To hear the locals pols talk we ought to move back in as fast as possible. Everybody ought to come back even while we wait to see if engineering solutions can offer protection from likely much less possible floods. The old, the frail, even those without resources to evacuate should all return.

This makes sense if you are a politician elected by a constituency now dispersed across the nation.  There is a fairness to it that appeals to most folks on an emotional level. Don't we wish we could undo the hurt? Isn't this the way to make it right?

On another level it seems totally irresponsible:

• Does it make sense to bring people back to a town where there is no place to live?
• Does it make sense to encourage people to rebuild in areas that might be bulldozed?
  
• Does it make sense if you can't provide jobs, hospitals or schools?
  
• Does it make sense if flooding remains likely from even a minor storm?
  
• Does it make sense while there remains no feasible means to evacuate the population within the lead time that a dangerous storm provides?
  
• Does it make sense if the city is still sinking?
  
• Does it make sense if we keep in mind that the death toll from Katrina although racially balanced was disproportionately the old and the frail.

A few of the national pols would agree with these points but would take it a few steps further. They wonder if we shouldn't just abandon the city. This makes sense for them too as it will be expensive to rebuild. And risky too, what with global warming and the sinking land Louisiana is a goner no matter what we do. (Indeed the sky does seem to be falling).  Resources are stretched thin. And the reputation of Louisiana politics suggests that any dollars sent in for rebuilding would be siphoned away anyhow.