I think the correct question is not "should New Orleans be rebuilt?" but rather "should New Orleans be rebuilt as a major residential center in the exact same spot rather than in a safer area a few miles down the road?" I agree that most areas in the country face at least some risk of natural disaster, but even within those areas some sub-areas are more dangerous than others. For example, New Orleans was a much more vulnerable area than nearby areas of MS and AL. (A related question could be asked about parts of the southwest -- is developing areas that increasingly encroach on dry forests that burn every summer really a good idea?)
A secondary question is whether, if people do choose to locate in the area where the old New Orleans was, whether the government should impose some sort of cost relative to if they chose to locate in safer regions nearby -- i.e., a smaller amount of financial assistance.
Guy
←
I understand the reasoning, but where do people live? What area is safe? I've lived in areas with tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc., and to date I have yet to see an area that is totally safe. Maybe we should just get off the planet...