I believe that rebuilding the lives of an established community helps victims rebuild their trust in the civic leaders to help restore what was lost of their lives. However, I must argue that, placing families back into the path of destruction is irresponsible. In contrast, I can’t help but recall the devastation of Joplin, Missouri on May, 22, 2011 when an EF-5 tornado destroyed a portion of the town. Joplin, MS is located in a region of the United States that is known for is destructive incidents from man-made earthquakes to natural disastrous tornado’s. Accordingly, Elnser, et al. (2016) observed that tornado’s occur randomly […] implicit research shows that thunderstorms can be forecast unfortunately they are a derivative of tornado’s that can’t be, as a result of their randomness (2016). This is why I put forth the notion of responsible rebuilding out of the path of know areas or tornado zones. Elnser, et al. (2016) identified the two states of Texas and Kansas who have at least 2 tornado’s per 10,000 square kilometers. So, the question is, how do you protect families while rebuilding their lives from known tornado zones. Phillips (2015, p.183) suggest, a good alternative in trying to rebuild historical structures after a catastrophic incident is to 1) assess support, develop a team engage the public, 2) complete a risk assessment (p.183). The people who live, work and play in that affected community will be affected again if one of their historical landmark is not replaced.
The first, issue is the loss of financial resources ,taxes and revenue, these economic benefits that are associated with that historical marker. People come to towns and villages throuhout the entire world to visit places that ads value to their culture. For example, I visited Windsor Castle, in 2009 after the catastrophic fire of 1992 that destroyed a large portion Queen Elizabeth’s home in Windsor, UK. Also, I visited the World Trade Center in July of 2001, just before going off the to the University at Buffalo for my first semester of college. Windsor Castle was rebuilt in 1998 (Emerald, 1998) due to a fire started by a work light that ignited a drape in the chapel. Because the Castle was nearly one thousand years old, needless to say it did not have applicable fire safety installations (1998). After the five year project was complete, Windsor Castle, a major tourist attraction for the city of Windsor was equipped with modern fire detectors (Emerald, 1998, p.2). The fire detection system in link to a central command station in the Castle with over 550 detectors 14 aspirators and infrared radar to detect temperature variations (1998, p.3). Restoring this historical landmark, brings needed financial resources back to a community that provides work and income for many residents and business.
Second, the emotional attachment or Communal ties (Phillips, 2015, p.169), which have meaning to the people of the community. This is what makes people want to stay in their prospective communities, because of these ties. This is why it was so difficult for administrators to “either rebuild in situ, relocate […] consequently, there are no good models for planner and policymakers to follow when disasters force resettlement” (Iuchi, 2015, p.413). This suggest that people do have strong communal ties want to remain in their familiar location reguardless of the recurrent danger that may exist in all hazardous incidents.
Elsner, J.B., Jagger, T.H.,and Fricker, T. (2016). Statistical Models for Tornado Climatology: Long and Short-Term Views, PLOS ONE, Retrieved From Walden University
Emerald Group Publishing (1998). Windsor Castle after the fire, Emerald Insight, Facilities. Vol. 16 Issue: 3/4 Retrieved from Walden University Library, Emerald Publishing Group Limited
Iuchi, K. (2015). Planning Resettlement After Disasters. Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2014, Vol. 80, no.4 pp. 413-415, 14p. Retrieved from Walden University Library.
Phillips, B.D. (2015) Disaster Recovery, Second Edition. Historic and Cultural Resources Chapter 6, p.163-193