Sorry. My reply was insufficiently clear to begin with and then I ventured off into random thoughts. The initial response was directed at your objection to altering tax treatment of new construction in the area. (I think you are fixed more on New Orleans proper and I am thinking more about the entire area, too, but I could be wrong).
Call me old-fashioned, but I'd like to know what objective is intended to be met and whether or not that objective is desirable, then consider whether the proposal is likely to meet the objective. Here I'm still stuck trying to infer some desirable objective, which is not at all apparent to me.
I agree with that. I hope the objective is to find people places to live ASAP, help them locate jobs ASAP, get their children back into schools ASAP, help mitigate the additional costs incurred by impacted localities and states because of those efforts, and rebuild the transportation and communications infrastructure of the devastated area. Those are desirable objectives, IMO.
I agree that some thought ought to be given to NOT rebuilding New Orleans exactly as it was and that local, state and federal governments will keep the problems identified in this storm in mind when considering zoning, planning, and actual projects under their control (not just in New Orleans, but throughout the area). Those in turn will influence decisions of private business and individuals. Those are desirable objectives IMO.
As I believe it highly unlikely that everyone who fled is planning to return to live, I hope the pressure to just clean up and act as if nothing happened will be reduced. That is a desirable objective IMO.
At the same time, you sometimes seem to be arguing that we ought to just abandon the area because its too dangerous. Where should everyone go? California with it earthquakes? The Pacific Northwest with all of its active volcanoes? Further up the Mississippi with its long history of floods and past history of earthquakes? Tornado country? There's danger everywhere. |
