Does this bother anyone?

[Dennis K.]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_re_us/ike;_ylt=AqEonBq2_4xlVROGU7xScKJ34T0D


GALVESTON, Texas - The few hundred holdouts on Texas' ravaged Bolivar Peninsula will be required to leave in the next few days, and officials said Tuesday they are ready to use emergency powers to empty the barrier island scraped clean by Hurricane Ike.

Judge Jim Yarbrough, the top elected official in Galveston County, said the roughly 250 people who defied warnings they would be killed if they rode out the storm in the rural coastal community are a "hardy bunch" and there are some "old timers who aren't going to want to leave."

The Texas attorney general's office is looking into the legal options available to force the remaining residents leave, Yarbrough said. Local authorities are prepared to do whatever it takes to get residents to a safer place.

Apparently, those who are gonna tough it out on the Bolivar peninsula are to be removed - whether they ask for it or not.
I'm of the opinion that if you choose to stay and are aware of the risks, then the government has no business with you so long as you abide by the law. I could see the gov't saying "fine. you're on your own." But this move seems to indicate that the local gov't views itself as smarter than the people that elected them.
I'm fully aware that some of the people trying to stay might just be stupid. But suppose some of them were like some of our forum personalities here - they planned and prepared, and when the Ike hit the fan, they were ready.
In a disaster, I am able to tough it out for 3 days. Then, if I need more help, I'll seek FEMA or local aid or family or bug out or whatever. But this article indicates that the local gov is going a bit beyond their mandate.

[crashdive123]

If it's not safe to stay, the local authorities have a responsibility to let the residents know. If people decide to stay on their private property, it should be their choice. It should also be clear to those that stay....we're not coming in to help you. We've got other priorities right now. If you stay you're on your own.

[snakeman]

I agree with crash. I shouldn't have to pay for someone elses decision. That is where our tax money is going.

[Gray Wolf]

First, people did die. Second, even after the hurricane pasted Galveston, there were many stuck on their roofs, which put the SAR units, and the rest of the First Responders lives in jeopardy when they HAD TO rescue them because they wouldn't listen to the harshest warning ever given. Lastly, WE and I do mean WE (the US taxpayers) had to pay for it with Federal funds.

[Riverrat]

As long as they are aware that they are on their own, then they should be able to stay, but they have to be aware that no help is coming in the near future. They are on their own, for what could be an extended period of time.

[trax]

Yep, what you guys said.

[crashdive123]

Here's a thought. If you decide to stay in an area that has a mandatory evacuation (I think you should have the right to stay if you want) and subsequently need rescue......you get charged for it.

[trax]

Good thought, I also think that if you decided to stay, you might want to give some consideration to where on the evacuation list you are prioritized and the possibility that rescuers might not be able to even get to you, but it is still your choice.

[Gray Wolf]

Almost like a part of motorcycle insurance; if you want to ride without a helmet, you need to buy medical insurance as part of your policy. That pays for the EMS to scrape your head and brains off the ground and clean it up, their time, gas, etc. But if you wear a helmet when you ride (in Florida) you don't need insurance. (I pay for insurance :D I hate helmets.)



Thinking about it, it's not nearly the same, I'm not putting a First Responders life in jeopardy.

[LostOutrider]

It would be nice if there really was an opt-out for folks who wanted to stay - but the reality of it is that most folks are all gung-ho and burly until it really does hit the fan. Once they get sick from drinking the sewer-infected corpse-flavored water, insured or not, emergency rooms will have to admit and treat them. Tax-funded resources will have to be spent to rescue them (as said several times above). They'll scream and cry for the 101st to helicopter in as soon as a better-armed looter comes around, then sue FEMA, the local police, and the Mayor once it is all over. Or, when they finally do die from exposure/starvation/dehydration/disease/looters . . . the county has to send someone in to clean their stubborn, bloated mess up.

I don't like mandatory, police-state mothering . . . but I hate the whiny, sue-happy entitlement-junkies that make such a thing possible (and maybe even necessary).



Edited to add that I moved onto nice, solid foothills that aren't situated on a major fault line, anywhere near hurricane territory, flood zones, high instance of tornadic behavior, avalanches, or tidal waves. I haven't been made to evacuate.

