Evacuating a disaster is often the lifesaving choice, but it comes with short-term costs to address immediate needs and incalculable personal and financial tolls in the future.According to The New York Times, evacuating a disaster is often the best decision for saving lives, but it can come with short-term costs and long-term personal and financial tolls. This was the case for Roya Lavasani, who had spent nearly 30 years building a home and business for her family in Malibu. She and her husband owned a four-unit condo, with one unit for themselves and the other three rented out for a total of $150,000 a year. The property was well-maintained with pink flowers, potted orchids, and fruit trees, including apple, loquat, nectarine, peach, and avocado. However, last week, the Palisades fire destroyed their property, along with many other homes in Los Angeles County. While some residents chose to evacuate, others were forced to leave due to the dangerous air quality or the fear of their homes being at risk. Each person had to weigh the physical safety of leaving with the potential financial losses of their home. For Ms. Lavasani, the most devastating loss was her photo albums of her two daughters, Xena and Rezvon. Tricia Wachtendorf, director of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware, explains that the financial costs of evacuating a disaster can be divided into three categories: preparation, immediate needs, and long-term recovery. These costs can include buying supplies, restocking necessities while displaced, and relocating or replacing furniture.
Source:Read More