Should citizens in general be required to bail out certain cities over and over and over again? New Orleans is a case in point. Suppose a bunch of people got together to build a city and got around to the siting question (where to put it).
New Orleans is at major risk every hurricane season and every 2-4 years it gets hit hard. Let's suppose New Orleans didn't exist and the aforementioned group were to look at the area. "Hmm...there isn't enough land there to build the city on." "Yeah but I have an idea. We'll build walls around part of the water and pump the water out and build our city there." "Under sea level? You must be kidding!" "I'm serious as a heart attack! If the sea wall fails, we'll just depend on the Feds to help us out."
Cities built along the San Andreas Fault are another example.
Maybe Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle should be moved to Kentucky and Tennessee (but not along the Ohio River).
And what about people who build homes in 100 year flood plains? People love to build homes right on the banks of rivers, and they can do so because they know the county, state, or FEMA will come in and rescue them and probably help them out.
How much should the public pay for stupid decisions as to where to build cities or homes?
Reviving the dead thread: Should we move New York to Indiana?
I'm thinking that since the Religious Right/Republican Party maintain that disasters are the direct result of Gay Pride parades, we should reroute all Gay Parades to whatever city the Republican National Headquarters are in, and let their god figure out how to handle it.