I see Toronto, after a cat one storm in the fifies, .... and many flood deaths, turned its floodplain area into parks to preclude future housebuilding there.
Housebuilders seem to need restraint. They just keep building in Louisiana marshes, too.
DEPOPULATE NOW
In light of Tronto's wisdom, and that of Italy...assisting folks to move away from the side of a volcano...
should we not plan the depopulation of the Gulf coast and the southerly east coast?
I am thinking that those who are not easily evacuated should definitely be relocated NOW. No shelter i know of can handle the higher winds. The core group to relocate NOW would be such as nursing home folks, the frail at home elderly, and the like.
This is the least debatable group.
NO TRANSPORT
THe next group might include those who have no transport of their own.
My town has eighty thousand of them.
EVEN THOSE WITH CARS...
Even those who have cars, seem to face gridlock, and death there if floodwater engulfs the Interstate. Or just 150 mph wind tosses cars like twigs.
I hear talk on tv of gridlock as a possibility, every year. Seems the big boys just cannot figure a way to prevent it.
So maybe we even ought to bring down the numbers of healthy adults along the storm coasts. Maybe these coasts are right now "overdeveloped." I have no firm opinion on this, just throwing it out for you to mull.
10,000 DEAD
Ten thousand died in Honduras just a few years back ... so these storms can still wipe out people in the high numbers, even though we think we live in civilized times.
Note also how quicky that toll of ten thousand slipped out of media attention.
It should be in our thoughts constantly, and we ought to plan NOW to prevent a repeat.
STAY POSITIVE, AND LISTEN TO THIS EX BOY SCOUT --- BE PREPARED.
John New Orleans
DEPOPULATE STORM COASTS?
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
-
john186292
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 3:47 pm
DEPOPULATE STORM COASTS?
0 likes
-
Scott_inVA
- Storm2k Forecaster
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 5:44 pm
- Location: Lexington, Virginia
- Contact:
Re: DEPOPULATE STORM COASTS?
This is an interesting and evocative post but one I am in general disagreement with. Having grown up and lived on the coast I understand what TCs (and Nor'easters can do). However, the simple fact is significantly more people die by inland flooding than wind and surge at the coast.
I am well inland now but am *still* living with Isabel on a daily and sometimes hourly basis. http://www.wrel.com/gallery7.htm. That's not to say the OB, NOR/VB and other coastal areas did not experience damage; they did. BUT...inlanders are far less prepared for a storm. I've had people tell me they watched Cantore on TWC and the Fox bozo who almost had his pants blown off over at the coast. 12 hours later, those same people have no home because it's washed 1/2 mile down a river.
We can't move people inland. That just won't happen. We can only educate people to the dangers and hope they act and react without behaving like rodents running down the ratlines of a ship.
We are astoundingly fortunate a 4 or 5 hasn't hit a Metro area...yet. But as someone who is a Boy Scout Leader, I'll agree we need to Be Prepared. Because it will happen.
Scott
I am well inland now but am *still* living with Isabel on a daily and sometimes hourly basis. http://www.wrel.com/gallery7.htm. That's not to say the OB, NOR/VB and other coastal areas did not experience damage; they did. BUT...inlanders are far less prepared for a storm. I've had people tell me they watched Cantore on TWC and the Fox bozo who almost had his pants blown off over at the coast. 12 hours later, those same people have no home because it's washed 1/2 mile down a river.
We can't move people inland. That just won't happen. We can only educate people to the dangers and hope they act and react without behaving like rodents running down the ratlines of a ship.
We are astoundingly fortunate a 4 or 5 hasn't hit a Metro area...yet. But as someone who is a Boy Scout Leader, I'll agree we need to Be Prepared. Because it will happen.
Scott
0 likes
-
john186292
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 3:47 pm
Hi, always like a polite answer...I sure have gotten enough of the IMpolite kind. LOL. (you all know who you are. Hang your heads in shame LOL).
