Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Everywhere has risks.  Here there is only flooding around creeks, and some of that was somehow changed.  Earthquakes are quite rare.  Tornados happen, but not as often as in the Plains.  Hurricanes, only residuals.  Snow fall?  Rare. 

I hear Austin, TX is THE place to be though.

if you have a spare kidney

I never quite understood FEMA.  I've seen stories, possibly exaggerated, about how ineffective they have been.  I've seen folks in damaged areas claiming they had not heard from FEMA at all.  So, I don't know, maybe the truth is in the middle.  I sort of expect folks to take care of themselves in a disaster, maybe with local assistance, and it's nice if temporary housing is provided for folks displaced.  I'm not clear what else they do, but haven't really looked into it.

I know what FEMA does.  I also suspect that a higher percentage of FEMA money goes to places like Florida, and Houston, and other places that are highly prone to widespread, massive damage.  Katrina alone likely tilted the table so heavily in that direction it won't ever come back. 

Tornadoes are nothing like hurricanes in total damage assessments.

If you look at Federal dollars as a whole, more money goes into keeping the Mississippi in its path than any other project. It's on the order of $7 Billion per year. And that is only one river that gets USACE attention. There are several more.

New Orleans should have never been re-built to its present form.

Katrina LA and Harvey (LA/TX) were each $125 Billion.

Ian (FL) was $113 Billion.

Sandy (NE) was $70 Billion.

These are today's dollars.

Since Katrina, the USACE has spent ~ $135 Billion keeping the Mississippi in its path, so that the port of New Orleans remains viable.

Think about that.

Man y'all are always either burning or flooding/mud-sliding out there.  I'm going to cancel my plans to move next door to you...

If you look at Federal dollars as a whole, more money goes into keeping the Mississippi in its path than any other project. It's on the order of $7 Billion per year. And that is only one river that gets USACE attention. There are several more.

New Orleans should have never been re-built to its present form.

Katrina LA and Harvey (LA/TX) were each $125 Billion.

Ian (FL) was $113 Billion.

Sandy (NE) was $70 Billion.

These are today's dollars.

Since Katrina, the USACE has spent ~ $135 Billion keeping the Mississippi in its path, so that the port of New Orleans remains viable.

Think about that.

Just so I’m clear, do you mean Harvey cost FEMA $125 billion?  Because I’d guess that Harvey was much more destructive than Ian simply because of the sheer size of destruction. Harvey basically flooded out large portions of area 200 miles wide by 200 miles deep. And that doesn’t even count what it did to Rockport. 

Wait, you're criticizing people who build cities in a desert while... Living--by choice--in a city in a desert?

The issue with all of what you're saying here is that you assume that "we" as a society should always make smart collective choices, while not realizing that "we" as individuals make our own choices according to our own needs, whims, and preferences. That's why you live in Phoenix. For whatever reason, it made sense for you individually to move there and work, despite the fact that building a dense population center in a place without enough water to support it is collectively dumb.

To a large extent, the "masses" can often be smart about the things that matter while being stupid about things that don't or only slightly affect them. That, by the way, is true whether they're dumb as a box of rocks, or smart as hell. Because even smart people, let's use doctors as an example, don't have to be smart about city planning to be successful in life. But that doctor may opine and vote based on uninformed and very wrong ideas about city planning--or even just selfish ideas like NIMBYism.

As it is, I think you're a pretty smart guy, OAM... With a lot of dumb, uninformed, opinions. Opinions that you have an outsized sense of confidence in, to boot.

Yes, I live in a city that shouldn't be here, at least not at this size.  Because I need a job.  Because because because.

Now, I wouldn't live here if it wasn't here.  If there was no Phoenix, I'd live someplace else, obviously.
The masses make choices for ourselves, many of which are poor collective choices because we're allowed to.  What's the absurd harm of suggesting individuals' choices should be limited within the confines of good collective choices?  

And Cincy, there's exactly zero difference between posting on this here board and "dorm room talk."  We're all just older.  None of it matters and it's all a waste of time.  It's how we choose to waste our time.

What's the absurd harm of suggesting individuals' choices should be limited within the confines of good collective choices? 

The hubris to think that we've got perfectly wise leaders who always are great at deciding what "good collective choices" are.