It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time to let New Orleans sink?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Realms
 


Great Post! I love your city and most people know nothing about the commerce that New Orleans brings to the US...all people think it is a vulgar party once every spring. Most people do not even know Mardi Gras is really a family celebration, and only a few take it to extremes on Bourbon Street.




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fathom
what if...you stay your happy ass out of new orlean's business? how about you realize that there is poeple out here that have more honor ans sense of community than you do.
I will rebuild New Orleans one thousand times after one thousand hurricanes and most Louisianas feel the same way!


Then YOU pay for it!

I, personally, dont want my government using the money they stole from me to re-build the homes of ingnorant and uneducated criminals, who shot at police and looted their own neighborhoods!

Where is the sense of community there? SOunds like a community who BELONGS underwater. I heard about the same thing happening in the bible. You remember? THE GREAT FLOOD? The one that wiped out all the EVIL men from the world?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jwstarry
 


Yes! I agree with you. I had this very same conversation with my husband just llast night. The restoration efforts and repairs from Katrina are still 5-7 years away, according to the mayor speaking from Miss. The survivors of Katrina have been through so much more mental anguish and harm before and now go through it again before even having a chance to recover fully from Katrina and this is bound to repeat itself again and again in the coming years and it will become a matter where there is no choice...it will sink...there is no stopping it ...when are they going to get the message? How many times will they run away and return before they finally face the writting on the wall? These people can build a new life elsewhere and all the money being wasted on repeated escapes could better be spent on helping to set up new lives in safer zones. This area is on its way out...just a matter of time ..I say TIME TO BAIL OUT before you get WIPED OUT.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
"Then YOU pay for it!

I, personally, dont want my government using the money they stole from me to re-build the homes of ingnorant and uneducated criminals, who shot at police and looted their own neighborhoods!

Where is the sense of community there? SOunds like a community who BELONGS underwater. I heard about the same thing happening in the bible. You remember? THE GREAT FLOOD? The one that wiped out all the EVIL men from the world?"



I've never said this to a poster before, but I think your Response warrants it.
Deny ignorance, PLEASE!

So, you've been here? You know that the whole city is nothing but a bunch of thieves and "ignorant and uneducated criminals"? New Orleans is a big city and there are alot of surrounding suburbs. The amount of "looters" was a small percentage of the population of the city and surrounding 'burbs. But the media made a HUGE deal out of it, so it's obvious where you got your information about this city.

I did pay for the repair of my home and cut up the fallen trees on my property myself.

Chances are high that many, many of the things you use or own were directly imported from this “EVIL” city and even higher that they were made from things imported from this city. So all of the port workers are evil?

No, I don't remeber the flood. I wasn't there. It didn’t wipe out all of the evil men from the world; if it had, no one would be left alive.

You want to bring the bible into this? I hate to break it to you buddy, but you’re living in New Babylon. Be careful what you wish for.





I don't know how how to put this a better way. You don’t want to rebuild the homes of “criminals”. Yet you want to use things made from steel and rubber and many other things imported in this city. Prices on things would increase sharply if this port disappeared. I’m not telling you that you should help with the rebuilding. Just consider what’s going to happen if this city goes “underwater”. Everyone’s cost of living is going to increase a considerable amount.



I have been talking about the economic value of this city in most of my posts, mainly to illustrate that everyone who makes these stupid posts needs this city. Even a “bare bones” city with just the port needs places for workers to live and buy things like groceries and cars and places to relax like bars and movie theaters. They need doctors and dentists and places to bring their kids like parks. A city would HAVE to exist here, even if it is a small one.

The other users are right; this city has great historical value. It’s older than the United States of America is. It’s the birthplace of Jazz and many other styles of music. It’s a fascinating and really cool place, unlike anywhere else in the world.


[edit on 9/2/2008 by Dark Realms]

[edit on 9/2/2008 by Dark Realms]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I, for one, certainly don't think that you can judge everyone in a city by statistics. I know there are plenty of good people in New Orleans. However, NO does have a very big crime problem:
www.cbsnews.com...

New Orleans - the bloodiest city in the country in 2006 - got even bloodier in 2007, with 209 murders. That was 48 more than in 2006, when its 161 homicides put its murder rate far ahead of even such deadly cities as Gary, Indiana, and Detroit.


In addition:
www.cityrating.com...

shows that:
murder is 7.54 times the national average
forcible rape is 1.23 times the national average
robbery is 1.99 times the national average
car theft is 2.41 times the national average

Those statistics account for about 30,000 crimes out of a population of 475,000 people.