Well now.... if you move them far enough inland, they will also evade the flooding. Say, move to north California, or Colorado, or empty Wyoming, or N. Dakota. Where would you move granny to?
"we cannot move them."
Puzzled by this. We have done it repeatedly, since that is what an evacuation is, right? And, is cheaper to move once, versus evacuate four times over the next twenty years.
Building new housing for the resettlement areas would end unemployment, and the injection of new wages and then wagearner buying, would stimulate the economy, ending the recession fast.
Just as building the Interstate system in 1959 was calculated to end a recession, and did it. Pay for the new homes out of the savings from ....
avoiding storm-lost houses and furnishings on the coast...
avoiding repeat evacuation costs.
KEEP SMILING,
John New Orleans
Well now.... if you move them far enough inland, they will also evade the flooding. Say, move to north California, or Colorado, or empty Wyoming, or N. Dakota. Where would you move granny to?
"we cannot move them."
Puzzled by this. We have done it repeatedly, since that is what an evacuation is, right? And, is cheaper to move once, versus evacuate four times over the next twenty years.
Building new housing for the resettlement areas would end unemployment, and the injection of new wages and then wagearner buying, would stimulate the economy, ending the recession fast.
Just as building the Interstate system in 1959 was calculated to end a recession, and did it. Pay for the new homes out of the savings from ....
avoiding storm-lost houses and furnishings on the coast...
avoiding repeat evacuation costs.
KEEP SMILING,
John New Orleans
0 likes
-
JetMaxx
John, I understand what you are saying, and agree that large, highly populated metropolitan areas are sitting ducks for the next 140+ mph hurricane...but this is America. You can't force people to relocate....the logistics and legal ramifications are boggling.
Here's an example....
Ma and Pa Kettle retired in 1989 and moved to "paradise"...Sarasota, FLorida..
You can't take these folks dream home they bought and paid for -- it's their property. Believe me, my grandmother would die before giving up her home (or kill anyone who tried to make her leave). It would take a court order and probably a few sheriff's officers to FORCE one elderly couple from their home....and millions upon millions of coastal residents aren't feeble or elderly; and they'll sue to keep their homes and fun in the sun lifestyles. This isn't communist China where the goverment says "vamoose", and are forced to leave at gunpoint (and I hope to God America never is). It would be tied up in the legal system for years...and cost whatever politicians that proposed the relocation their political careers.
Playing devil's advocate, even if you could force everyone living in a vunerable area to the power of a cat-4 hurricane -- condemn all the property.....you'd have to condemn all of Miami-Metro Dade, Florida....Broward and Palm Beach counties....the entire Tampa Bay region....much of metro Houston and New Orleans; not to mention many other areas with smaller but still substantial coastal populations (Mobile-Pensacola; Corpus Christi; Sarasota to Fort Myers, etc).
If you start "depopulating" large metropolitan areas, it would totally destroy the U.S. economy; because many sun belt metropolis areas are among America's economic leaders (including Miami, Tampa, Houston, and Jacksonville).
Here's another point....there are highly populated urban areas in extreme danger from natural disasters that are far from the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. St Louis and Memphis will likely be obliterated by the next major earthquake on the New Madrid fault; and the catastrophe potential of a magnitude 8 quake in either Los Angeles or San Francisco rivals any death or damage toll a cat-4 or 5 hurricane would cause to Miami or Tampa Bay.
Much of metro Seattle-Tacoma sits on an area adjacent to Mt Rainier (a volcano) that is just as dangerous as Mt St Helens. My sister and her family live 45 miles from Mt Hood, Oregon...another potential powder keg of a volcano, and much of metro Portland is much closer than my sister's neighborhood SW of the city.
If you decide to "depopulate" any large metropolitan area that is in harms way of a natural disaster, there aren't many areas that would be untouched.
Even New York City is threatened both by major hurricanes AND earthquakes...as is Boston.
