Monday, October 22, 2007

Katrina vs. New Orleans

Kelman provides such good reasons for why New Orleans would not have been restored. He made it a simple fact that New Orleans is a bad area for people to live because the site may never improve. The higher they protect against water, the harder it is to get water out. Since it is so difficult to live there, some people may have speculated not restoring it at all. Kelman states many valid reasons not to, and he is very convincing of the opinion.

1 comment:

slatkovic said...

I agree that Kelman provides valid points to back up his argument against rebuilding New Orleans. The damage is too much to repair and even if it does get repaired the water will still find its way in and floods will keep occurring.