My wife said something to me yesterday, and my first thought was,
wow, that's a really good idea. My second thought was, hey, that's the sort of idea I would usually come up with ...which I immediately
attributed to the positive influence I have had over her, after almost 40 years
of marriage...
We were watching a news clip of
first responders rescue a stranded family in North Carolina whose home was
surrounded by water. This was not a particularly dangerous rescue,
still my wife said "They should charge those people for not evacuating
when they should have, and for putting those guys at risk".
Her question is a fair
one. First responders come to our aid in the event of accidents, fires,
tornadoes, hurricanes, and as recently as Friday in the nearby Lawrence, MA
area, over 80 sudden gas explosions and fires shocked and stunned three
different communities. Many of those natural and man-made disasters
were unforeseen, and in those instances the first responders must be at their
ultimate best, relying on their training and instincts to save those
in need. But some disasters can be foreseen, as they roll out over an extended
time frame including forest fires, volcanoes and hurricanes.
Time and time and time again,
we hear state and local officials ordering their residents to evacuate the
homes ahead of a possible catastrophe when they declare a mandatory evacuation,
but still some choose to remain behind. This morning I heard the mayor of
Fayetteville, NC, implore residents to leave as nearby rivers where not expected
to crest for two or three more days. He suggested that if you choose to
stay, you should notify your next of kin. He was doing very best to scare
the crap out of any fool who was dumb enough to think that they could take on
mother nature. It was all he could do, for our system provides no other
tools to do so.
A press release from the City of Fayetteville, spoke of a potential for life-threatening flooding. "Those] who refuse or fail to comply with this mandatory evacuation order shall do so at their own risk and are put on notice that emergency and rescue personnel and first responders may not be sent into flooded areas within the area to be evacuated after the deadline for evacuation passes," the press release read.
It's a nice try, but who are they kidding? Will first responders not go if they think their is a sliver of chance to rescue someone? I don't think so. Its part of their DNA and thank God it is.
So, why can’t we give our
elected officials more tools to deal with most stubborn amongst us? For
rescues during a mandatory evacuation, why not charge residents a minimum fee
of $XX, subject to a surcharge for complex rescues, with a waiver of charges
for extenuating circumstances such as the sick and elderly who might realistically be unable to evacuate. This would be a simple and effective deterrent
for… reckless behavior. My Republican friends often shutter at any talk of regulation or taxation, but I suspect in this instance, that many would be open to this concept. Anything that minimizes the number of
dangerous rescues for our responders and/or frees them up to aid others who may
be in even greater danger, well, that gets my vote
We require automobile drivers to carry auto insurance, banks
require those with shoreline property to obtain flood insurance if they want a
mortgage, and Obamacare attempted to penalize individuals who chose not to obtain
health insurance. In each case, the
prevailing concept is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the naive,
shortsighted, and self-centered few.
Why can’t we apply this same concept for the benefit of our
communities and for the safety of our first responders?
I think my wife was on to something with her comment yesterday. She usually is...just don't tell her I said so.
No comments:
Post a Comment