Why are property taxes so HIGH in Texas?? (Dallas, San Antonio: 2015, second mortgage)

[cBach]

Originally Posted by scm53

New Orleans is an oligarchy at best, a banana republic at worst. It has all powerful cliques and families that are driven by a desire to maintain the status quo. Entrepreneurship there is impossible, because the people that control the city, and more importantly, the money, are uninterested in supporting anything that would upset the power structure. To think that could become a financial capital is ignoring reality.

But the same things that you talk about are the reasons why the culture has been preserved. It has allowed institutions like Antoine's to survive 150 years untouched. It has allowed the preservation of the largest set of French Colonial Architecture in the New World. Had the free market allowed to reign, New Orleans would probably be bigger than Houston, and uglier at that.

The good news is that Katrina mixed up the power structure a bit and the film and media incentives have created Hollywood South and a burgeoning digital media community there, still with the preservation. There is a part of New Orleans called Bywater, it used to be down on its luck similar to our Eastside and it is a hipster gentrification area as well, albeit the homes being restored there are circa 1800's French Colonial architecture not 1950's WWII era shacks.

New Orleans has never allowed the carpetbaggers to infiltrate and take over, the culture has remained in tact. It's the reason why it's the only walkable downtown in the whole South, has the most history in the South, and is arguably the most interesting city in the South. It has its own music, culture, food, and society. In essence it could be a City-State if it wanted to be, like Venice.

Its low lying terrain is the reason why it would never become the financial capital even if the powers that be allowed it. Galveston had the same story, but even though the geography of New Orleans is less favorable than Galveston, New Orleans has rebounded from even greater disasters than Galveston.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by buffettjr

You might want to brush up on your geography then. That is the mouth of the Mississippi River...a gigantic highway that connects to a tributary system that attaches to the entire continental U.S. A highway system in the time before roads or highways.

I know your comment was probably tongue in cheek, but it was a phenomenal deal. I wouldn't be surprised to see New Orleans as the financial capital of the U.S. had the Eerie Canal not been built. Had you been looking at nothing other than a geographical map, anyone would have picked that spot as the logical choice.

Yes and also the Louisiana "territory" extended all the way up to Montana, encompassing parts of states such as Colorado and the Dakotas, as well as places like Yellowstone, Grand Tetons (means "big breasts" in French), most of the Great Plains, all of Missouri including St. Louis, another major city.

Had that purchase not occurred, Denver and Aspen would be in the French's hands, along with New Orleans and the Panhandle of Texas, by the way.

Oddly enough Lake Charles would not have been included. That area was "no man's land" where crooks and criminals hid from the law. Explains a lot about that area, including Beaumont which was part of it.

Look at this map:

http://media.maps.com/magellan/Image...rchase_Ref.jpg

All of the main ski resorts in Colorado as well as Denver and CO Springs were included with the Louisiana Purchase. Of course, that "hinterland" was administered from New Orleans at the time.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by cBach

...New Orleans has rebounded from even greater disasters than Galveston.

8,000 people died in Galveston in the 1900 Storm. What greater disaster did New Orleans rebound from?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by scm53

8,000 people died in Galveston in the 1900 Storm. What greater disaster did New Orleans rebound from?

Considering there was no hurricane evacuation system in Galveston in early 1900's, the numbers, while bad, would not have been as bad as Katrina had it happened in the early 1900's. There literally could have been 100,000 dead.

Also, financially, Katrina was the costliest disaster in the US at the time it happened.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by cBach

Considering there was no hurricane evacuation system in Galveston in early 1900's, the numbers, while bad, would not have been as bad as Katrina had it happened in the early 1900's. There literally could have been 100,000 dead.

I'm sure that makes sense to you, but it is utter nonsense on its surface. You weren't talking hypotheticals - you said:

New Orleans has rebounded from even greater disasters than Galveston.

Not what could have happened, what might have happened if...

One fourth of its population of Galveston were killed. The remaining that weren't dead, were homeless. New Orleans has NEVER seen devastation of that magnitude.

Afterwards, Galveston and the State of Texas built a sea wall to protect the city, and jacked up the entire town 17 feet, raising over 2,000 homes and the 3,000 ton St Patrick's Cathedral. Paid for by the city and the state, who didn't sit around with their hands out whining for the Feds to pick up the tab. Unlike some other city to the east.

OBTW - you're also wrong about Katrina being the most costliest US disaster at the time it happened. That title would go to the 1926 Miami hurricane - $164.8 billion in 2010 dollars. Katrina was second at $113B, Galveston 1900 third at $104B.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by scm53

I'm sure that makes sense to you, but it is utter nonsense on its surface. You weren't talking hypotheticals - you said:


Not what could have happened, what might have happened if...

One fourth of its population of Galveston were killed. The remaining that weren't dead, were homeless. New Orleans has NEVER seen devastation of that magnitude.

Afterwards, Galveston and the State of Texas built a sea wall to protect the city, and jacked up the entire town 17 feet, raising over 2,000 homes and the 3,000 ton St Patrick's Cathedral. Paid for by the city and the state, who didn't sit around with their hands out whining for the Feds to pick up the tab. Unlike some other city to the east.

OBTW - you're also wrong about Katrina being the most costliest US disaster at the time it happened. That title would go to the 1926 Miami hurricane - $164.8 billion in 2010 dollars. Katrina was second at $113B, Galveston 1900 third at $104B.

You didn't provide a source. But even by your own admission, Katrina was costlier than Galveston.

But, you didn't consider *other* disasters like disease. I was also talking about yellow fever, which killed 8000 in the Summer of 1853 in New Orleans, that is numerically the same as what was killed in Galveston the hurricane year, and this was just one year. There's a reason why there are so many cemeteries in New Orleans. Actually, they reasoned that had those yellow fever victims over the years (estimated over 50,000) had lived and had children, New Orleans may have become one of the largest cities in the US.

If you add up the lives lost from Yellow Fever, Cholera, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, the lives lost in New Orleans pales what was lost in Galveston that year.

Why do you have to fight everything I say?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by cBach

You didn't provide a source. But even by your own admission, Katrina was costlier than Galveston.

But _you_ didn't say "costlier", you said greater. Which Galveston was, accounting for the much larger non-material losses in life.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But _you_ didn't say "costlier", you said greater. Which Galveston was, accounting for the much larger non-material losses in life.

Yes and I clarified that I meant loss of life from all tragedies, including epidemics like yellow fever...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by cBach

Why do you have to fight everything I say?

Because you insist on saying stuff that is easily proven false. Like this:

Originally Posted by cBach

Also, financially, Katrina was the costliest disaster in the US at the time it happened.

When it wasn't.

Even Novacek called you out, so it isn't just me.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by scm53

Because you insist on saying stuff that is easily proven false. Like this:



When it wasn't.

Even Novacek called you out, so it isn't just me.

But it was costlier than Galveston, which is what was important in your line of argument.

You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...