Wednesday, August 30, 2006

FEMA and Katrina...

So, this article raises some provocative questions. Namely, how much should the government improve new orleans? I mean, having been to these areas pre katrina, most of it was dilapidated and badly in need of improvement. Obviously these poorer regions needed money to make the improvements then, and now that everything's wrecked, are we obligated to replace it with a brand-spanking new city, or bring it back to what it was?

The social engineer in me says that we should make it an example of modern urban planning and design, but the realist says that this city is likely to be flooded again in 10 years. Plus, if it's a question of whether the extra 75 billion is better served in the gulf coast or in inner cities, and on healthcare and national security. Not to mention New Orleans reputation for being corrupt, and the nagging impression that a lot of this money is going to end up lining some pol's pocket (but maybe that's just the chicagoan in me).


Blogger Adam Badam said...

there's apparently a lot of shit in you. urban planner, chicago, realism. nice.

i pretty much agree. the draining of the swamps to build the 9th ward and other now-destroyed places was a policy decision, and a shitty one at that.

why make the same mistake?

6:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home