Originally Posted by GAC
I fully understand people's emotional and historical attachment to this region and N.O., but personally I don't think you can build a protective system to adequately and safely protect the people when the region, from a geographical and environmental standpoint, is one huge "dangerzone".
You could pretty much say the same thing for San Francisco and Los Angeles. They are both on fault lines and if a big earthquake hits in just the right places, it will be a disaster. And you could also say the same thing about any city on the Gulf coast and the lower eastern seaboard. They could get hit with hurricanes just as easy as New Orleans could again. It's not just an emotional and historic attachment. It's economic as well. You remember how much gas prices went up after Katrina? As for guaranteeing those levees won't break, something like that is tough to do. It's not like buying a car and getting a guarantee it will run or your money back. What happens if those levees break again even after they were guaranteed to hold up? That isn't the type of thing you can get your money back on. If a city like Chicago got hit with a tornado that caused major damage people wouldn't just say. "To hell with them. It costs too much to fix. If they didn't want to get hit by tornadoes they shouldn't live there." I don't hear people saying that they shouldn't have built L.A. on a fault line.