Why is it that these people who live right next to the mississippi river continue to rebuild in the same location each year after their homes and businesses are flooded.
Pretty soon, you and I will be shelling out money to save these people when their cities up and down the mighty mississippi are pronounced disaster areas. Now I’m not bashing humanitarianism, but I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. And living next to a HUGE RIVER THAT REGULARLY FLOODS and THEN REBUILDING on the same parcel of land is sheer insanity.
My question is:
Why do we allow these people to rebuild on the same land each year?
Your question and why do we allow Californians to rebuild, after their house slides down the hillside or it’s severely damaged by an earthquake. Why do we let eastern coastal cities rebuild on the beaches after huricanes. Why don’t we stop New Orleans from constructing any new buildings, since the town is lower than the river that flows through it. Why did Alaska rebuild housing after their great earthquake. Then there’s the states with cities being bult next to geologicaly volcanic regions. Why do we allow people to visit and live in Hawaii.
Answer: People have to live some place, and no location in the world is not affected by planetary phenomena. The government has to shell out money to different areas every year to help rebuild the interstructure that is destroyed. It’s a fact of life.
No one expects to have three one hundred year floods in a 10 year period. Up until the last decade the river was fairly well behaved. For instance, hundred year floods only happened once every hundred years or so.
Maybe it’s global warming, or maybe it’s just bad luck, but it’s pretty obvious that what once was a safe place to live isn’t so safe anymore.
Unfortunately, you don’t usually find out about things like this until they happen, which makes it awful hard to honestly blame the victims for their sorry fate.
I think you’ll have to agree, Harmonious Discord, that some people live in areas more dangerous than others. I don’t know about the Mississippi specifically, but people living on barrier islands on the East Coast and unstable hillsides in CA come to mind. The insurance companies certainly think some places are riskier to live than others.
We don’t just have to shell out disaster relief so people can live in risky areas. Zoning laws should be written or rewritten to avoid the worst places to live. Avoiding notable flood zones and constantly shifting ground should be high on the list of priorities, although I’d leave it to the experts to fill in the details.
Actually very few people live “on the river”. Right now Davenport Iowa is in the news because they decided not to build a flood wall. Most, probably 99%, of the town is not in any risk.
Squink is right about the 100 year floods. Who would have thought we’d have three within these few years.
Unlike california where they build multi million dollar homes in tinder boxes these homes are the lower income type homes. The rich build high on the scenic bluffs overlooking the river.
I would venture to say that Iowa is not even in the top 10 in disaster relief,and you’d probably find the rest of the river bordering states far down on the list also.