3 ms·
The difference with major cities is a) it's a lot harder to somehow abandon large populations than small ones, and b) the cost vs benefit ratio is probably th
by TulliusCicero 4y ago
The difference with major cities is
a) it's a lot harder to somehow abandon large populations than small ones, and
b) the cost vs benefit ratio is probably there for big cities in a way that it's not for small towns in the mountains. Spending a billion dollars to rebuild a town with a population that numbers in the hundreds is horrible economic value. In contrast, New Orleans is big enough to where spending billions on flood protection may be still be worth it on some level.
That said, it'd certainly be nice to find a way to have cute little towns in the mountains that wasn't dependent on enormous subsidies from other cities.
- bobthepanda 4y agoThe thing with cities is that they have huge sunk costs that are hard to move elsewhere. New York is prone to hurricanes and floods, but is also the landing point for probably most of the transatlantic cables. In a similar fashion, we spend a lot of money containing the Mississippi because New Orleans as a port and oil refinery hub represents nearly a fifth of refining capacity in the US. Those would be expensive assets to replace.