[trax]

I don't like mandatory, police-state mothering . . . but I hate the whiny, sue-happy entitlement-junkies that make such a thing possible (and maybe even necessary).

well stated, sir.

[crashdive123]

Yep - what Trax said.

[erunkiswldrnssurvival]

This should bother you . Instead of developing a plan with methods that work,they oust you and your elderly and your kids,and herd them like cows into inadequit "Shelters" The 30,000 katrina victims suffered for days because nobody had a plan.

[crashdive123]

erunkiswldrnssurvival - So are you saying that if an individual does not plan and prepare to take care of themselves that is then the responsibility of the government to do so?

[erunkiswldrnssurvival]

erunkiswldrnssurvival - So are you saying that if an individual does not plan and prepare to take care of themselves that is then the responsibility of the government to do so?
NO, people should prepare for their needs and refuse to give the responsibility to the government.

[crashdive123]

Thank you for clarifying.

[LostOutrider]

That is all fine and good, especially if these die-hard hangers-on were planning to foot the bill for clean-up, recovery, relaying the utilities, repaving the roads, cleaning out the sewers, cutting up and hauling out the boats, trees, houses, bodies, and various debris. It isn't like a bunch of bootstrap-pullers are going to roll up their sleeves, crawl out from under the rubble, and wave the government away. "No thanks, chaps, we've got it from here."

Personally, if you are going to bring me in to do a job - then stand back and let me do it my way. I can't imagine that Uncle Sam is going to be any different. I recognize that there are some very capable people still clinging to what is left of their home - but the job ahead is bigger than their 1/10 acre lot and the sodden remains of their home. (Which was likely under mortgage, insured, and already being processed while free food, shelter, and counseling await in every church or Red Cross shelter in nearly every town within two days drive of where they were.)

I realize that sounds a little unsympathetic - and I'm really not. My heart goes out to those who have lost their homes and their city. Where I lose all sympathy is with people who are potentially causing more needless risk and expense by intentionally getting in the way.

[RangerXanatos]

I believe that those able should be allowed to stay and ride through storms if their actions will not hinder or harm those who are, but not limited to: the weak and elderly, mentally and physically handicapped, and children. Those that do decide to stay should realize that there would be no help coming as you all have mentioned, and that reimbursement will be made to S&R and the lot, etc...

My main concern would be that their actions do not harm others' well being mentioned in the first sentence.

Daniel

[Gray Wolf]

In those situations, their actions (staying when told to leave) will always put First Responders in harms way. And reality is, when people are hanging on to their roofs for dear life, and the news choppers show it, people will demand someone go and save them. Who's going to say, "no they were told to leave"....

[sh4d0wm4573ri7]

I say let them stay if they wish but for them to come after is all said and done and ask for handouts is ridiculous I believe in freedom of choice :example joe blow passes me on the interstate in a white out cuz I'm doin 40 thats fine , but when I come upon him trying to flag me down after he put his 4 wheel drive 100 feet out in the shoulder he get's the bird and thats all folks.

[Dennis K.]

Theoretical example:
Many homes are now constructed to withstand Cat 5 winds. They are raised to withstand a 15 foot storm surge (Galveston had a 13.5 foot surge at landfall, 1 hour before High Tide). Many of you on this forum own generators, stockpile food, fuel, and water with backup purification capability. Many people that live in coastal areas track hurricanes for days, even weeks, prior to landfall, and additional preparation can be made in advance of the encroaching storm.
Granted, it is a mess down there. Personally, I would get out and hope that my insurance company didn't go Katrina on me (that is, pummel me with fine print, argue, coerce, brow-beat and deny payment until they were forced by some court somewhere, and basically delay, delay, delay until I either gave up or ran out of money to fight them for what is contractually mine).
I understand that many idiots put SAR in harm's way. Charge 'em.
I'm talking about rational, lucid adults who take responsibility for their own well-being and property - Those who know the risks and choose to prepare - which, actually, is a big part of what this forum is about.
This morning, news reports are indicate that the local governments will institute martial law. To my knowledge, martial law can only be declared by the state or federal government. I don't know much about this area of law, but this puts up HUGE red flags. Test run for a larger power grab? Suspension of the Constitution? Simply a step in a land grab (much of those waterfront areas will fetch 10X their actual value if turned into resorts). Will the military fire on civilians who refuse to leave their home? Will those who do not leave face legal consequences, such as criminal charges or property forfeiture?