In the past 103 years (since Sept 8, 1900), the deadliest disaster to strike America struck the heart of New York City (and DC), and was caused not by a natural disaster but instead by 18 suicidal islamic terrorist loonies that hijacked four commercial airliners...and used them as flying bombs. Over 3200 people died in less than an hour, and that could concievably occur in any large city at any time in the future. I won't even go into what a terrorists group with a nuclear device could do in any large U.S. city...but the word holocaust is appropriate, because the death toll would likely be in the millions, and far exceed anything mother nature could do.
You have the right to your opinion John, which I respect...but I honestly don't believe what you propose is even possible; unless America suddenly changes from a free nation to communist dictatorship.
Here's an example....
Ma and Pa Kettle retired in 1989 and moved to "paradise"...Sarasota, FLorida..
You can't take these folks dream home they bought and paid for -- it's their property. Believe me, my grandmother would die before giving up her home (or kill anyone who tried to make her leave). It would take a court order and probably a few sheriff's officers to FORCE one elderly couple from their home....and millions upon millions of coastal residents aren't feeble or elderly; and they'll sue to keep their homes and fun in the sun lifestyles. This isn't communist China where the goverment says "vamoose", and are forced to leave at gunpoint (and I hope to God America never is). It would be tied up in the legal system for years...and cost whatever politicians that proposed the relocation their political careers.
Playing devil's advocate, even if you could force everyone living in a vunerable area to the power of a cat-4 hurricane -- condemn all the property.....you'd have to condemn all of Miami-Metro Dade, Florida....Broward and Palm Beach counties....the entire Tampa Bay region....much of metro Houston and New Orleans; not to mention many other areas with smaller but still substantial coastal populations (Mobile-Pensacola; Corpus Christi; Sarasota to Fort Myers, etc).
If you start "depopulating" large metropolitan areas, it would totally destroy the U.S. economy; because many sun belt metropolis areas are among America's economic leaders (including Miami, Tampa, Houston, and Jacksonville).
Here's another point....there are highly populated urban areas in extreme danger from natural disasters that are far from the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. St Louis and Memphis will likely be obliterated by the next major earthquake on the New Madrid fault; and the catastrophe potential of a magnitude 8 quake in either Los Angeles or San Francisco rivals any death or damage toll a cat-4 or 5 hurricane would cause to Miami or Tampa Bay.
Much of metro Seattle-Tacoma sits on an area adjacent to Mt Rainier (a volcano) that is just as dangerous as Mt St Helens. My sister and her family live 45 miles from Mt Hood, Oregon...another potential powder keg of a volcano, and much of metro Portland is much closer than my sister's neighborhood SW of the city.
If you decide to "depopulate" any large metropolitan area that is in harms way of a natural disaster, there aren't many areas that would be untouched.
Even New York City is threatened both by major hurricanes AND earthquakes...as is Boston.
In the past 103 years (since Sept 8, 1900), the deadliest disaster to strike America struck the heart of New York City (and DC), and was caused not by a natural disaster but instead by 18 suicidal islamic terrorist loonies that hijacked four commercial airliners...and used them as flying bombs. Over 3200 people died in less than an hour, and that could concievably occur in any large city at any time in the future. I won't even go into what a terrorists group with a nuclear device could do in any large U.S. city...but the word holocaust is appropriate, because the death toll would likely be in the millions, and far exceed anything mother nature could do.
You have the right to your opinion John, which I respect...but I honestly don't believe what you propose is even possible; unless America suddenly changes from a free nation to communist dictatorship.
0 likes
-
john186292
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 3:47 pm
Hi Jett,
nice post. Only able to read part now, will do rest later.
I did not mean to imply force. The gov would merely offer coordinated planning, and those who wanted, would sign up for any forms of help offered.
