Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NC's new mandatory evacuation law...


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,976 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:35 AM

Meant to post this the other day and forgot about it...

NC passed this law earlier this year and it takes effect Oct. 1.

A new law means you could be fined and charged with a crime if you don't pack up and leave when local emergency management officials issue a mandatory evacuation order.
The General Assembly passed the legislation earlier this year. It goes into effect October 1. The law makes it a class-two misdemeanor to not leave when you're ordered to do so.

Those who choose to ride out the storm could face a $1,000 fine and be removed from their home.


http://www.wect.com/...tory-evacuation

Trying to find a better link... it definitely affects people on the coast more, due to hurricanes... it's a big issue here in the Wilmington area, esp the beach towns.


It's a tough one for me... I see why they call for mandatory evacuations, esp of towns like Carolina and Wrightsville Beach where's there's only one bridge out and it's dangerous to cross it once the winds get to a certain point, but should the gov't be able to force you out of your own home if you're willing to assume the liability for your own safety? Not so sure...

#2 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:39 AM

If there was some sort of liability release for people with no expectation of being saved...go for it. It's the doofii that choose to ride them out and when their mortality is staring them in the face they cry wolf. Any waiver signees would be at the lowest priority of any rescue efforts.

How would you deal with minors though...

Could you sign a waiver that covers a child/shutin elderly person? That's where the law gets grey with me and don't know how tough to be.

#3 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,976 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:43 AM

I'm assuming that's part of the reason they did it, because even if you signed away your right to be rescued or whatever, somebody would probably still sue for not being rescued.

#4 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

Personally...if you ignore mandatory evacuations, you should be personally liable for any/all costs if you are required to receive emergency response. I don't know if the authorities have the right to fine you prior to anything like that though. Trying to think of another instance that would equate "mandatory evacuation"-esque and government mandate where they can fine you.

I don't mind the fine, I just don't know if I like it. Could this apply to keeping people out of disaster area proclamations? Just start issuing fines? Gets sticky when government can lower bars on limiting your movement with the threat of fines/taxes.

#5 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:13 AM

I think they should start a new government agency to enforce this law.

Their navy blue jackets could have big bold yellow letters on the back that read "G.T.F.O."

#6 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,104 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:16 AM

I wonder what this does to their health, property, and life insurance. Do those things remain in effect during the commission of a crime?

#7 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,725 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:19 AM

Generally, the folks wanting to stay behind might get a bit scared when all hell breaks loose and then place calls for help. The authorities would then face risks to their teams to rescue the hardheaded ones. And you are correct that if they were not rescued, there would be lawsuits.

If not for the lawsuits and unnecessary risks to rescue personel, I say that each should have a choice. You make your bed, you lie in it.

#8 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,517 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:20 AM

Meant to post this the other day and forgot about it...

NC passed this law earlier this year and it takes effect Oct. 1.



http://www.wect.com/...tory-evacuation

Trying to find a better link... it definitely affects people on the coast more, due to hurricanes... it's a big issue here in the Wilmington area, esp the beach towns.


It's a tough one for me... I see why they call for mandatory evacuations, esp of towns like Carolina and Wrightsville Beach where's there's only one bridge out and it's dangerous to cross it once the winds get to a certain point, but should the gov't be able to force you out of your own home if you're willing to assume the liability for your own safety? Not so sure...



While the intent is solid, I do not like laws that force people to do something against their will.

#9 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,976 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

I think they should start a new government agency to enforce this law.

Their navy blue jackets could have big bold yellow letters on the back that read "G.T.F.O."



Posted Image

#10 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:29 AM

While the intent is solid, I do not like laws that force people to do something against their will.


Its forcing people to do something in their own rational self interest, not much different than forcing kids to go to school.

May seem harsh, but I assume they are trying to avoid a Katrina type situation when a bunch of people stayed behind and nobody was there to help after they realized they were in over their head

#11 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,517 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:31 AM

Its forcing people to do something in their own rational self interest, not much different than forcing kids to go to school.

May seem harsh, but I assume they are trying to avoid a Katrina type situation when a bunch of people stayed behind and nobody was there to help after they realized they were in over their head



I understand all that.
I am, however, firmly in the school of not letting the Government make decisions for me.

I know when I need to leave b/c of a hurricane, I don't need the GTFO person to come tell me.

#12 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,646 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:28 AM

Generally, the folks wanting to stay behind might get a bit scared when all hell breaks loose and then place calls for help. The authorities would then face risks to their teams to rescue the hardheaded ones. And you are correct that if they were not rescued, there would be lawsuits.

If not for the lawsuits and unnecessary risks to rescue personel, I say that each should have a choice. You make your bed, you lie in it.


When worded this way, I agree with the law. Not so much with the infraction (legally this can't be a crime)

#13 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:44 AM

May seem harsh, but I assume they are trying to avoid a Katrina type situation when a bunch of people stayed behind and nobody was there to help after they realized they were in over their head


Not trying to be argumentative but there were ALOT of people in new orleans that COULDN'T leave.

They had no money, no transportation, nothing.

I remember the Barbara Bush statement questioning why they didn't leave, like they could just hop their private planes to their summer houses in the Hamptons.

That just isn't a reality for a percentage of the population, especially in that neighborhood in New Orleans.

#14 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,779 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:26 PM

I understand all that.
I am, however, firmly in the school of not letting the Government make decisions for me.

I know when I need to leave b/c of a hurricane, I don't need the GTFO person to come tell me.


I understand your point.

But those same people who refuse to leave are the first ones to be bitching and screaming when there is not someone there to help them....just like Katrina.

Tell them that they are on their own if they stay.....then watch all of the idiots bashing the gov't for not doing anything to help them.

#15 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:29 PM

Not trying to be argumentative but there were ALOT of people in new orleans that COULDN'T leave.

They had no money, no transportation, nothing.

I remember the Barbara Bush statement questioning why they didn't leave, like they could just hop their private planes to their summer houses in the Hamptons.

That just isn't a reality for a percentage of the population, especially in that neighborhood in New Orleans.


Of course there were, but I'm sure there were also people who stuck around despite the opportunity to leave.

There are some stubborn assholes who just wont leave when a hurricane is coming, and I'm guessing this law is just about liability/ extra motivation for those people. I dont think its too harsh, as long as they only use it in the most extreme situations. If they start pulling it out for every hurricane that hits nearby then yeah, thats a problem.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com