<p>Back to the topic–did anyone else catch Anderson Cooper broadcasting this morning? He was standing in a downpour and blustering wind on Canal St. in NOLA- yelling into his micropohone that it was a total ghost town, and that there wasn’t a person around-- that if anyone was still there they were hunkered down. Well, problem was, as he was saying that, 4 idiots were sauntering across the street behind him, waving at the camera! It was funny and pathetic at the same time! He had no idea they were there and he kept commenting about the desolate conditions. Yet these fools were out and about!! It was sadly funny!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was thinking the same thing. I must say the best part of Gustav being a wimp (relatively speaking) is that the poor little media didn’t get what they wanted.</p>
<p>We here in hurricane land have two major sports in hurricane season - outside of football, that is in a category above sport - one is incessant, obsessive watching of the weather, local or Weather Channel, the other sport is making fun of all the reporters, especially when they are making something out of nothing.</p>
<p>Does anyone else remember the “Windstorm 97” sketch on Mad TV? Reporter standing on a street (obviously no wind blowing) holding a microphone, “I’m <reporter name=”“> for <station>, here on Main Street, bringing you the latest news on Windstorm 97. See this piece of paper here on the ground? It wasn’t here five minutes ago. Back to you, Jerry.”</station></reporter></p>
<p>Should the US Government, (taxpayer) fund rebuilding efforts in areas prone to large scale (earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding). And if so, how many chances does an area get?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Federal Government DOES fund rebuilding and new safety projects, but such funding typically require a cost share by local governments. The collapse of several projects that would and could have helped NOLA has been linked to the refusal of NOLA and the State of Louisiana to absorb their share of the expenses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s go about this another way. List the areas of the US that are not susceptible to large-scale natural disasters. I can’t think of any, except perhaps some of the more remote desert areas. Blizzards, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, non-cyclonic wind storms, volcanic eruptions, ice storms – you name it, it happens nearly everywhere. Do we limit federal help to those 10 million (and I’m making that number up) people living in spots that are NOT prone to some sort of natural disaster? And what happens if the really unusual happens, like an 8.2 earthquake in Missouri (it’s happened), or a hurricane hitting New England (it’s happened). Are those people excused from personal responsibility because their disaster was less-predictable? It’s a tough question.</p>
<p>^ response to #27 and 29. King County, Washington. :)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My husband is a big fan of the computer game Civilization. Since it came out on the PS3, it has become something of a family activity, with people walking in and out, giving advice and suggestions about how to wipe out the Mongols or the British or the Aztecs. One thing I’ve noticed is that those coastlines are pretty darn important to winning the game.
The point is, we have one coast that is prone to earthquakes, one to hurricanes and nor’easters - we can’t stop building completely on those coasts, including some infrastructure like the Port Fourchon, that is vital to the well-being of the country. Those things must be rebuilt, and can’t really be moved.
There are also many things rebuilt on the coast that should not be built with taxpayer money, but with private money or should be moved inland. This is shaking out down here, it gets harder and harder to obtain insurance every year for true coastal property. In Fla, they have to face the fact that most of the economy of the state is based on people living on or near the coast - roads, bridges, streetlights, signage - all that infrastructure has to be replaced or the economy is gone. We may eventually get to the point that only the local taxpayers will fund that type of rebuilding, but we aren’t there yet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was thinking of that: earthquakes, volcano, wind storms (hurricane-strength non-cyclonic winds), ice, snow, flooding. Pretty much the whole list except tornadoes (which happen, but are very rare). Maybe I will move to Kingman.</p>
<p>The Seattle to Vancouver BC is probably the safest place to be in the USA for natural disasters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Mount</a> Baker—Living with an Active Volcano | USGS Fact Sheet 059-00](<a href=“http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs059-00/]Mount”>Mount Baker—Living with an Active Volcano | USGS Fact Sheet 059-00)</p>
<p>And don’t even get me started on Mt Ranier!</p>
<p>But this thread was about New Orleans and the French Quarter - that sliver above the river is safe enough for the press, but not for the people who live there? Who do you think is feeding CNN?</p>
<p>dragonmom, I hear you! And in my neck of the woods especially, if the big one hits, we’ll also have a tsunami, and it ain’t gonna be a wall of water, more like a wall of … ahem… Brightwater! But until the big one, it is pretty safe.</p>
<p>I’m really, really glad that the idiots have lucked out this time, and I hope the dog did not choke on a turkey bone.</p>