I don't know enough about the situation to nail it down tightly. How many of the lower-income people were renting? How many owned homes in older areas?

I do know that the city and property owners will have a very strong temptation to "upscale" these areas, especially given the increased legal protection for condemnation that they have now.

This is not uncommon in urban renewal programs. The floods and destroyed structures just create a large tempation.

Maybe there's a program in place for rebuilding low-income housing, but how much of it? At what point do free market solutions balance against pricing an entire area out of reach of those who used to live there? I don't have a pat answer for this.

Here in California such "upscaling" is common, and it sometimes happens that blue-collar and other workers can not only not afford to live close to where they work, but can't even afford to live in the same city.