The choice to make.

[Adam Weiss]

American cities have been destroyed before through acts of nature and accidents.

They've always been rebuilt.

But in rebuilding there's a choice to make.

1: Put in a combined effort of private, institutional, corporate, and governmental groups to rebuild bigger and better than it was before. When the City of Chicago burned in 1871, this was the approach. What came before - dangerous buildings designed with no thought given to the risks of fire - simply wasn't good enough. The future was safe buildings, new parks, skyscrapers, a world's fair, and status, until the rise of Los Angeles, as the 2nd biggest city in the US.

or

2: Waste time and money by engaging in political wrangling, bitching about someone else's lack of leadership, questioning if rebuilding is even worth it, and (finally) watching in wonder as a nearby city takes preeminance over yours. This was Galveston after the storm of 1900. Before 1900, Galveston was bigger and richer than Houston. Today, Houston is the 4th largest city in the US with a population of nearly 2 million people; Galveston? A small, poor coastal city with around 55,000 inhabitants.

So which is better? Which choice do you want for New Orleans? I personally want '1' for the people of New Orleans. But too many people seem to be unaware that the choice is there and that they are, wholly ignorant of what they are doing, getting themselves into '2'.

[Notan]

I view New Orleans, and surrounding areas, as a condemned building. The only answer is to knock it down and start rebuilding. Immediately!

I hope, to God, that all the bad press will force the government to do the right thing for everyone that's been affected.

We're all watching.

Notan

[Adam Weiss]

1: Oil and the oil refineries that are in and around New Orleans. Unless you want to pay $4 or $5 per gallon at the pump, those -have- to be rebuilt in order to make gasoline from the crude oil that is imported through the port of New Orleans. 2: The port of New Orleans and trade on the Mississippi River. New Orleans is similar to Chicago in that it is at the recieving end of a huge hinterland. The city recieves grains and manufactured goods from places all along the Mississippi River and trades it with foreign nations; it recieves oil and other goods from foreign nations and trades it with places all along the Mississippi River.

I'll expound on this by saying that Galveston, too, had a huge port prior to 1900. But after the storm, everyone took an attitude that you would, Don. They said "nope, not worth the expense of rebuilding the port." The city of Houston, by contrast, said "that port's well worth the expense". They built a port, and it was a major factor in Houston eclipsing Galveston in size and wealth.

3: Culture. Old people are quick to forget the fun they had in their 20s and 30s, but Mardi Gras is a big thing, and worth saving - among the other things that New Orleans has to offer. It just won't be the same.

You don't need to say any more. You've written in this and other posts that in your opinion nothing is worth spending a cent of tax dollars on; and the corollary - if tax dollars in any way were spent on something, than whatever it was has no merit whatsoever.

Because you don't like paying your taxes.

[Notan]

Don't forget what might be the strongest argument...

People are *from* New Orleans.

Notan