As to massiveness, some years we see millions move. Called an evacuation. Done hastily, too. So a planned move by just the frailest groups...eg nursing homes and at home weak elderly...would be a cinch. Many would love to get away, but need assistance to do it.
More as time allows...appreciate your long and thoughtful reaction.
KEEP SMILING,
John New Orleans
nice post. Only able to read part now, will do rest later.
I did not mean to imply force. The gov would merely offer coordinated planning, and those who wanted, would sign up for any forms of help offered.
As to massiveness, some years we see millions move. Called an evacuation. Done hastily, too. So a planned move by just the frailest groups...eg nursing homes and at home weak elderly...would be a cinch. Many would love to get away, but need assistance to do it.
More as time allows...appreciate your long and thoughtful reaction.
KEEP SMILING,
John New Orleans
0 likes
-
AussieMark
- Category 5
- Posts: 5858
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:36 pm
- Location: near Sydney, Australia
-
weatherlover427
-
AussieMark
- Category 5
- Posts: 5858
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:36 pm
- Location: near Sydney, Australia
-
JetMaxx
John, at the current time....I honestly doubt 1 in 10,000 residents....elderly or otherwise would choose to relocate from their coastal home, condo, or apartment if it were offered.
The vast majority of coastal residents chose to live there; they want to live there. I myself have thought on more than one occasion of moving near the seashore.....and I know full well what a major hurricane is capable of. Most folks who live in those areas accept the risk, just as I realize my home in Georgia could be destroyed by a tornado (and in fact, my family home was severely damaged by a tornado in 1974; yet the home was rebuilt and is occupied almost three decades later).
It's nice along the beachfront 99.9999% of the time. That's part of the hurricane problem: many highly populated coastal areas haven't been struck by a major hurricane in 40-50 years or more. You'll have a very difficult time trying to convince anyone living in Broward or Palm Beach counties of Florida....home to nearly 3 million people, that a severe hurricane can strike there. Why? because the last cat-3 in either county occurred in 1950...the last cat-4 in 1947, before most who live there were born. Most won't willingly give up balmy sea breezes and warm winter days in exchange for a free homesite in barren Nebraska or frigid Wyoming.
I'm not running down folks who live in Wyoming or Nebraska, just making a point. I've lived in the southeast my entire life...either Georgia or Mississippi. I'm not accustomed to temperatures well below zero or blinding blizzards in winter, and don't want to live in an area where they occur every winter (in this area of Georgia, temps below +10° are considered life threatening they occur so rarely). Sure, a white Christmas would be nice once in a while....but -25° temps in January and 10' snowdrifts wouldn't; at least not to this Georgia boy. It would be an even harder sell to folks accustomed to going barefoot and wearing shorts on the beach in January.
I'll admit, AFTER the next great Florida hurricane....you'll probably find more than a few that will be ready to "throw in the towel" and relocate away from the disaster area -- but just as after severe hurricanes such as Camille, Hugo, and Andrew....the vast majority will prefer to rebuild and move right back onto their beachfront or barrier island home.....knowing another monster hurricane is unlikely again in their lifetime (look at the Mississippi Coast 34 years after Camille--they've experienced two major hurricanes since [Frederic and Elena], but nothing close to the extreme intensity of Camille; there hasn't been even a cat-2 hurricane in either Charleston, SC or Homestead, FL since Hugo and Andrew).
I venture if a poll was taken in any coastal county between Texas and New England, that less than 1 in 10,000 would choose to leave their current location....maybe not 1 in 100,000 (none of my friends living on the seashore would; and they all are hurricane savvy and know the risk of living there).
PW
The vast majority of coastal residents chose to live there; they want to live there. I myself have thought on more than one occasion of moving near the seashore.....and I know full well what a major hurricane is capable of. Most folks who live in those areas accept the risk, just as I realize my home in Georgia could be destroyed by a tornado (and in fact, my family home was severely damaged by a tornado in 1974; yet the home was rebuilt and is occupied almost three decades later).
