Of Infrastructure, Stadiums, and Megachurches

It's no secret that our national infrastructure - roads, bridges, railroads, and so on - is not in the shape it should be. There are lots of reasons for that, not the least of which is that it's politically glamorous and sexy to cut the ribbon on something shiny and new, but politically suicidal to advocate for the spending that will keep it in good repair. For example, in the Washington, DC, metro area, where I live, the Metrorail system is in terrible condition, largely because none of the local governments wants to spend the money it will take to properly maintain it, and nobody wants to support a tax that will provide the necessary revenue. Across the country, we've seen bridges collapse, roads crumble, and municipal water systems poison their citizens, all because of a lack of political will on the part of leaders and a refusal to accept the tax burden on the part of citizens.

As we've seen, the tremendous disaster that came to Houston with Hurricane Harvey was made worse by a number of factors, including overdevelopment, bad spending priorities (including graft and corruption), inadequate safety precautions for petroleum and chemical plants in an area known to be at risk, and poor stormwater management planning.

So, riddle me this, Batman: what happens when the impact of a natural disaster is compounded by the miserable state of the local infrastructure that's affected? Hint - it's a lot worse.

Realizing that we're probably never going to do enough to make real estate developers* pay enough attention to climate change to mitigate the impact of natural events, what can we do to help the victims of such catastrophes when they occur?

I wondered about this because we use school gymnasiums, stadiums, armories, churches**, and other large-capacity spaces as shelters when persons are displaced by natural disasters. Here's my question: because facilities like these are frequently used as shelters, should they be required to incorporate features that would allow them to better serve in that capacity when needed?

I'm not an architect or public zoning expert, and you could put everything I know about large-scale disaster mitigation planning into your navel and still have room for a herd of elephants and a brass band. But it seems to me that if your metropolitan area is in an area subject to flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, zombies, wildfires, or other natural disasters, it makes sense for your building codes to take into account not just those immediate threats, but the needs of the community during the response to them. For instance, if a sports team owner demands a new multi-million dollar stadium for his team in a disaster-prone area, why not require that owner to incorporate features that would allow the stadium quickly to be reconfigured as a shelter ... perhaps pre-positioning a certain number of cots and blankets, stockpiling military-style combat meals, designing concession stands to allow rapid reconfiguration to basic large-capacity kitchens, and providing areas with the space, connectivity, and layout to facilitate large-scale first aid and medical triage (including extra loading areas for ambulances)?

I don't know how much of this already exists in the relevant building codes in various areas, but my suspicion is ... not much. Developers are reluctant to spend money planning for threats that may or may not happen, politicians are reluctant to irritate potential donors, and Americans hate being told what to do, even when it makes profoundly good sense in the long term.

To paraphrase Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, you may not believe in climate change, but climate change believes in you. And it would be a really good idea to start taking action on improving our infrastructure to cope with it, whether we believe it or not.

Agnes and I are heading off to visit our grandchildren in Ohio, and will be gone for a few days. I have already written and scheduled the posts for Friday (The Right-Cheek Ass Clown for September), Cartoon Saturday, and Poetry Sunday; other than that, this blog will be taking a break until we return next week. If all goes well and I'm not too exhausted, the next regular post will appear next Tuesday or thereabouts. Don't go away ... I will be back. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Or government ... remember that ten days before Harvey slammed into Houston, Trump reversed Obama-era building guidelines to address climate change issues. Politically, it must have looked like a great idea until the real world made it look stupid and shortsighted. The administration seems to have since quietly changed its mind.

** Except for Joel Osteen's megachurch, which he opened up as a shelter only when shamed into it. And the much-maligned Muslims have opened the doors of their mosques to provide shelter to their neighbors of all faiths.