Folks should not live in major river wetlands and bayous. It is simple.

[dogindia]

Hurricane or no We are talking about changing how humans inhabit the planet not for their safety but for the safety of all beings.

[fishnfla]

1. Whats this, "Drown the Fokkers"?

Al Fokker that is

[BigMcLargehuge]

10. Those Fokkers was flying Messerschmitts!

[JimmyJazz]

2. Where would we all live? In California where there are earthquakes?

In Kansas where there are tornadoes? In the northeast where there are blizzards?

BTW - you might wanna use the little spellcheck feature in the corner.

[wuushew]

16. Blizzards really aren't that dangerous per say

they do cause power outages and economic disruption, however communities that allocate sufficient tax money for road clearing and snow removal do quite well. Also standard two-wheel drive cars do fine in such conditions, speaking from experience getting out of that Chicago blizzard last January from Wrigley Field to outside the city with two feet feet of heavy wet snow coming down.


People just need to remember to slow down and allocate sufficient time to reach their destinations.

[stopbush]

18. Oh, please. They're not that dangerous?

I lived in NJ for awhile. If someone sneezed, the power lines went down. A major storm could keep you snowbound for days at a time without power. The fact that you were slowly freezing wasn't a help either. The worst came at the end of a particularly hard winter when our town had exhausted its reserve of road salt. A late-season snow could be life threatening. They'd plow the main roads ASAP, but the backroads might take days. Unless you owned a vehicle with 4WD that sat 18 inches above the roadway, you were SOL. Schools could be cancelled for 3-4 days.

So, should everyone flee NJ? Every area has its unique problems.

[eallen]

3. The Mississippi needs a port city.

That means a city in the delta, which is to say, in the wetlands and bayous.

[IChing]

4. Well that pretty much tells Bangladesh that they need to move their

country.
The nile delta also should be included and the Netherlands(the Holland area).

I got a bus and will help them move.

[ClintonTyree]

5. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita formed new sand bars along.........

the coast. How long do you think it will be before developers are selling "beach front" lots there? The State and Local governments must prevent these areas from being developed, but outright bribery by developers usually wins every time. I agree, these areas should not be settled but as long as there are crooked developers and bureaucrats, there will be coastal development.

[Caution]

6. And I suppose that impoverished 5th generation New Orleanians

should have just up and moved?

[SteppingRazor]

7. What's next? Nix California because of earthquakes?

Abandon Florida because of hurricanes?

People should be able to live where they want to live, and commerce requires port cities near coastal wetlands. I don't think banning people from beachside property is the answer.

Better preparation beforehand -- levees meant to stand up to a Cat-5 storm, for example -- would probably be a good start, though.

[jobycom]

8. Who's Al Beings, and why should I worry about his safety?

People live where they do for reasons. Usually it is because their income and industry comes from that region. Swamps, deltas, and bayous have their own economic systems that are somewhat self-supporting. I'll leave it up to people to decide where they should live.

[Stephanie]

9. NYC is number five on the hurricane hit list

Should we abandon the city? What about California - the whole state is an earthquake zone. In fact the whole west coast is earthquake territory. Should we abandon that too?

[sui generis]

11. Well I'll agree with wetlands and bayous

in the general "suburban community" sense, but people have always lived in wetlands and bayous, and you can't have a port on a river big enough to transport commerce that isn't itself at sea level and subject to weather.

Most coastal ports are built in sheltered topography - one of the reasons that made them attractive and defensible against invaders and weather to beging with.

You can't have port communities AND have commercial shipping, not to mention that people just like to live by the sea. We have to be better prepared to batten down hatches, have better construction standards, and better evacuation standards and planning. Another poster here once told me that it is impossible to plan for the worst possible case scenario and that the cost of rebuilding never justifies the cost of preparation. I think that poster has been proven wrong in light of the circumstances.

It comes back down to, what are our priorities? Our priorities today seem to be corporate welfare and warmongering and tax cuts for the wealthy, in a nutshell. If our priorities were different we COULD preserve coastal wetlands, preserve shipping, and provide safe places for for people to live and to retreat to in the event of dependable hurricane season and other unforeseen natural and man-made disasters.

Changing those priorities is how we change how humans inhabit the planet. It's too bad we're only learning AFTER each disaster instead of anticipating the obvious.

[gatorboy]

12. I suggest we start moving out of our wooden homes...

Those buggers can be a fire's wet dream y'know?

[marbuc]

13. People have been living in the bayous for generations

The true natives do so with respect with the environment, and especially what for nature can do. They've lived with these risks, and will continue to do so.

[Tactical Progressive]

14. People have been setting up shop near the water

since the dawn of time. Some of the highest priced real estate is along the water. That's not going to change.

If it were a case where every year they got flooded out, that would be one thing, but once every forty years? That's not a sufficient reason.

Especially because we have the technology - mounds of dirt (levees) and say building codes for raised construction - and of course serious state and federal emergency management to sidestep unavoidable disaster.

Of course all of that requires a public consciousness that goes beyond I only care about what's in my pocket today.

[melody]

15. Everywhere is dangerous, in one way or another

Big earthquakes have struck from Alaska to New Madrid, Missouri to New York. Hurricanes and tornadoes often go where earthquakes don't go. If it's not mother nature, then its lack of jobs or urban blight or one or the other capricious acts of fate. There will be benefits and drawbacks to living in all areas.

We're all in this together and nobody is going to be safer than anyone else, given all circumstances.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. You are high and mighty, aren't you? Check this cartoon:

Wetlands are important, of course. But New Orleans has not been a "wetlands" for over 200 years.

[maxsolomon]

19. people can live there, just don't PAVE OVER THEM

the army corp of engineers has spent their entire existence dredging wetlands & diverting rivers.

now we understand the function of these areas. we must maintain the ecosystem's ability to function. this does not exclude human habitation, but it DOES exclude certain kinds of human constructions.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SmokingJacket]

21. Great. You relocate everyone.

Tell people who've lived there their whole lives to sell their house, move far away from their friends and family and job. Maybe you can provide the cash, too, because land in safe places costs a whole lot more than on a floodplain.

Dude, it's not simple. It's an ideal, but it's not simple.