It's nice along the beachfront 99.9999% of the time. That's part of the hurricane problem: many highly populated coastal areas haven't been struck by a major hurricane in 40-50 years or more. You'll have a very difficult time trying to convince anyone living in Broward or Palm Beach counties of Florida....home to nearly 3 million people, that a severe hurricane can strike there. Why? because the last cat-3 in either county occurred in 1950...the last cat-4 in 1947, before most who live there were born. Most won't willingly give up balmy sea breezes and warm winter days in exchange for a free homesite in barren Nebraska or frigid Wyoming.
I'm not running down folks who live in Wyoming or Nebraska, just making a point. I've lived in the southeast my entire life...either Georgia or Mississippi. I'm not accustomed to temperatures well below zero or blinding blizzards in winter, and don't want to live in an area where they occur every winter (in this area of Georgia, temps below +10° are considered life threatening they occur so rarely). Sure, a white Christmas would be nice once in a while....but -25° temps in January and 10' snowdrifts wouldn't; at least not to this Georgia boy. It would be an even harder sell to folks accustomed to going barefoot and wearing shorts on the beach in January.
I'll admit, AFTER the next great Florida hurricane....you'll probably find more than a few that will be ready to "throw in the towel" and relocate away from the disaster area -- but just as after severe hurricanes such as Camille, Hugo, and Andrew....the vast majority will prefer to rebuild and move right back onto their beachfront or barrier island home.....knowing another monster hurricane is unlikely again in their lifetime (look at the Mississippi Coast 34 years after Camille--they've experienced two major hurricanes since [Frederic and Elena], but nothing close to the extreme intensity of Camille; there hasn't been even a cat-2 hurricane in either Charleston, SC or Homestead, FL since Hugo and Andrew).
I venture if a poll was taken in any coastal county between Texas and New England, that less than 1 in 10,000 would choose to leave their current location....maybe not 1 in 100,000 (none of my friends living on the seashore would; and they all are hurricane savvy and know the risk of living there).
PW
0 likes
Re: DEPOPULATE STORM COASTS?
That was pretty easy for Toronto to do. We're not talking about a major part of the city was now without deveopment. Hazel wiped those areas clean, and it was quite easy (and smart) for Toronto to just leave them that way. My point is, this would not be so easy to do in other heavily populated areas. The conversion of those homes into parkland in Toronto did not displace very many people, and there was a ton of room for Toronto to grow in 1964.john186292 wrote:I see Toronto, after a cat one storm in the fifies, .... and many flood deaths, turned its floodplain area into parks to preclude future housebuilding there.
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
Yes, let's depopulate ALL areas that are at risk for being hit by a natural disaster -- coastal areas, flood plains, tornado alley, California, Hawaii, the forests, and so forth.
Let's find some small patch of safe land that can't be touched by earthquake, fire, flood, mud, ice, blizzard, tornado, hurricane, volcano, or avalanche. When we do, we'll all move there, get overrun by poverty, overpopulation, undernourishment, rats, disease, and crime. Then Osama or Saddam or whoever the heck can drop a bomb on us and wipe us all out in one blow.
Let's find some small patch of safe land that can't be touched by earthquake, fire, flood, mud, ice, blizzard, tornado, hurricane, volcano, or avalanche. When we do, we'll all move there, get overrun by poverty, overpopulation, undernourishment, rats, disease, and crime. Then Osama or Saddam or whoever the heck can drop a bomb on us and wipe us all out in one blow.
0 likes
-
Rainband
We cannot run from mother nature. She reaches all ends of the globe..The key to this issue is education and being prepared. I agree that there is a problem with shelters and evacuating massive amounts of people. But with educating the population and better construction methods..we are slowly putting a dent in this problem. It's only a matter of time until a major storm hits a major city and hopefully we are ready when that happens. Technology and growth will continue to work hand and hand..helping us to someday ride out the storm safely 
0 likes
-
opera ghost
- Category 4
- Posts: 909
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:40 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
While some depopulation is ideal and necessary (and occuring!) I think the theroy of truely depopulating the hurricane capitals is a bit on the extreme and undoable side.
