quote:
There should be no more development in hazard prone areas, period. People who do not live in hazard prone areas should not pay for those who take on that risky behavior because their risk perception is off-keal. Another Cat3+ storm will come with an even bigger surge, and it won't be 100 years either.
Sorry to feed the troll but I can't contain myself any longer.
I saw this post in another thread. By "no more development" I assume you mean development of any kind, commercial, residential or industrial. By "hazard prone area" I assume you mean lands within 50 miles of a coast/river. I'll even exclude all other "hazard prone areas" just to prove a point.
By your theory, why the hell don't we shut down that lovely city of 3.6 (approx) million people to the north that goes by the name of Houston? It some areas it had almost, if not more, damage than Galveston's Seawall protected areas. Or why not shut down offshore drilling for petroleum? Or all coastal refineries?
As of Feb 2006 census, which includes Katrina/Rita disruptions the Gulf Coast ALONE accounted for $16,850,386,000 in imports and $8,066,638,000 in exports.According to your opinion, we should shut down these port facilities. No more import/export. I'm sure we won't mind the loss of $740,000,000 in transportation equipment, the $170,000,000 in petroleum and coal, or the $224,000,000 in steel and other metals. Likewise, I'm sure foreign nations wouldn't be too heavily impacted by the severance of their supply chain from the US.
Oh, and you misspelled "keel".
[This message has been edited by Agski (edited 10/31/2008 8:44a).]