That means that there are about 445,000 people that are law-abiding citizens. Thus, to condemn an entire city when at most 7% are criminals, is reprehensible.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
"30,000 crimes out of a population of 475,000 people.

That means that there are about 445,000 people that are law-abiding citizens. Thus, to condemn an entire city when at most 7% are criminals, is reprehensible."

Good point! And, the percentage may be even lower. From your figures, it seems like you mathematically figured the max number of criminals (if each crime is committed by one and only one person 30,000 crimes - 30,000 criminals.)

There are some one-off crimes, but most are committed by the same people over and over until they get arrested. So the percentage of criminals is going to be even smaller than 7%.


And the whole city is not dangerous! Parts are, sure. But the city is big and is surrounded by suburbs.

[edit on 9/2/2008 by Dark Realms]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Realms
 





Good point! And, the percentage may be even lower. From your figures, it seems like you mathematically figured the max number of criminals (if each crime is committed by one and only one person 30,000 crimes - 30,000 criminals.)


Absolutely. That is why I add the words "at most". There was no way to know how many actual people were involved, but I agree that it is very plausible that at least some of the criminals are repeat offenders. In any case, the VAST majority of New Orleans residents are law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, the MSM always concentrates their efforts on the criminals, and ignores those that not only are law-abiding, but perform heroic acts every day.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jwstarry
 


A large portion of New Orleans should have never been allowed for development. It should have remained wetlands of which was positive for the environment and fisheries. Most of New Orleans is 10' to 20' feet below sea level which virtually guarantees a birm breach via storm surge, tidal flows at some point in time. The French Quarter was established on the high ground of New Orleans for good reason...it's on HIGH ground. These guys had some common sense and used it. Greedy developers and lobbyists lobbied to have the land developed and the 'undeducated' or 'careless' chose to reside there. Would YOU choose to live on the edge of the Gulf 20' feet below sea level? Let nature take its course from here forward to make up for mans' mistakes/greed. Rebuilding the area will only result in a repeat of history. History does teach us something...if we learn from it.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
“A large portion of New Orleans should have never been allowed for development. It should have remained wetlands of which was positive for the environment and fisheries. Most of New Orleans is 10' to 20' feet below sea level which virtually guarantees a birm breach via storm surge, tidal flows at some point in time. The French Quarter was established on the high ground of New Orleans for good reason...it's on HIGH ground. These guys had some common sense and used it. Greedy developers and lobbyists lobbied to have the land developed and the 'undeducated' or 'careless' chose to reside there. Would YOU choose to live on the edge of the Gulf 20' feet below sea level? Let nature take its course from here forward to make up for mans' mistakes/greed. Rebuilding the area will only result in a repeat of history. History does teach us something...if we learn from it.”

“A recent study by Tulane and Xavier University notes that 51% of New Orleans is at or above sea level, with the more densely populated areas generally on higher ground. The average elevation of the city is currently between one and two feet (0.5 m) below sea level, with some portions of the city as high as 16 feet (5 m) at the base of the river levee in Uptown and others as low as 10 feet (3 m) below sea level in the farthest reaches of Eastern New Orleans.” en.wikipedia.org...


DENY IGNORANCE!!
NO part of New Orleans is 20 feet below sea level. And New Orleans is NOT “on the edge of the gulf”. LOOK AT A MAP!

So, I’m “uneducated” and “careless” for living here? My entire neighborhood is above sea level. Not surprisingly, you misspelled “uneducated”.


“Rebuilding the area will only result in a repeat of history. History does teach us something...if we learn from it.”


So, rebuilding will result in repeating the cultural, musical, architectural, and shipping success of the city and will repeat the successful tourist industry here. Great!!



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Realms
 


Again, what about Holland? An uneducated option can be corrected through the use of technology and investment.

If you guys, like most of the world, were not slaves to a debt based monetary system, if investment were actually reflected positively in the economy instead of just birthing more debt, then N.O would be an opportunity for prosperity instead of a financial and social problem.

The solution is clear and objective, fix the leveys and make them better, stronger. The problems are all in your minds.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I look at this New Orleans-Hurricane situation as if a family member were crippled in a really bad car accident (Katrina). We (her inhabitants/family members) love her, she's in our heart, we will not abandon her, we know that some days will be harder than others, we know that she will NEVER be the same, and we will do all that we possibly can to get her back to her original status. Those of us with New Orleans in our heart and money in our pockets will adapt to the changes we must undoubtedly face. It won't be easy, we will feel like giving up, but, when my kids ask about where I grew up, I want to be able to show them.