Think aobut it this way- Houston is Houston and became the size that it is because we have one hell of a port. (The oil and the rest came afterwards) That port was probably developed by any number of natural "disasters" (occurances) over the last several million years. Much like the Isabel Inlet in NC (which is only moderatly impressive now- but given another 50-100 years would probably continue to deepen) Let's be serious- ports are critical. We can't depopulate cities with ports *laughs* We can't really depopulate the eastern coast. Too much industry is located there.
HOWEVER. Some parts of Houston destroyed by Allison (and any number of floods before her) were NOT rebuilt. A few entire neighborhoods were abandoned- bought back by the city so that we woudln't keep trying to rebuild every time a flood comes. (It's not like anyone wanted to buy land in a flood plain after Allison anyways!)
On the flip side- if you offer me a nice chunk of land in Wyoming and a bit more industry there (and the ability to relocate my college credits to a local school) I'll take your offer in a heartbeat *grins* but that's because I love Wyoming and plan on moving there at some later point in my life LOL Not because I'm afraid of a hurricane!
Think aobut it this way- Houston is Houston and became the size that it is because we have one hell of a port. (The oil and the rest came afterwards) That port was probably developed by any number of natural "disasters" (occurances) over the last several million years. Much like the Isabel Inlet in NC (which is only moderatly impressive now- but given another 50-100 years would probably continue to deepen) Let's be serious- ports are critical. We can't depopulate cities with ports *laughs* We can't really depopulate the eastern coast. Too much industry is located there.
HOWEVER. Some parts of Houston destroyed by Allison (and any number of floods before her) were NOT rebuilt. A few entire neighborhoods were abandoned- bought back by the city so that we woudln't keep trying to rebuild every time a flood comes. (It's not like anyone wanted to buy land in a flood plain after Allison anyways!)
On the flip side- if you offer me a nice chunk of land in Wyoming and a bit more industry there (and the ability to relocate my college credits to a local school) I'll take your offer in a heartbeat *grins* but that's because I love Wyoming and plan on moving there at some later point in my life LOL Not because I'm afraid of a hurricane!
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
GalvestonDuck wrote:Nope...we can't populate and industrialize Wyoming, Montana, or other areas in the northeast. Gotta leave space for the wacko militia, unabomber-wannabes, and other loner extremists to have their secluded fortresses where they live off bark and leaves and write their manifestos.
LOL! I do agree with you that we should not be depopulating the coastal regions because of the threat of storms/hurricanes. The one thing that might be a good idea is to not build in an area that has been repeatedly (i.e. more than twice) damaged/destroyed by strong storms/hurricanes.
0 likes
-
john186292
- Tropical Storm
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 3:47 pm
Hi Jett, more of reply, as promised!
again, I appreciate the polite tone of your answer. You are far above some here, in your ability to discuss things scientifically....without the adolescent bile some pour in.
Let me take first the point of economic disaster, from uprooting cities.
FEEBLE AND CARLESS
I would only relocate ... in the first wave... by their own free choice, natch.... those who cannot evacuate easily. The feeble, maybe also the carless.
This will not be more than a few percent of the popul. .. viz the feeble, and maybe up to ten percent for the carless. THe carless might indeed cause some economic disruption... it would best be done gradually, over years, and with planning to move their job base with them to relocation centers.
WE PLAN NEW TOWNS ALREADY
We constantly plan new towns ... Leavittown... and factory complexes.... "Industrial Parks".. so no change to a Hitler style of dictatorship is needed.
I am as anti-Hitler as they come, Jett! Relax a bit there, ol chap!
