The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Is Evacuating Your Home a Personal Choice?

10 Comments

September 23, 2008 by Kathy McManus

In the devastating aftermath of the super-sized hurricanes Gustav and Ike, a pointed debate has taken hold, pitting personal responsibility against Mother Nature and the rule of law.

At issue are the increasing number of hurricane “hold-outs” who refuse to leave their homes, even in the face of mandatory evacuation orders and National Weather Service warnings of “certain death.”

Some stay because they are elderly, infirm, or have no place to go. Others say evacuating is too “expensive”—they can’t afford to fix a broken car and don’t have money for gas anyway.

“You need to be scared,” implored New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, as Hurricane Gustav bore down on the city. But even his Category 5 language—“You need to get your butts out of New Orleans now”—had little bearing on people determined to stay.

The most defiant group of hold-outs includes those who hunker down to protect their property from forces other than nature. “I am staying here because of what happened to my pub when Katrina rolled in—looting and mindless destruction,” explained a New Orleans bar owner who ignored Gustav’s mandatory evacuation order. “I will probably stay until someone with a rifle and uniform shows up.”

And that’s what worries authorities--when someone’s personal decision to ride out a hurricane goes awry, other lives are put on the line, most notably, rescue workers. As Hurricane Ike hit its Texas bulls-eye, thousands of bold hold-outs who had stubbornly stayed suddenly swamped emergency dispatchers with frightened pleas for help.

Galveston’s city manager described the situation as “very frustrating,” while a newspaper editorial plunged right into the swelling question of personal responsibility and hurricanes “It is usually thought of as a strong and noble character trait identifying one’s ability to manage his or her own affairs responsibly. But in the wake of Hurricane Ike, it has proven to ally with sheer stupidity.”

Tell us what you think: Is your greater responsibility to the law, or to personally protecting your home and possessions? Whose responsibility is it if someone dies in defiance of a government order to evacuate from a storm?

10 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• September 26, 2008 by Cecily

  The first step would seem to be to investigate the reason someone has not evacuated. For example, some might not be able to get to pick up points or are concerned about not having access to restrooms on buses. Others might not be aware of the PETs Act and refuse to leave their pets. Some might have sensory handicaps (poor eyesight or hearing impairment) and do not effectively receive information. Others are just plain frightened. Effective outreach by various agencies--between disasters--could increase evacuation compliance with these people. Then there are the ones who arrogantly believe they are too brave to evacuate; that they have lived through worse before; or, that they must protect their property. Underneath many of the blusterers are just as afraid as everyone else. Again, effective communication by various agencies--between disasters--could be the key to turning some members of this group. The true holdouts--those who are too arrogant or unimaginative to evacuate under any circumstances are beyond being reasonable and emergency personnel are not responsible for their rescue.

  Reply

  • October 5, 2008 by Brooke

    How do you distinguish the "true holdouts" from those simply frightened? If between disaster, education fails to assure someone that their pet will be taken care of or that they will not have to put up with bus bathrooms, should that person be left for dead? Maybe evacuation should be made optional and anyone staying behind should sign a document stating they are not to be rescued? Someone who has worked all his life to buy a home of his own, or who's home has been in his family for generations should definitely be abandoned if they find it impossible to abandon their lives. How can we identify every reason that someone would opt not to evacuate? How can we possibly deem whether these reasons are viable? After someone has decided that their life is forfeit for this reason, how can we hear their desperate calls for help and act objectively? How can we tell ourselves that they should have known what would come and that they need to deal with it themselves. Perhaps we should not organize volunteer rescue workers at all for disasters that have had reasonable warning time.

    Reply

    • October 5, 2008 by Cecily

      The only way that rescue workers can find out some of the reasons that potential evacuees (all of us really) will not evacuate is to ask them. The only way that some of the evacuation fears can be allayed is to communicate the provisions in place. In other words, two-way communication. This communication needs to take place between disasters, when things are calm. For example, Yahoo News reported this morning that the body of a Galveston woman was found. She was older but not yet elderly. She had told a neighbor that she would not leave because her old very large arthritic dog could no longer climb in her jeep. If, sometime back between Rita and Ike, a suggestion had been made that she ask a neighbor to lift the dog into the jeep, and had been assured that someone at destination would help lift the dog out of the jeep, the woman would probably have evacuated. (The dog's collar was also found, but not the dog's body.) We cannot identify all the reasons that people might resist evacuation, but the people can. Emergency workers cannot deal with all of the reasons, but they can advise on many. One has to approach it from the standpoint that all reasons are viable. There are just some things that no one can do anything about.

