My thoughts are that it really depends on the local issues, which I'm not familiar with. I have to say, this is the line that stands out in the stories you linked to: "nine months after the fires, the figures show that of the 1085 permits approved at the time, only 300 were for houses."
Who's in charge of the rebuilding? Would it be primarily locals, or primarily a hotel chain, that would profit from your tourist dollars if you did visit? Is there a locally owned hotel where you could stay? (Those are difficult to find in the USA, since they don't have the nationwide reservation systems that the big chains have. And honestly, more often than not, in remote areas of the USA, locally owned hotels don't tend to be very nice places to stay.) Would you plan to volunteer while you were there?
In the USA, Hurricane Katrina was used as an "opportunity" for ethnic cleansing by large players in the tourism industry. I might still visit New Orleans as a volunteer (volunteers are still needed), but not as a voyeur.
We visited New York for other reasons in the summer of 2002 (after the demolition was complete). Obviously the economic issues were completely different in that case. I got it in my head I wanted to visit the WTC site to pay my respects. Instead, I just felt like a voyeur.