VOLCANOS AREN'T SAFE EITHER
True, other metros are on volcanos, falts, etc. Logic here .. my logic.. is that two Errors do not make both Right. Building on volcanos is Error, building on storm coasts is Error. All such old Errors need to be halted, and slowly , such cities must move.
The cost of moving is less than the cost of disaster. Moving Miami's feeble and carless is all i propose needs doing...right NOW.
LATER, NOT NOW
Later, we can consider moving the healthy who own cars. Moving that part of say, Miami, is a challenge. If planners find the cost of years long careful moving,
....is less than the cost of repeated evacuations and the BIG CAT FIVE WIPEOUT, and the cost of lost lives,.... then move the healthy too. Financial carrots will move many. Me, i would leave the remaining there, to their fate.
CARROTS ARE ALL-AMERICAN
We routinely use financial carrots to move doctors to rural areas, teachers to ghetto schools, and cops to live in hi crime areas where their cars are parked visibly.
But my main immediate point is not the healthy of a city.. it is the hard to move feeble, and then the carless. The healthy can wait.
BODY COUNT IS VISIBLE NOW
NOW is the time to get the feeble and carless out of harm's way. To do less, is criminal neglect of murderous intensity. The body count is easily forseen, and all the proof I need for my case.
STAY POSITIVE,
John New Orleans
again, I appreciate the polite tone of your answer. You are far above some here, in your ability to discuss things scientifically....without the adolescent bile some pour in.
Let me take first the point of economic disaster, from uprooting cities.
FEEBLE AND CARLESS
I would only relocate ... in the first wave... by their own free choice, natch.... those who cannot evacuate easily. The feeble, maybe also the carless.
This will not be more than a few percent of the popul. .. viz the feeble, and maybe up to ten percent for the carless. THe carless might indeed cause some economic disruption... it would best be done gradually, over years, and with planning to move their job base with them to relocation centers.
WE PLAN NEW TOWNS ALREADY
We constantly plan new towns ... Leavittown... and factory complexes.... "Industrial Parks".. so no change to a Hitler style of dictatorship is needed.
I am as anti-Hitler as they come, Jett! Relax a bit there, ol chap!
VOLCANOS AREN'T SAFE EITHER
True, other metros are on volcanos, falts, etc. Logic here .. my logic.. is that two Errors do not make both Right. Building on volcanos is Error, building on storm coasts is Error. All such old Errors need to be halted, and slowly , such cities must move.
The cost of moving is less than the cost of disaster. Moving Miami's feeble and carless is all i propose needs doing...right NOW.
LATER, NOT NOW
Later, we can consider moving the healthy who own cars. Moving that part of say, Miami, is a challenge. If planners find the cost of years long careful moving,
....is less than the cost of repeated evacuations and the BIG CAT FIVE WIPEOUT, and the cost of lost lives,.... then move the healthy too. Financial carrots will move many. Me, i would leave the remaining there, to their fate.
CARROTS ARE ALL-AMERICAN
We routinely use financial carrots to move doctors to rural areas, teachers to ghetto schools, and cops to live in hi crime areas where their cars are parked visibly.
But my main immediate point is not the healthy of a city.. it is the hard to move feeble, and then the carless. The healthy can wait.
BODY COUNT IS VISIBLE NOW
NOW is the time to get the feeble and carless out of harm's way. To do less, is criminal neglect of murderous intensity. The body count is easily forseen, and all the proof I need for my case.
STAY POSITIVE,
John New Orleans
0 likes
-
MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5904
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
I will never leave the coast unless a Cat 4 or 5 is expected to strike. A vast majority would not leave the coast also. I rather take the slim risk of a major hurricane than have a F5 tornado kill me in the middle of the night in the heartland. At least I can run from a hurricane. You can't run from a tornado or earthquake.........MGC
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ElectricStorm, emeraldislenc, IcyTundra, IsabelaWeather, LAF92, Pas_Bon, REDHurricane, Sps123, Stratton23, Ulf and 38 guests