• October 7, 2008 by Michael Jefferis

  Mandatory evacuations from areas in harms way should be obeyed. It is one thing if you CAN'T leave, it is quite another if you "WON'T leave. The act of deliberately staying behind undermines the willingness of all to cooperate for the common good. The aftermath of deliberately staying behind creates a spectacle of hubris or dead bodies that somebody else has to collect and haul away. If you want to practice civil disobedience, find a worthy opportunity to do so. (For the ethically sensitive person, there are numerous opportunities for civil disobedience which will be far more productive and effective than flouting an evacuation order.) Of course, those ordering evacuations assume a great deal of responsibility to provide a timely alert, if at all possible, and assistance to those who can not leave on their own. Mike in Minneapolis

  Reply

• October 15, 2008 by Jagan

  In short, the answer to the question at the end of the article is: the person who chose to ignore the order. As appears to be the point of the Responsibility Project, you are responsible for any decisions you make. Why these people chose to ignore a 'mandatory' evacuation is irrelevant. The government has no right to remove people from their homes against their will, even if it is for their own safety. I agree that many of them could, and should, be convinced to evacuate by giving some assistance, be it something as simple as lifting a large dog or something more difficult, such as providing places to stay. However, those that will not be convinced should not be forced; they will have to deal with the consequences. The emergency workers who would rescue those who choose to stay are also victims of their choices, though they may have reasons that seem better to the average person, they have made the decision to put their own lives in danger to help others. The rescue workers are in no way responsible for failing to save someone, even though they may feel differently. It was said that we cannot ignore their pleas, but not all of us regularly risk our lives in order to save others. The only person who can decide if one man's life is more valuable than another’s is the man who would be sacrificed.

  Reply

• November 12, 2008 by Brenda Hawkins

  My father was a recent hold-out when Ike was headed his way. I feel that if he wants to endanger his life, that is his choice, but rescue personal should not have to put their life on the line when there was ample time and warnings to evacuate.

  Reply

• November 14, 2008 by Karen Vassey

  The only thing wrong with that way of thinking would be what happens in the end!! If you die for standing up for yourself and protecting your own, will your family sue the government for letting you stay? That would NOT be right. When you made that deadly decision, you became totally responsible for what might happen.

  Reply

• March 28, 2009 by TeacherForex

  I have the same opinion as yours on this. What you said is true.

  Reply

• June 29, 2009 by Diana Healey

  In the face of increasing natural disasters, society needs to reevaluate our allocation of resources. In the case of tornadoes, where there is virtually no warning of impending doom, citizens have no choice but to "ride it out". Living in one of those states, I find it amazing that people who have literally hours to days to shore-up and evacuate, still want to "ride out the storm". Then when they get in trouble, they want someone else to risk their life to save them. I sincerely feel that if you knowingly, willingly stay in harms way, you should accept the consequences, whatever they may be. I have no problem with workers going in after the danger is over to help survivors, but no one should expect someone else to risk their life to save you, when you put your own self in danger. It seems to me that this kind of thing is the natural way to clean-up the gene pool of society. It is a given in other countries where dangerous animals and 'man' coexist. If you are dumb enough to enrage a lion and wait around to see if it kills you, you die.

  Reply

• November 14, 2009 by M Am---

  I have been through all of these storms. I left for katrina, and my house ( the part not ruined from the storm) had become the resting grounds for illegals while I was evacuated. I had nothing to come back to. I don't live in New Orleans, I live in a rural area and was still a victim of this. In the city of New Orleans, there were even stories of the looting being done by the very people that were supposed to be protecting the city. In talking to friends, this is why many chose to risk their lives and stay.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.