They think coercive central planning and wishes for better quality political leadership is sufficient for a better future.

From The $140 Billion Failure We Don’t Talk About by Mark F. Bonner and Mathew D. Sanders.

Following Hurricane Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans twenty years ago, the federal government undertook a $140 billion investment in the infrastructure and economic restoration of the region.  To no good end.  NGOs and insiders made out like bandits but the region was not restored.

Today, New Orleans is smaller, poorer and more unequal than before the storm. It hasn’t rebuilt a durable middle class, and lacks basic services and a major economic engine outside of its storied tourism industry.

The core problem was the inability to turn abundant resources into a clear vision backed by political will. Federal dollars were funneled into a maze of state agencies and local governments with clashing priorities, vague metrics and near-zero accountability. Billions went to contractors and government consultants while public institutions such as schools, transit, health care and housing barely scraped by. For example, one firm, ICF International, received nearly $1 billion to administer Road Home, the oft-criticized state program to rebuild houses.

[snip]

Today New Orleans ranks near the bottom among major U.S. cites for G.D.P. per capita and is one of the nation’s weakest employment markets. Its population is roughly 23 percent smaller than it was in 2000, with about 37 percent fewer Black residents. Economic output per person lags the national average, and while the city has seen modest recent job gains, job growth remains uneven and slow overall.

[snip]

Meanwhile, basic city functions remain unreliable — streets flood in routine storms and drainage systems fail. Housing costs keep climbing — a paradox in a city with stagnant population growth.

Bonner and Sanders are in a curious position.  They good a decent job of demonstrating after a major disaster (Katrina), the federal government removed capital investment as a constraint hindering restoration of the city and the region.  

They then makes the case that the largesse of the federal government was then squandered by the state and local political leaders.  They argue that government leaders should have had better vision and more leadership and made more of the $140 billion.  I doubt anyone would argue against that.

Their solution is that the next time there is a comparable disaster, the federal government should again invest in restoration but that state and local leaders should focus more on building a better urban future that is more equal.

Basically they want a central planners dream.  We wasted $140 billion last time but with better central planning we will make better use of it next time.

Their argument is as strong as the levies were against Katrina and they make no effort to demonstrate how the planning might work better given that it was so disastrously bad last time.  

Bonner and Sanders come across as one more NGO with hat in hand.

America needs to stop treating recovery as a one-time event. Cities are not machines to be fixed and forgotten. They are living systems that need sustained investment and constant evolution. That requires vision and talent, not just funding.

They appear to be asking the federal government for an open-ended investment into urban centers.  

But if bad urban leadership didn't work last time, with unlimited funds, why on earth is there any reason to believe it would work this time?  They never address that obvious issue.

A bad argument poorly argued but an argument made to a rabid readership grateful to hear that coercive central planning and wishing for better political leadership is a recipe for a better future.  

UPDATE:  The comments at Marginal Revolution are, as usual, dramatically more informative and entertaining than those of the comments at the New York Times.