Yes, its bad. But no government is my caretaker.

Incidentally, my family has property in the area - there are some pics here - the one of Exit 7, Texas City - my family's property is at Exit 4. The picture of the 1900 Hurricane monument is particularly poignant.
http://www.tpicks.com/pictures_people_have_sent_me.htm

[klkak]

All this makes for interesting reading.

On another note. Completely strip the island down and make it a state or national park with "NO" permanent residents. While they are at it. Back fill New Orleans to bring it above sea level. Make anyone that wants to live in an area in danger of being hit by a hurricane pay for hurricane aftermath rescue insurance.

"There is really no way to fix the problem".

[bulrush]

In those situations, their actions (staying when told to leave) will always put First Responders in harms way. And reality is, when people are hanging on to their roofs for dear life, and the news choppers show it, people will demand someone go and save them. Who's going to say, "no they were told to leave"....

And there lies part of the problem: the inability of the general media to report an accurate story.

[Nichov]

What you are talking about is the theory that the government (local, state or federal) is the responsible entity for your life and well being.

What this idealism does is take away personal or private responsibility for one's actions. I've heard the suggestion several times that the responsibility can be replaced on the individual by compelling them to reimburse search and rescue. But in fact that is placing an undue burden on the individual if they do not need search and rescue services. Remember also, that because they are already paying taxes, they are already floating a fair portion of the S&R bill.

You are all worried about the government money being wasted saving people who endagered themselves by deliberately ignoring a mandatory evacuation, but you're not concerned about the money being wasted arresting people, confiscating their weapons and detaining them who were actually well capable of weathering the 'disaster'.

If money is our concern, then we should be concerned for both of these issues, not just the one that favors socialized risk (the part about rescuing the idiots). But in this country and the world at large, socialized risk has become such a part of our collective consciousness that we gloss over the financial burdens of forcing people to do things they don't want to do. We focus instead on the financial burdens placed upon us by the few people who resist the system of socialized risk.

Let's look at the motorcycle example. We are more concerned over the ones who choose to go without a helmet because of the risk of death and injury and the financial burden this would place on each person in the socialized risk system. But we are not so concerned with the cost of enforcing the system itself. We automatically assume that the cost of enforcing socalized risk is inevitable and morally justified (because of the financial burden placed on us by those who do not follow the recommendations of the system of course.)

This is a circular logic: the system therefore is justified because anyone who does not follow the system makes the system more difficult and costly to implement.

Another way of looking at it is to say: If you didn't have socialized risk to begin with, you wouldn't have to talk about whether to privatize the S&R cost risk, or whether to socialize it, or whether to allow a person to do this thing or that or not to based upon the effect it will have on the socialized risk system. So a viable option always remains: abolish the system, but this is the option never discussed.

Of course, the same arguments could be made to support a privatized risk system. We might say that the system that compels us to pay for other people's mistakes is unjust in that it causes us to bear the consequences of another person's gamble.

The difference is in individual liberty. In the case of socialized risk, the individual does not have the liberty to choose whether he/she participates in that system, it's is mandated and compulsory (even at gunpoint). In the case of privatized risk, a person is only subjected to the risks that any person is subjected to by the natural laws and to the risks that person makes an autonomous choice to take.

Too often we are encouraged by the popular patterns of thinking of our day to focus on the minutia. We are told "Here is the scenario, do you proceed with plan A or plan B?" But that is so often a false dicotemy. For example, if one was not forced into the two-choice system, one might stop and ask oneself "What are ALL my options?" and in considering those options one might find cause to ask oneself "What were the root causes of this scenario?" This can be important in decision making, because it allows one to take a critical look at the presumptions one might have about the situation one faces, and an option that in the microscope of immediate decision with no room for historical or future considerations may seem foolish or folly, might proove itself the better option in the long run by correcting the fundamental problems that led to the present situation.

