Nerdy Time
The question for this week is:
"Should New Orleans be rebuilt or should the people be relocated?"
Sub Question: If the country were to disallow any rebuilding effort in favor of
relocation is that a taking that requires compensation under the
Constitution?
Before you answer, you might find it interesting to take a look at an economic analysis recently posted here and here by a man we law students know and love, Judge Richard Posner...
Interested on your thoughts...
"Should New Orleans be rebuilt or should the people be relocated?"
Sub Question: If the country were to disallow any rebuilding effort in favor of
relocation is that a taking that requires compensation under the
Constitution?
Before you answer, you might find it interesting to take a look at an economic analysis recently posted here and here by a man we law students know and love, Judge Richard Posner...
Interested on your thoughts...
2 Comments:
"It might seem that if, as current estimates have it, the cost of the damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina will prove to be 'only' $100 billion, the expected cost could not have been too great, since the probability of such a flood as occurred presumably was low. But while the annual probability was low, the cumulative probability over a relatively short period, such as one or two decades, was probably quite high."
I think this is the clincher of the argument. It's silly to rebuild in the same spot just because you have an emotional attachment to it, at least when the costs are prohibitively high (as they would be, assuming another "big one" comes in the next 10-20 years). Surely, we shouldn't abandon the Cajun culture also, but we have Popeye's, and that's enough for me (I hate Cajun music and, hey, Popeye's for the Cajuns, and Olive Garden for the Italians, it all evens out). Basically, if it happens again in the next 50 years (or maybe even 100) then it's not worth it. We have other mechanisms for protecting the sentimental value, as I will cover shortly.
"The question should be what parts of New Orleans should be preserved (say, the historic districts, for their tourist value, and the port) and how much of a residential hinterland would be required for the persons employed in the preserved areas. Some, undoubtedly, but it should be located on high ground."
This is the most reasonable solution. It keeps all the necessary sentimental value (at least as far as the entire nation is concerned--and we are talking about federal funds here) and irreplaceable economic value. Also, it's cheap because the most important historic district is pretty much fine already.
"(economists are currently using a figure of $7 million to estimate the value of life of an average American)"
This I just found to be interesting, and excessively high. I'd give the average American a value of about $20 (plus assets). But seriously, maybe $1 million.
My thoughts, in sum:
It's too expensive to rebuild the whole damn thing, considering the possibility of another disaster.
The historic districts and the port are the only irreplaceable items, and so they should be the only things rebuilt and maintained, along with any necessary infrastructure/housing/etc. for the people who need to live there for those reasons.
And human life isn't worth as much as economists think it is. (Wow, I'm less sensitive than an economist. I have a heart as cold as gold.)
Also, it's not a taking if they simply don't provide exceptional federal funds for rebuilding. It would be a taking, however, if they designated the area a national park/protected wetlands area.
Post a Comment
<< Home