Author: Lucien Canton

Disasters Create Emotional Connections With Future Generations

 

Lotta_Crabtree_Fountain_1905

Lotta's Fountain 1905

Catastrophic events leave their mark on a city for generations. I'm not talking about physical damage, although that may be part of it, but rather the memories ingrained on the psyche of the citizens. For us in San Francisco, THE disaster is the 1906 earthquake and fires that destroyed most of the city. The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 is remembered and is enshrined in the State's earthquake month in October but it pales in comparison with the feelings and emotional connection generated by it's predecessor.

Just how deep this emotional connection runs was demonstrated last week when my former boss and past Mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, suggested renaming Lotta's Fountain in honor of Mayor Ed Lee, who died in office last year. Mayor Lee was well liked and respected and prior to his election had been instrumental in restoring the fountain. The response to Brown's suggestion was a public uproar, the like of which  has not been seen for a while here.

To understand the reason behind this vehement response, you need to know a bit of San Francisco history. Charlotte Crabtree, fondly known as "Lotta", was a singer and entertainer who got her start in San Francisco during the Gold Rush Era as a neighbor of the famous dancer and actress, Lola Montez. She went on to become the highest paid actress in America at the height of her fame in the 1880's. In 1875, she commissioned the fountain as a gift to the City of San Francisco. Following the 1906, earthquake, the fountain became a meeting point for survivors and, beginning in 1919, the site of an annual commemoration that continues to this day.

One would think that renaming the fountain was do big deal. The last earthquake survivors, who were actually in the womb at the time of the earthquake, died in 2015 and many newcomers to San Francisco have no idea of the significance of the fountain. But many who grew up here remember and came forward to protest the renaming. Brown very wisely back pedaled on the suggestion. It was a humbling lesson in how disasters can create emotional connections even after the passing of many years.

Wine Country Fires may lead to needed legislation.

2017_1009_wine_country_fire_04
We tend to think of disasters as the immediate response: the need for rescue, sheltering, emergency medical treatment and so forth. But this is just the initial part of a very long process. The true test is how a community recovers from an event, a process that can take years. Unfortunately, recovery issues don’t always receive the same attention as do response issues. It is heartening therefore to see the legislators in California focusing on both.

Major disasters inevitable spawn legislative debate. On rare occasions, that debate may result in constructive legislation. This may be the case in California where legislators are debating the response issue of emergency warning and notification and the recovery-related insurance issues following last year’s Wine Country fires.

One of the controversies that emerged from the fires was the decision by one county not activate a system that would have provided a wireless alert warning to a large segment of the population. The reasoning was that the warning would have gone beyond the evacuation area and could have impaired the evacuation and movement of fire fighting resources. Surrounding counties opted to use the system. Because the county that opted not to use the system had more deaths than the counties that did, there is considerable debate about the perceived problems with the system that were a factor in the decision-making process. The California legislature is considering the development of a statewide warning system that could be more precisely targeted by local jurisdictions than the existing one.

A second major issue is that of insurance replacement for lost or damaged items. Traditionally, insurance companies require a detailed inventory of lost items, to include the date purchased, serial numbers, and actual cost, something difficult to produce if your home is a smoking pile of rubble. The legislature is considering a proposal that would allow a homeowner to claim 80% of their allowable limit without producing an inventory or to submit an inventory for the full amount. This proposal has been around for a while but, as one would expect, is not popular with insurance companies. However, given the circumstances of the Wine Country fires, it may be an idea whose time has come.

As I mentioned, disasters often lead to debates of this type but not always to solutions. In this case, the State Office of Emergency Services has had a statewide notification system in place for years and is a participant in the Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS), so a modified system that would meet local needs may be possible with sufficient funding. However, the much-needed insurance revisions will face stiff opposition. It will be interesting to see if the legislature has the ability to follow through on its promises.

Three Tips to Make Your Disaster Donations Count

Donations

Yesterday I logged onto a site from which I purchase regularly and was immediately presented with a pop-up that solicited donations for the victims of Hurricane Harvey. I’ve seen similar offers on other sites and on Facebook. This particular company is extremely reputable and I’ve no doubt that they will funnel all contributions to the intended recipients. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all such sites. This raises the question of how you can be sure that your donations will actually reach the people who truly need help.

Contrary to popular disaster myths, people are at their best in disasters. We have research that shows that people want to help others in disasters, even if they themselves are affected. You need look no further than the tremendous outpouring of money and goods that follow every major disaster. However, good intentions can sometimes cause more harm than good. Here’s how you can make sure that you are helping and not contributing to the problem:

  1. Send money, not goods. Responder organizations don’t have the resources to sort, size and distribute goods such as shoes and clothing. The bulk of these types of donations end up in a landfill, many of which are already taxed by disaster debris. You’re better off donating to one of the many voluntary agencies working with the government in the response. The exception is if you are a company or organization that can ship in bulk. In this case, you can contact groups such as National VOAD or a FEMA Voluntary Agency Liaisons and Donations Specialist at a FEMA regional office to see if your goods and services are needed.
  2. Don’t deliver goods directly to the disaster area. Loading a truck with supplies and heading to the scene of a disaster is tempting but it can put you at risk and make you one more problem for local responders. Access to disaster areas is often restricted to residents only for safety reasons and the temptation is to leave goods by the side of the road. Instead, consider volunteering with one of the many humanitarian agencies providing relief.
  3. Make sure who is getting your money. Fraud is common after a disaster and you should be careful about to whom you give money. If you choose to not to give to national organizations such as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army or National VOAD, do your homework before giving money and watch for red flags such as only requiring cash or wire transfers or high-pressure tactics.

Any emergency manager can tell you horror stories about dealing with donated goods. I’ve seen fur coats sent to Hawaii, landfills closed as a result of the glut of donated goods, and disaster resources diverted to deal with donations that weren’t needed. Don’t be part of the problem!