In decision making, one cannot look at the minutia of a momentary circumstance to justify an over-arching systematic ideology, one must look at the over-arching systematic ideology to justify one's momentary decision.

Although there is a deep-seeded ethical problem with the socialized risk system, it does not need to be dealt with in such archaic terms. One can simply point to the sum of history in which socialized risk systems have consistantly failed. One can simply point to the sound study of economic science that shows socialized risk systems are unsustainable.

I'm against it, not only because it is a system by which the laziest and most selfish of humanity are rewarded over the hardest working and most selfless. Not only because it is a system that takes by force, political or physical, the hard-earned resources of each individual without their consent, equating to theft. Not only because it is a system that is unsustainable and destined to collapse and cause wide-spread turmoil. Not only because it is a self-justifying system of circular logic. But because it is a system specifically designed to do all these things, the pillars of which make necessary unethical and immoral practices on the part of all humanity, and those pillars (debt, usury or interest, theft, slavery, dishonesty, and above all, secularism) being specifically condemned by the Bible I hold to be Truth, that is fundamentally against all that is right.

So, do I think people should have a right to brave the storms in their own homes? Yes. And that's something I'd kill and die for. And for the record, the Constitution agrees with me, and under the principles of that legal document, the highest law of the land, if they want to kick someone off one's property they have two options. 1. Get a warrant for one's arrest. 2. Declare martial law. Outside of those two options they are breaking the law and kidnapping such a person.

The only reason they get away with it is because popular consciousness is so well trained to accept the false dicotemy it never occurs to us to look to the highest laws in the land, we are too concerned with who's financial holdings are at most undue risk.

[BraggSurvivor]

No harm nor foul.


Quote:
GALVESTON, Texas - The death toll from Hurricane Ike is remarkably low so far, considering that legions of people stayed behind as the storm obliterated row after row of homes along the Texas coast. But officials suspect there are more victims out there and say some might simply have been swept out to sea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26765035

[vanguard1]

I say stay if you want, but you do so at your own peril - do not expect others to risk their lives for calls you made.

Of course the government thinks they are smarter...they are the government.

Growing up on the gulf coast I know we never left, no one did. We saw some rough weather but knew what was coming and were prepped accordingly.

I sure do feel all warm and comfy knowing big bro is planning to usurp my own authority to make calls on whether I stay or go......by any means required. Tax dollars hard at work to enslave the sheep, or cows - whatever floats your boat for terminology.

The illusion of freedom.

[crashdive123]

Here's an article that looks at why some people stayed behind. I don't disagree with a lot of it. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0919/p04s04-usgn.html

[Ole WV Coot]

Anytime the government tells you it's for your own good, head for the hills. You are gonna get screwed and not even kissed first. I think several of us have "VOLUNTEERED" for that.

[catfish10101]

"The Texas attorney general's office is looking into the legal options available"
At least they got that consideration.

[Proud American]

All you people who say let them stay behind and pay for it if they have to rescue them. Heres the truth if im a rescue worker and i see you im going to rescue you, then you pay a fine, all fine and dandy, but what happens if I die. The people are deliberately putting themselves in harms way, and consequently anyone who goes in to save them. No fine is worth peoples life who died tryin to save them. Also im surprised, what has been the common chide of rambo gung ho survivalist. DON'T! Dont put yourselves deliberately in harms way. Prepare your house the best you can then get out. How is it that you being there in your house protect it. You guys are right the goverment shouldn't make you leave. You should be smart enough to leave yourself.

Just my rant but honestly it seems reasonable.

[Nichov]

OK,

This is the last time I'm going to say it because I don't want to perpetuate the argument.

Yes it's reasonable that people should be smart enough to leave of their own accord... IF

1. It's an affordable expense.

and

2. The costs do not outweigh the benefits.

You see, you are doing what the government does: you are sitting on a high hill somewhere and dictating what the best choice is for the people living in the situation. You think you know better than them because of what you see in the media coverage. But you are blind to whatever might be going on that is NOT covered by the media. Not everyone lives in the suburbs in a conventional house. Some live on ranches an they have been ranching in hurricanes and floods for generations on that land. They are there to protect their livelihood. Some people live on high ground that will not flood, and there is no need for evacuation. Some may even be staying behind to be part of the rescue effort...

Some people also do not own televisions, and do not have much contact with neighbors... they might not even know about the storm or the evacuation.

Anyway, I'd refrain from calling people idiots for the choices they make. All you are doing is watching what the media is showing you, and they are showing you what a burden the holders-out are on the SNR efforts and the system of socialized risk as a whole. Why? Because socialism is their agenda.

Also, as for the SAR teams, they chose their line of work, they knew the risks, it was their autonomous choice to get into those situations, just like the choice the government wants to deny the people living in their homes.

[Gray Wolf]

All you people who say let them stay behind and pay for it if they have to rescue them. Heres the truth if im a rescue worker and i see you im going to rescue you, then you pay a fine, all fine and dandy, but what happens if I die. The people are deliberately putting themselves in harms way, and consequently anyone who goes in to save them. No fine is worth peoples life who died tryin to save them.

Yes Sir, you are right... IMHO

[crashdive123]

OK,

This is the last time I'm going to say it because I don't want to perpetuate the argument.

Yes it's reasonable that people should be smart enough to leave of their own accord... IF

1. It's an affordable expense.

and

2. The costs do not outweigh the benefits.

You see, you are doing what the government does: you are sitting on a high hill somewhere and dictating what the best choice is for the people living in the situation. You think you know better than them because of what you see in the media coverage. But you are blind to whatever might be going on that is NOT covered by the media. Not everyone lives in the suburbs in a conventional house. Some live on ranches an they have been ranching in hurricanes and floods for generations on that land. They are there to protect their livelihood. Some people live on high ground that will not flood, and there is no need for evacuation. Some may even be staying behind to be part of the rescue effort...

Some people also do not own televisions, and do not have much contact with neighbors... they might not even know about the storm or the evacuation.

Anyway, I'd refrain from calling people idiots for the choices they make. All you are doing is watching what the media is showing you, and they are showing you what a burden the holders-out are on the SNR efforts and the system of socialized risk as a whole. Why? Because socialism is their agenda.

Also, as for the SAR teams, they chose their line of work, they knew the risks, it was their autonomous choice to get into those situations, just like the choice the government wants to deny the people living in their homes.

Nicov

1. Those that did not have the money or ability to evacuate were offered the opportunity by local authorities and then put up in emergency shelters, so I've got to disagree with your affordable expense comment.

2. As far as costs outweighing benefits, I guess my response would be the same as to #1.

When you say "you are doing what the government does: you are sitting on a high hill somewhere and dictating what the best choice is for the people living in the situation" I have to disagree again. Having been through several hurricanes and a couple of typhoons, and additionally having been involved in the efforts to clean up following a major storms coming through an area, it is not a high hill that my point of view comes from, but rather the first hand knowledge of the devastation and destruction that can befall a person, community, city, or state if they are not prepared.

[Dennis K.]

Here's an article that looks at why some people stayed behind. I don't disagree with a lot of it. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0919/p04s04-usgn.html

Excellent article. The CSM generally has top-notch reporting.


"What's happening in Galveston right now is that people who stayed are putting tarps on their roofs and those who did what the government wanted can't get back to their homes to minimize further damage,"

The issue here is to protect the property from seizure. Much of this property will be condemned. The owners will then be required to "clean up" the property. If they don't clean it up, the city, county or state will do it and bill the property owner. When the owner is unable to pay, they will forfeit the property to pay for the clean-up.
Those that stay, can put up the tarps, personally assess the damage, begin repairs or demolition - basically, they will have the on-the-ground intelligence they need to make an informed decision - as well as a leg to stand on when the legal precedings begin.
Or, they can leave and just let the local authorities determine what is best for them.
It will be interesting to see what the insurance companies do - A lot of people who owned property in New Orleans were just SOL and now their property is in the hands of developers.
I am thankful that most people left. For a vast majority, an evac was the right thing. The storm sure wrecked a lot of stuff. The real devastation, however, will come from the banks, insurance companies, lawyers and developers who profit from the suffering of others - after all, they are the ones that got all the Katrina relief money. Post-disaster relief (once the realm of non-profits, like the Red Cross) is now a billion dollar business.