Planet of New Orleans

The decision to abandon a major and historical American city isn't an easy one, and it is entirely understandable that leaders would choose not to do so. Given that choice, however, it is critical to reduce the risk of disaster as much as possible. One clear way to do that is to charge appropriate prices (as best as they can be determined) for insurance, and mandate that every resident and business have it (since the government cannot credibly withhold support after the fact). In all likelihood, such a measure would have ruled out resettlement of New Orleans after Katrina.

If that is unacceptable, then the government has a responsibility to reduce taxpayers' long-term exposure to loss by building the necessary protections for the city as rapidly as possible. That this wasn't done represents a critical failure by the Bush administration.

Fortunately, the storm is weaker than it could have been. More fortunately yet, this is the last hurricane season over which Mr Bush will preside.


Permalink Comments (5)CommentsSIR –


  Doug Pascover wrote:
These are all fairly difficult questions, but I'm disinclined that cities or small town should be maintained by a public preference that sustainability be politically determined. That said, I don't mind terribly putting a few bucks toward Jackson Square.
 
 
  sindark wrote:
People who live on the coast in hurricane territory have every expectation of getting hit by hurricanes again and again. Having the taxes of people sensible enough to live elsewhere used to subsidize insurance for those in the risky area is quite unfair. It is also rather imprudent, as it encourages the continued occupation of hurricane-prone areas, with all the implications for death and property destruction that implies.

I could see some justification for a one-off relocation fee for people living in hurricane areas - especially if weather patterns have changed and made a previously safe area dangerous. I cannot see the logic behind using taxes to encourage people to live in dangerous areas, at a time when extreme weather seems to be getting ever-more-potent.

 
 

Sindark:

New Orleans is a special case, though: its existence serves much greater purposes than just to be there for people to live in. It's a port at the mouth of the Mississippi River system, as well as a major terminal for Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon production. The latter of those can be relocated, though the cost would in my opinion be prohibitive. The former is just geographical fact: the rivers that connect much of the Midwest meet the sea there, and not to have a port at that meeting is impractical.

In the end, I agree with you that it should probably be a sparsely-populated city, and that many of its wards should be given up on. But the city itself needs to stay.

 
 
  jthompson wrote:
I, for one, am tired of paying for rebuilding New Orleans. French engineers centuries ago said it was a bad place to build a city. Many dollars have been spent sense then trying to keep this titanic afloat. Time to let it sink.

 
 
  Ghalib wrote:
Why should I have to pay for New Orleans when it is known to be stuck in such a stupid location? Why keep building and constructing ramparts against the storms? It's like funding a junkie. This is one pork barrel project.

 

---

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

Please refer to http://www.db.com/en/content/eu_disclosures.htm for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures.