What would happen if?

**justatxmom** · 09-15-2008, 09:52 AM

Still thinking about the logistics of this one (not that there really is an answer becasue I do agree "stupid is as stupid does"

If mandatory evacs are issued and a person chooses to ignore, which is their right, I just fail to see why the gov is "expected" to do anything)

But, let's say they do issue fines, etc. Wouldn't that create a litagational (is that an actual word?) situation? As in, Mr. and Mrs. J.Q. Public ignored the warnings and then were not rescued in a timely manner and now their surviving family memebers turn around and sue the government for neglect??

**WV_mom_of2** · 09-15-2008, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by frugalbabe

Great idea. And if you can't pay than you have to do community service or whatever to make up for it.

I agree!! You know, CNN keeps showing this guy who got stuck in his house because of flooding with his family. He keeps telling his story of how his house was flooding and he was so scared for his kids that he had them sitting on the couch with life jackets on. His two kids went into the bathroom and wrote their names and SSN on their arms with a Sharpie so if they died they could be identified. He's telling how that upset him and I'm thinking "if you cared so darn much about your kids why didn't you get them out to safety BEFORE the hurricane hit?" I have no sympathy for people who don't heed warnings!

**baxjul** · 09-15-2008, 10:28 AM

OMG. I thought I was the only person who thought like this!!!! I mean really. You have at least 4 days to get out of the way. If you live on the coast you should already have a plan in place. I'm so sick of hearing about it.

**The Muse** · 09-15-2008, 11:43 AM

I agree. Have people learned nothing from Hurricaine Katrina?

**One Frugal Mom** · 09-15-2008, 11:48 AM

I completely agree with making people have to pay for the cost to rescue them.

It would be different if there were no warnings...but in this day and age, people have plenty of warning.

**forHISglory** · 09-15-2008, 12:00 PM

Count my vote for "YES".

There used to be a radio announcer in our neck of the woods whose recurrent phrase was "You can't fix stupid." He was probably right. But we sure can charge them!

**Kitchen Mama** · 09-15-2008, 01:08 PM

My husband says they should have to pay if they don't heed an evacuation. Why should everyone keep paying for someone's ignorance

**JerryG** · 09-15-2008, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Michelle68

Here in San Antonio they do just that. We have a big problem with flash flooding when it rains a lot. The city puts barricades to prevent people from entering areas with high water. Inevitably, some idiot will go around the barricades into a high water crossing and get stuck, hanging on for dear life to the roof of their car. After the big floods of 1998, the fire department started charging a fine to those who have to be rescued because they ignored the barricades. Personally, I think it's a great idea.

--Michelle

They do that here too (Phoenix). And if a copter is brought in, it is very, very expensive.

**frugalfriend** · 09-15-2008, 01:34 PM

I agree 100%.

**dcompton** · 09-15-2008, 10:10 PM

I agree. Some of these folks have the IQ of mushrooms. However, like asimplegirl I think there should be some exceptions. I'm in Louisiana too (northern part so not hurricane country), but some of the tiny and rather isolated areas on the coast are in a difficult position. Many of these people are quite poor and I don't see anyone making any effort to help them evacuate in the same way that we see in cities and more population dense areas.

But definitely, if they were warned and means were provided to get out and shelters offered (and no, folks, the shelters probably won't be five star hotels, but they will be safe), they should be held accountable for their defiance of orders given that are clearly in the public interest. And yes, those who put not just themselves and their rescuers but dependent children at risk .... grrrrrrr.

**Lady_V** · 09-15-2008, 10:46 PM

If there was an extreme situation, then no, they shouldn't be charged... I count an extreme situation as an act of terrorism, explosions, ufo invasion... real "woah" moments.

Hurricanes, tornadoes and even volcanic activity come with plenty of advance notice. There is usually an 'out' offered. Mandatory evacs are not a suggestion.

Taxes are mandatory. If you don't pay your taxes, you are penalized, why should this be different?

The *only* exceptions I would make are people with mental disabilities (severe, group home, etc -- they depend on others for safety, their caretakers should be held responsible ) or those with severe physical limitations who could not be relocated in time.

Parents who do not evacuate their children should definitely be charged with child endangerment. "Children" over the age of 18 should be held accountable for not vacating as well since they are technically adults.

**caradana** · 09-16-2008, 09:00 AM

"What do you think would happen if the government started charging people for rescues when they where given a mandatory evacuation notice?"

The dregs of society would get poorer.

I mean, honestly, it's not the Nobel Laureates in our communities who are tapping plywood over windows with stud nails and saying, "it's just water." It's the weakest among us. While I love the idea of charging them, the merciful side of me has trouble swallowing it, because it seems to take the most intellectually disadvantaged among us and kick them.

**shoiji** · 09-16-2008, 02:26 PM

I also thought something is wrong when people do not evacuate when told to do so. This was when I saw people being rescued and complaints of aid not getting into areas in need. Thanks for starting this thread since it made me think more about what possible circumstances would make someone want or need to stay. I can't help but wonder if low-income people are more likely to stay because of cost and if they are more likely to live in areas prone to natural disasters.