That did not of course stop stupid people from saying how stupid it would be to build things at sea level, no matter how much this was used as part of a project to protect the city, because guarding against climate change doesn’t involve the proper moral repentance, so it doesn’t count. The link is a New York Post article where this is the best objection they could find.
The New York Post article sounds to me overall positive but the journalist wasn’t allowed to write a one-sided article so they had to bring up some bullshit argument given that the argument has been made by other people.
One of the key questions here is how you would actually go about making this a reality. I imagine that if you make it a completely public project there’s a good chance that the whole thing fails and becomes a political liability for the major that approved the project. It takes likely a decade to build and has the potential to produce political trouble in between.
There’s no Robert Moses around to run the project. In the absence, it’s worth thinking about how you would actually structure such a project and make it good politics.
The New York Post article sounds to me overall positive but the journalist wasn’t allowed to write a one-sided article so they had to bring up some bullshit argument given that the argument has been made by other people.
One of the key questions here is how you would actually go about making this a reality. I imagine that if you make it a completely public project there’s a good chance that the whole thing fails and becomes a political liability for the major that approved the project. It takes likely a decade to build and has the potential to produce political trouble in between.
There’s no Robert Moses around to run the project. In the absence, it’s worth thinking about how you would actually structure such a project and make it good politics.