HereWeGoAgain
Diamond Member
The manner in which Houston floods is irrelevant to the point here. Let's remove all of the specifics and see if we can come to an understanding here.What do you think the dams are?
Which they've been upgrading.
These reservoirs dont have water in them in normal times and only fill up under unusually heavy rains.
They encompass 26,000 acres or 43 square miles.
Wow, how much money has been invested in them dams that cover 43 square miles?
The dams dont cover 43 square miles,they provide 43 square miles of water retainment.
Houston is the fourth largest city in America and has the largest foreign port in the U.S.
You think we should abandon that port?
Nope I don't think we should abandon the port. Like Donald would say, if it makes us money keep doing it.
I think them dams are quite the undertaking and the land they protect is more costly to develop than land that just happens to be up the hill. Not to mention when one fails its going to create tragic instances where children die because of the ignorance or mistakes of their parents.
Me, I'd just want to recollect on their parent's rescue.
In St Louis should we abandon the river front? No.
People just don't need to live within walking distance or a horse ride of the river front though. I suspect Houston is largely the same. Also we've shown how building levees raises the rivers elsewhere and speeds up flooding thus pushing the cost of our poor development choices onto others.
Buy outs not 1,000 years protection is my motto. Let's spur the home construction industry for everyone who wants to work.
You dont seem to understand the manner in which Houston floods.
There's no rushing waters it's a slow climb.
And again there are no rivers or lakes near Houston.
We have Buffalo bayou and thats it.
There is a fictional city (we'll call it "Megatown" for ease of reference) you don't live in, and have no connection to, because it's fictional. This city is in an area that, history has shown, is prone to a certain type of disaster. The current reaction to said disaster is to rebuild, with Federal tax dollars in part. What the OP is suggesting is, why don't we just move Megatown to a different site, just a few miles away, where the area is less prone to disasters? Of course it's not quite that easy, because, in most cases, that new site would be owned by someone(s). Let's just say, for argument's sake, that in the case of Megatown, there is a piece of federal land 20 miles away, that is roughly the same size, has usable topography, and has little chance of experiencing a natural disaster. Would you be in favor of looking into the idea of moving the city instead of rebuilding?
Is this some kinda joke?