However, I do feel that we shoud foot the bill since it is OUR city and OUR responsibilty. We should not look for help from other people who aren't part of the family, because, I mean honestly, most people don't give an expletive about there own city, let alone those who are not. I feel that it is not yall responsibilty to help us get back to working condition. I know that gas prices are ridiculous everywhere, alot of people can not even afford to stay in thier own homes, and alot of people just can not deal with another burden.

Lucky for yall, it's not yall burden to bear, it's ours, her family. If we want to waste our money on rebuilding a city that had no business being built in the first place (Thanks Bienville!) that IS our business. I am a very proud woman and will let my stomach growl and churn before I ever ask for a morsel of someone's food or a penny of someone money, but then again I am very stubborn and obnoxious that way.


So, outside looking in, I agree, to hell with New Orleans.

From the inside looking out,
"PLEASE DON'T SHOOT ME DOWN, CAUSE I'M FLYING, I'M HIGHER.
(See, you gotta be from New Orleans to know what the f*** I'm talking bout, and if you don't f*** ya, I say what I want.)

Lil Wayne -The Carter III and Da Drought 3 look it up

[edit on 4-9-2008 by thirsty]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I think it's time to call it "Old Orleans".



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Since when is Holland in the direct path of Hurricanes? The only clouds Holland sees are the ones coming out of the coffee shops.

We can invest a zillion dollars and build dikes out of titanium, that's not going to negate the fact that Hurricanes are a constant threat in the region.

It's time for the folks in New Orleans to get some sense and pack up their gear and move north.




[edit on 5-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


You're kidding right? Just because the tropical gulf has a few seasonal storms, if big ones, dosen't make it a harder environment than the constant pounding of the North Sea. Holland, I am pretty sure, if studied right probably has more sediment movement at the coastline than New Orleans. Holland's barriers take a huge pounding.

Every single sea level coastline population takes ocasional damage. That alone is no reason to abandon it. However, if you don't invest in protecting it, bye bye construction, hello nature.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Gateway
 


You're kidding right? Just because the tropical gulf has a few seasonal storms, if big ones, dosen't make it a harder environment than the constant pounding of the North Sea. Holland, I am pretty sure, if studied right probably has more sediment movement at the coastline than New Orleans. Holland's barriers take a huge pounding.

Every single sea level coastline population takes ocasional damage. That alone is no reason to abandon it. However, if you don't invest in protecting it, bye bye construction, hello nature.


There are two main reasons primarily and uniquely why New Orleans faces more danger than Holland:

1) It is in the cross hairs of major weather storms.

2) New Orleans is basically the mouth of where the Mississippi ends. (One of the largest river systems in N. America)

Of course as already mentioned the below sea level as well as the persistent erosion also doesn't help. All of these factors combined make New Orleans a more riskier zone than Holland.

Investment must be tempered with "Risk", I think if the insurance companies were allowed to price properly without the interference of government intervention, then you would see people gradually leave this city as they should. If the construction companies faced "high" insurance costs this would limit the amount of people facing this "risk". And those that are able to stay, will be the ones that can afford to stay. If government interferes and restrict insurance premiums as well as subsidize low income housing construction, you will only have more of the same. More poor people living along these risky zones awaiting the inevitable flooding, be it hurricanes or the overflow of the Mississippi, ending with a bail-out from taxpayers. It is an never ending cycle.

Investment is fine as long as the people willing to invest are the insurance companies, because they are the ones who will be able to measure the risk more appropriately, rather than having the army corp of engineers deciding who and where people should live, based upon Nagan's wishes or others that are politically connected.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


But Holland is a whole country, and there are several mid sized rivers going into the sea over a much bigger area with a lower populational density. And they still make it work. Sorry, I just don't buy your cost benefit analysis.

Note I'm not saying the N.O situation is easy, I know very well the huge problems that city has... I just consider them solveable with engineering and investment, and it's just a from the root corrupt socioeconomic system (and im referring to fractional reserve banking and debt based economics here) that prevents good things from being done.

There is no technical or humaine reason not to rebuild N.O.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Gateway
 


But Holland is a whole country, and there are several mid sized rivers going into the sea over a much bigger area with a lower populational density. And they still make it work. Sorry, I just don't buy your cost benefit analysis.


