@Jermofoot:
Now, maybe I went too far on a tangent, but my point is: how does one decide an area is unfit to live in, and on what basis? If you think NO should not be populated because of its elevation, then why not other areas of the US? I just don’t agree that they are complete idiots for where the chose to live, and, subsequently, don’t deserve any help.
Well, and I’m speaking personally here, I would start with the number of deaths per square foot, amount of damage per square foot and the likelyhood of the situation happening again and again and again.
In the case of the Mississippi River and New Orleans (and similar) these are recurring natural phenomenon. We know it’ll happen again sometime. So how many lives are we willing to sacrifice so we can have a city below sea level? Why not just save all future lives and put them up on the hill this time?
As for insurance, yes, well they will raise their rates in that area. Insurance companies are not the government, they are for profit organizations. They realize, even if the populace doesnt, that living in an area prone to flooding is a bad investment. So to offset the risk, they’ll charge you a premium. That way, when they pay out, they’ll still have shown a profit.
You want lower insurance rates? Move to higher ground, stupid! hehe.