A few weeks ago the topic of the California wildfires was brought up in class. Some argued that because the fires hit predominantly white, upper-class neighborhoods in California, while Hurricane Katrina devastated largely black, lower-class areas, emergency evacuations were timely and efficient. On the other hand, some believed that the emergency responses to the wildfires were prompt because the government and FEMA workers had learned their lesson from Hurricane Katrina. I found a very interesting article that compared the evacuations of the two natural disasters. In addition to finding the responses no where near similar, statistics were presented suggesting the idea that "white privilege" and socioeconomic status played a large role in the success and efficiency of the California evacuations.
In the article "California Wildfires Nothing Like Hurricane Katrina," a reporter discussed the conditions of the Qualcomm Stadium, where California evacuees stayed, as compared to the Superdome, where Louisiana citizens sought safety two years ago. The two vicinities and situations didn't even begin to compare. First, while still a large number, only 10,000 Californians lived in the Qualcomm Stadium versus the tens of thousands of Louisiana residents who stayed in the Superdome. Second, Californians had a surplus of food while Louisiana evacuees went days without food or water. Third, the conditions in both stadiums did not match up. Louisiana residents were without air conditioning, proper ventilation, and electricity for days. In addition, "the stadium's bathrooms overflowed with human waste" and mold was abundant. On the other hand, Californians were greeted with an "almost festive-like atmosphere," at the Qualcomm stadium, which included yoga lessons, bands, cots and blankets, comedians, acupuncture, suntan lotion tables, free phone calls via Verizon, available agents from insurance companies, massage tables, and jugglers. Fourth, the issue of security. In Louisiana, "Authorities and relief workers were hard to come by and people...were left to fend for themselves." In the California Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego police were present 24-hours a day.
After reading this article, I was slightly confused and angered. While any evacuee deserves the best of care, was there a need for yoga lessons and acupuncture in the Qualcomm Stadium? It is important to relieve people's stress when under such traumatic conditions, but shouldn't officials be more concerned with using all resources to evacuate residents; provide shelter, food, and water for evacuees; and control the wildfires? While I do believe emergency plans concerning natural disasters were improved since Hurricane Katrina, I highly doubt that the government created a new section on providing entertainment for displaced people. However, it was very smart for insurance companies to be on hand for customers and for cell phone companies to offer free calls to those in need.
Don't get me wrong. It is very important for our government to learn from its wrong doings and better prepare itself for devastating situations. However, I can't help to believe that racial and socioeconomic issues were at the basis for these two evacuations. I feel that the statistics collected from both states explain it all. First, the median home price of the two areas, California at $475,000 vs. Louisiana at $87,300. Second, the percentage of people living in poverty, California: 11% vs. Louisiana: 27%. Third, the racial breakdown, California: 52% white vs. Louisiana: 67% black. Fourth, the number of homes damaged or destroyed, California: 1,200 vs. Louisiana: 95,000-143,000. Fifth, the number of people killed, California: 6 vs. Louisiana: over 700. Finally, the estimated cost to repair damaged homes, California: $1 billion vs. Louisiana: $8-10 billion.
It is both sad and interesting that upon the California wildfires the media has been so focused on comparing the two natural disasters. I think it says a lot about our government and the existence today of racial and socioeconomic disparages.
The article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/26/2007-10-26_california_wildfires_nothing_like_hurric.html?ref=rss
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think much of the response deals with the corporations involved and the specific locations of the Superdome and the Qualcomm Stadium. During Katrina, everyone was trying to get out, including the businesses. Furthermore, the Superdome was located in the middle of the disaster. It's important to remember that the Qualcomm Stadium is not located in the middle of burning houses. How was aid to get to the Superdome? Why didn't aid get there (I remember watching a news clip where reporters were saying that officials told them that they couldn't find safe paths to the Superdome, but the reports also explained that all of the major news companies had managed to find paths into the devastation. I also don't think that FEMA had anything to do with the acupuncture or the yoga classes. I'm willing to bet that these businesses already existed in this affluent region of California. They saw a need for community service and provided the goods. It's also important to remember that fires only destroy...hurricanes and floods prevent driving and block roads with debris.
I agree that the CA wildfires were nothing like Katrina. However, I don't think FEMA had very much to do with this. It was more of a matter of location and type of natural disaster rather than the responses.
I wish the article would have compared the situation in Qualcomm Stadium to the situation in the Houston dome (I forgot the name of it...) where the evacuees were transported from the Superdome. This article is misleading in that it compares apples to oranges.
I agree with many of the points that A New View has brought up. My hometown was one of the places where there was a fire, and it is important to remember that the majority of these fires occurred in suburban areas surrounded by undeveloped regions/hills. Major roadways were still available for evacuation, and obviously it helped that many of the inhabitants had cars and a means to evacuate. Even though there was an overwhelming number of brush fires, it is important to remember that they were just that, brush fires. The only reason homes were at risk was because of their close vicinity to "brush" areas. People didn't have to traverse through water chest deep or higher to get to safe areas.
Still, I find it very hard to compare a flood/hurricane to a fire. Once a flood occurs, like A New View brought up, how are you going to clear the water? Roadways are going to be blocked and access to areas with the greatest need will be limited until the water finally recedes. Fires can be contained, but how do you exactly "contain" a flood? If any part of Southern California was hit with a hurricane, and a flood occurred, the loss of life would be far greater than what was seen in these wildfires just due to the nature of the disaster. The FEMA response would probably be slow too due to the sudden loss of infrastructure. Like we saw in New Orleans, if Qualcomm Stadium was placed close to a major flood, how would you expect there to be power, running water,and the same police presence that there was? It isn't easy for emergency personnel to get to their jobs when they themselves are the victims of the disaster. It would have been a much different story if the flood conditions that New Orleans faced was extrapolated and applied to Southern California.
In fact, I see much in common in terms of government neglect in the disasters. These suburban areas in Southern California were built in areas known for brush fires. Brush fires have historically occurred in Southern California, yet there really is not much done to mitigate the risk. The same could be seen with New Orleans and the defective levees that allowed for the flooding to occur. Flooding by nature, I feel, is more destructive than fires, especially when metro areas are affected as opposed to suburban areas. And, emergency services in metro areas are more capable of handling large-scale disasters as well, so if they are affected by the disaster themselves it is easy to see how it would be difficult to respond to a disaster.
Like suggested by A New View, the apparent discrepancy between the final affects of the two disasters is more due to the nature and location of the disaster, rather than the race and socioeconomic status of its victims. Perhaps looking at the damages and loss of life is most telling of which disaster was more destructive. I highly doubt any government agency could be credited with saving 694 more lives and preventing $7 billion dollars more in damages in California than in Louisiana.
Post a Comment