Well, think of it this way the total population of New Orleans is 250 some odd thousand, while Holland the entire country as a whole is 16+ Million which is an unfair comparison, really, so let's take a look at Amsterdam the city is 735,000+ people as you can see more people live in Amsterdam alone than live in New Orleans.

What does this mean? Well it means a higher tax base to pay for the levees and to maintain the standard of living for the people in Amsterdam. Clearly there is a higher percent of taxes collected from people in Amsterdam to pay for these levees, which is fine. Don't you think that the TAX rate for people living in New Orleans should be at least enough to cover the cost of any possible disaster that may occur, given the risk? Currently there isn't any tax, it is expected that the rest of the country should unfairly eat the bill for these people that live in these higher risk zones.

The people in Holland pay for their levees accordingly, don't you think that a higher percentage of the costs of these levees should be borne by the people of New Orleans at the very least? As it stands today, this cost is covered by the Federal government, which means the people in New Orleans are being subsidized, you could say perhaps even encouraged to stay in this high risk zone since the costs of maintaining the levees are not fully borne by the people that live there.




Note I'm not saying the N.O situation is easy, I know very well the huge problems that city has... I just consider them solveable with engineering and investment, and it's just a from the root corrupt socioeconomic system (and im referring to fractional reserve banking and debt based economics here) that prevents good things from being done.


I completely agree that New Orleans's problems can be solved as well. I just don't think throwing tax payer money will solve the problem. The problem of moral hazard has to be addressed, particularly those that live in a "riskier" zone have to bare the burden a portion of their decisions to live there, which is currently not the case. Let the private sector solve the problem, they are far more efficient then any federal bureaucracy.


There is no technical or humane reason not to rebuild N.O.

As a libertarian I have no problem with people living anywhere they choose. Having said that, by choosing where you live you as a responsible ADULT must weigh the benefits and costs of living there, and not assume that the rest of the country has an obligation to bail you out, because of your lack of foresight and judgment. It's time to treat people like adults, and not like children. Think of it this way, if a city was to be built on an active volcano, should it not be costly to live there, since most likely this volcano will cause destruction and havoc? Well, this is the case for the city of New Orleans, "RISK" is being ignored.



[edit on 5-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


You're thinking inside the box, deciding N.O's fate based on money.

Money is nothing, it's just a representation of people's focus, a quantification of expected input. A spell.

If people want to save N.O they can, even if they have to make money out of thin air. Banks do it all the time.

I don't view the situation as an economical problem, because of what I wrote here. If you can't see it my way then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I can understand that if you focus on market values and return of investment N.O is a write off. I just can't bring myself to value people's lives, a cities culture, that way.

Maybe it's just me?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Gateway
 


You're thinking inside the box, deciding N.O's fate based on money.

Money is nothing, it's just a representation of people's focus, a quantification of expected input. A spell.


No money is EXTREMELY important. I'm not just talking about making it...I'm talking about fiat money like you mentioned. Printing it, is easy, we can pay for anything, but that creates inflation. Therefore when government throws fiat money at problems it does no good, in terms of everyone else's purchasing power.




If people want to save N.O they can, even if they have to make money out of thin air. Banks do it all the time.


No, this is a bad idea. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve fundamental issues of incentives. People must weigh costs, and benefits to every endeavor they take.



I don't view the situation as an economical problem, because of what I wrote here. If you can't see it my way then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I can understand that if you focus on market values and return of investment N.O is a write off. I just can't bring myself to value people's lives, a cities culture, that way. Maybe it's just me?

That's fine we can agree to disagree. Except your solution, you must admit, absolves any sort of personal culpability. You assume that it's everyone else's responsibility to be financially responsible for others lack of foresight. Unfortunately, it is this is the sort of argument that people use, when they say that "Bear and Stern" must be bailed out, or other multimillion dollar corporation. You either believe in personal "responsibility" of the individual or you don't. And if you don't that leaves the government as the ultimate decision maker of who or where people should live or what they do. Leaving government to be the ultimate decision maker, brings us that much closer to a communist state.


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


I don't see it in those terms. This isn't about personal responsability, it's about neglect, the USA's neglect to take care of it's own territory. And the state should control it's own currency so it can afford to take care of it's own territory and we didn't have to have these silly arguments.

Just my opinion, no ofense intended.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join