Re: "city built as a result of the confluence of history, geography, economics, and necessity"
New Orleans has an important contribution to the USA as a port and other useful functions.
However, New Orleans had a very high unemployment rate, and very high crime rate.
The question to me is how many people can justifiably be living in such a geographically risky place. And who is going to pay for protecting such a location with better levees.
Is seems to me that the former population of New Orleans (about 450,000) was unnecessarily high as evidenced by the high welfare and unemployment rates.
If so many people were poor and living on welfare, then why should they not do that in some other area which would not take such a large investment to protect? Someone can collect a welfare check anywhere. Some people on welfare is to be expected, but New Orleans was far higher than such a level.
How about a population of 200,000? And also protect only one-half the city with category 5 levees. The better levees could be built more quickly and cheaper if only half the city were protected. Maintenance of the levees and energy for pumping are also significant concerns, not just the capital cost.
In addition, evacuation is a concern. Evacuating 200,000 is a lot easier than 450,000. New Orleans is a much more dangerous place to be during severe storms than other areas regardless of the quality of the levees. |
