast majority of it would just disappear with absolutely nothing to show for it.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Journer
i wish NO and all its inhabitance would just vanish into the sea for good >( i friggin hate that city

Yeah, we don't need the port services or oil refining that it provides...

 

[theeedude]

So he wants reparations?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: Rapidskies
They were built beyond specs

LOL, no.

Actually, they were built beyond specs, the specs were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane, and the resulting storm surges.

Hurricane Katrina was not a category 3 hurricane.

 

[compuwiz1]

The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Actually, they were built beyond specs, the specs were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane, and the resulting storm surges.

Hurricane Katrina was not a category 3 hurricane.

Well, it did make landfall as a Category 3. It just had horrible storm surge.

 

[doze]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: OSx86

Originally posted by: Kaervak
Hey New Orleans, here's an idea, how about not building a city that's on unstable ground and under sea level. Oh wait, common sense nevermind.

:roll: They really thought about that back in the 1700s?

Considering that the first levees were built in New Orleans in 1718, they DID think about that.

Yep, they did. Keep in mind that the French Quarter didn't get flooded, and that's the oldest and nicest section of the city.

The French Quarter and older parts of town along the Mississippi river fared ok b/c those areas are basically sea level. Many of the surrounding areas are back to normal and have been for a while.

I'm glad I left after the whole ordeal, the job market is worse than before and cost of living increased.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

Yeah, I'm sure they thought about it, but legal action against them would likely not result in the money asked for.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

The Louisiana marshlands were less eroded when it was built and as others have said, the original part of the city didn't flood.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

Yes, the city should not be rebuilt, not with taxpayer money.

I'm certain the federal government is not responsible for the hurricane that caused the destruction. They're filing claims against the wrong entity.

 

[Eeezee]

I'm going to sue New Orleans for dumping all of their idiots from its university on the rest of us.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

Yeah, it's so stupid to build a prosperous port city at the end of America's largest river. What were they thinking?

And FYI, the founding fathers didn't have anything to do with New Orleans. We bought it from the French. Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase? High school education FTW?

 

[Injury]

So people across the nation pitch in to help them and have been doing so since day 1... and now they want people across the nation to pay more via the government?

Fvck this city. Learn to stand on your own feet.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

Yeah, it's so stupid to build a prosperous port city at the end of America's largest river. What were they thinking?

And FYI, the founding fathers didn't have anything to do with New Orleans. We bought it from the French. Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase? High school education FTW?

Did the French disclose that the city could flood under a Cat 3 hurricane? Sue the French for non-disclosure!

For what it's worth, why can't they use some common sense? I can find dozens, if not hundreds of places where there are some existing homes, but no more homes can be built because since the original structures were built, someone intelligent came along and said, "hey, this is a flood plain." Then, building codes said, "no building in flood plains." Problem was solved.

I propose the following building codes:
You cannot build a home on the side of a cliff in areas prone to earthquakes and landslides.

You cannot build a home where...
(fill in with common sense.)

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: Rapidskies
They were built beyond specs

LOL, no.

Actually, they were built beyond specs, the specs were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane, and the resulting storm surges.

Hurricane Katrina was not a category 3 hurricane.

The Corps admitted that major parts of the flood control system failed at points lower than maximum capacity. Apparently they didn't fully understand the area's geology and layout so the floodwall systems they installed ended up being inadequate.

That said, the local and state governments had done fvck all in the last 60 years to prepare for this eventuality or lobby congress for improved flood protections via the Corps. Now the system it being rebuilt (with federal funds) to be much stronger than it was with better floodwalls, pumping stations, armored levees, and flood gates. However, I doubt that if facing another strong Cat 4 or 5 storm that even all these would hold.

 

[Mallow]

this is a political/legal positioning thing.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: Rapidskies
They were built beyond specs

LOL, no.

Originally posted by: Kaervak
Hey New Orleans, here's an idea, how about not building a city that's on unstable ground and under sea level. Oh wait, common sense nevermind.

Sweet, can I borrow your time machine?

How about not doing a second time?

...and how about not asking me and the other taxpayers to subsidize it?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
This is where I take an unpopular view around here (I live dead-center in the Katrina impact zone). New Orleans and Louisiana have mishandled this from the start. People in Mississippi have taken the initiative and have really begun rebuilding. Churches can't give money away, because everyone turns it down. They want it to go to more needy people. MS is rebuilding slowly, but surely.

However, I can't read the New Orleans paper without seeing how everyone there has been wronged and how the government needs to dump truckloads of money into the city.

Now, I don't claim to know everything storm related that happened, but there's a big difference in the attitudes between New Orleans and the rest of the damaged area.

Wow, that's great to hear.

Wish the news would feature more about the other affected areas on, especially since it sounds like you're not doing too bad.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

Yeah, it's so stupid to build a prosperous port city at the end of America's largest river. What were they thinking?

And FYI, the founding fathers didn't have anything to do with New Orleans. We bought it from the French. Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase? High school education FTW?

Did the French disclose that the city could flood under a Cat 3 hurricane? Sue the French for non-disclosure!

For what it's worth, why can't they use some common sense? I can find dozens, if not hundreds of places where there are some existing homes, but no more homes can be built because since the original structures were built, someone intelligent came along and said, "hey, this is a flood plain." Then, building codes said, "no building in flood plains." Problem was solved.

I propose the following building codes:
You cannot build a home on the side of a cliff in areas prone to earthquakes and landslides.

You cannot build a home where...
(fill in with common sense.)

...or leave it up to the free market.

That is, if people who want to build there should understand that they're taking a calculated risk, and the real estate market and insurance prices will adjust accordingly.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The founding fathers, who were idiotic enough to build a city in such an area, should be to blame.

Yeah, it's so stupid to build a prosperous port city at the end of America's largest river. What were they thinking?

And FYI, the founding fathers didn't have anything to do with New Orleans. We bought it from the French. Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase? High school education FTW?

Did the French disclose that the city could flood under a Cat 3 hurricane? Sue the French for non-disclosure!

For what it's worth, why can't they use some common sense? I can find dozens, if not hundreds of places where there are some existing homes, but no more homes can be built because since the original structures were built, someone intelligent came along and said, "hey, this is a flood plain." Then, building codes said, "no building in flood plains." Problem was solved.

I propose the following building codes:
You cannot build a home on the side of a cliff in areas prone to earthquakes and landslides.

You cannot build a home where...
(fill in with common sense.)

...or leave it up to the free market.

That is, if people who want to build there should understand that they're taking a calculated risk, and the real estate market and insurance prices will adjust accordingly.

You're forgetting one thing: these things *are* left up to the free market, then the gov't has to come in and bail everyone out, using *my* taxes.