For those of you who are wondering what's become of me, I've taken a break to help with some of the recovery efforts for Ike in the gulf coast. I worked initially in Louisiana and am now in Houston. It's been quite an experience!

When Katrina hit New Orleans it started a conversation about that city and whether it should even be rebuilt where it currently sits because of its vulnerability to flooding and hurricanes. But after a couple of weeks down here, I think the question is bigger than that.

Those who live in the most low-lying areas, who are most vulnerable to the ravages of nature, are very often the poorest. And, so many of the same people living between New Orleans and Houston have been hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Who knows what comes next!

The local, state and federal governments rush in to help in these situations, which is what should happen. But it's a costly exercise. And, I wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent to simply offer many of these people incentives to move away from the areas of greatest danger. Since many of these individuals are in tough financial circumstances, some of them may welcome the chance for a fresh start elsewhere. Certainly I heard many express that they didn't think they could handle any more hurricanes!

And, maybe there are some areas where we should have a new designation. There are lands protected from development for all kinds of reasons. Why not some kind of "disaster prone" designation? I wouldn't say no one could build there because I don't want to tell people what to do. But they'd sign a waiver of any right to assistance, including government flood insurance, if they decided to build there.

Right now this seems like another case of working on eliminating the effects of the problem without ever getting at the root cause. It seems to me we're smart enough to do better!