Given the less-than-encouraging events of the past month or so, I hesitate to post this New York Times article about brain-drain in New Orleans, but it's a real problem--moreso now than before Katrina or even immediately after it. Not many of us want to talk about it, and I don't know of much that's been written on the phenomenon lately, at least not in any complex or meaningful way. It's not for the faint of heart:
As a city in flux, New Orleans remains statistically murky, but demographers generally agree that the population replenishment after the storm, as measured by things like the amount of mail sent and employment in main economic sectors, has leveled off. While many poorer residents have moved back to the city, the "brain drain" of professionals that the city was experiencing before the storm appears to have accelerated.
. . .
In battered but proud New Orleans, abandonment is a highly emotional subject, in part because many have made sacrifices to stay and rebuild. To some, leaving now is tantamount to treason. When a report appeared a year ago that Emeril Lagasse, the famed chef, had said the city would "never come back," reservations at his restaurants were canceled and strangers berated him. He insisted he had been misquoted.
And in response to an article in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans about a woman who had decided to move on, Poppy Z. Brite, a New Orleans novelist, wrote: "This isn't an easy place to be right now, and the decision to stay or go is deeply personal. But why must some people use the media to take a parting shot at the city?"
On another occasion, Ms. Brite said, "If a place takes you in and you take it into yourself, you don't desert it just because it can kill you. There are some things more valuable than life."
In the end it's a little vague, a little ambiguous, a little "Here are the facts, now figure it out for yourself, reader", but then, that's how it is, right?
