[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by skylark

And here's another article that focuses on the rebuilding in Mississippi gaining steam. An upbeat article, but here's an excerpt that explains why progress was better in Mississippi:


Full article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-0...rebuilds_x.htm

Right, and you also had largely functional local government.

I really think it's a mistake to dismiss what happened to Mississippi as lightly as that quoted material does. There may not have been standing water, but there was nothing left for most of the coast. Seriously, whole towns were essentially missing. Multi-story brick buildings gone to the dirt.

Now we can discuss whether than helped make a fresh start I suppose, but to argue that there was less water damage since there was nothing left is a little goofy.

I know it wasn't your point Skylark.