The Oklahoma City metro area has seen some major disasters over the last couple decades. Murrah bombing, major tornado outbreaks, and ice storms. So my question to the state and federal government, is why haven't then constructed some some sort of disaster relief facility in this area? It could be a safe haven from tornadoes, ice storms, or terrorist attacks, or temp residence for displaced or homeless victims from such disasters. It could also have medical relief capabilities.

It could be jointly funded by state/federal governments to construct such a facility, in a rural part of the Oklahoma City area. It would be constructed to withstand ice storms, tornadoes, or other disasters. It would be a great asset for families who don't have or can't afford a storm shelter. I am thinking something major, something that can support thousands of people, and also provide minor medical treatment.

Your thoughts?

who pays for it, who maintains it, who bears the liability for it? I don't think you will ever see something about these lines.

it could be state and federally funded...it could be prototype for more facilities across the U.S.

something like this:

http://www.whcenter.org/body.cfm?id=555603

I don't see the need this would fill, or the problem this would solve:

Murrah - A shelter would have had no benefit.
Tornadoes - A better solution is for small numbers of people to go to smaller, closer places of refuge, not large numbers of people making a chaotic run for large, centralized or regional shelters. What about traffic ingress/egress, parking, sanitation, water, etc. Can you imagine the loss of life if the shelter itself was hit as dozens of people were streaming in?
Ice & snow - If you don't have options to stay in a hotel or with friends or relatives, the American Red Cross and Salvation Army do a very good job setting up shelters.

Don't see how government solves this problem.

Can't predict WHERE the disaster happens.

A $10 mil, state-of-the-art storm shelter in downtown OKC would have been useless for the tornadoes that went through Canadian County last week.

Matter of fact a downtown storm shelter would have been useless for people who live on north may and without a vehicle.

Doesn't the underground concourse downtown work as a makeshift tornado shelter? I know in the last storms parts of it were pretty full.

Short answer: No, this would not be a good idea.

A centralized tornado shelter would do more harm than good. Don't know if you remember from last week but when it became clear that weather out west was getting bad and everyone let out early traffic on all freeways leaving the city were parking lots. Doing the opposite (having a lot of people coming into the city) would be equally catastrophic if a tornado were to, say, cross 35 and 240. You only have 10-20 minutes to act once you hear a tornado warning and a localized shelter would be best in that situation. Plus you are forgetting that most big office buildings in OKC have huge basements. I know a few people who took refuge in these last week.

As far as a terrorist attack, well I don't know where you could hide from something like that. And for winter storms having a lot of people stream into the city would be impractical considering most people in OKC can't drive in snow/ice and would probably get stuck, run off the road, or crash into one another. Just stay home in those situations. The city did open the Cox Center for people without power during the 07 ice storm but that was after road conditions improved and it was clear that many people were going to be in the dark for a while. And if I remember correctly not many people used it considering 200K+ homes in the area didn't have power at one point.

To be fair, I think he used the terrorism example as how it could be used as a shelter post-disaster. Not to hide from an impending attack, but as a ready-made place to put people who need it.

I actually think OKC citizens are some of the better prepared people across the nation. They certainly heed the tornado warnings given to them. Who here hasn't watched the tv weathermen for hours as the storm approaches?

And after the Christmas eve disaster of 2009 many people made preparations for the winter weather of 2010 and stayed home.

What else can the city do?

I am not advocating one big tornado shelter, but a disaster relief facility, to host for all disasters, which would be beneficial to the metro area. I am not saying put it downtown, but in a rural part of OKC. Moreover, it could be used to host for victims from major disasters in surrounding states.

I am not advocating one big tornado shelter, but a disaster relief facility, to host for all disasters, which would be beneficial to the metro area. I am not saying put it downtown, but in a rural part of OKC. Moreover, it could be used to host for victims from major disasters in surrounding states.

We already have "disaster relief facilities." They are schools, churches, gymnasia, convention centers and the like, they are located near the people who would be affected, they usually have their own food preparation capabilities, and are made available whenever and however needed. FEMA, Red Cross, the Salvation Army and other NGO's always mobilize to operate them because it is part of their mission.

How about home owners getting a below ground shelter instead of a below ground pool?

This responsibility is the part of the home owner/renter, not big government.

I am not advocating one big tornado shelter, but a disaster relief facility, to host for all disasters, which would be beneficial to the metro area. I am not saying put it downtown, but in a rural part of OKC. Moreover, it could be used to host for victims from major disasters in surrounding states.

Maybe a good idea in theory, but an absolute waste of money and un-needed burden placed upon tax payers.

Can't predict WHERE the disaster happens.

A $10 mil, state-of-the-art storm shelter in downtown OKC would have been useless for the tornadoes that went through Canadian County last week.

Matter of fact a downtown storm shelter would have been useless for people who live on north may and without a vehicle.


Doesn't the underground concourse downtown work as a makeshift tornado shelter? I know in the last storms parts of it were pretty full.

While I agree, it's a bad idea, in fairness the OP said nothing about downtown, but the opposite, they said in the rural parts of OKC.

I still can't believe we don't have building codes that require reinforced roofs and shelters in new homes.

I think this is closer to the solution. Adding a separate room on new school buildings that can be used by county emergency managers to stage supplies would be a fine idea. The buildings make great post-disaster structures and warehousing stuff in a designated area could be useful. I am not advocating for spending millions on canned food or other things that we don't need to stockpile. But things like bedding, and heaters, and such could be useful to have around the city. I like how you are thinking G. Walker. By the way, I had a meeting with Rep. Dorman and our CIO about how we can use the new maps.ok.gov to publish EM data. We have to set up a series of meetings with the EM community but I suspect that having an open data platform for them (data.ok.gov) coupled with an open mapping platform, will be a big help in disseminating information to citizens and officials alike as to what resources are where.

I actually like your idea...So you are saying instead of one big disaster relief facility, make smaller disaster relief facilities scattered about the metro area, located in proximity to schools, hospitals, etc...? Or just adding on to main buildings? This is not a bad idea at all, almost better than mine, lol...

This is a good assumption, the reason why I brought this up was because I actually had to do a report for one of my Graduate classes, to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and it had to do with Emergency Preparedness for the state of Oklahoma. My section was on tabletop exercises, and how city and state governments can utilize tabletop exercises to help with emergency/disaster situations.

I used to work for the US Forestry Service, US Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs for years as a firefighter for forest fires. In many incidents homes would burn to the ground or the fire would wreck havoc on the environment. People would be devastated.

In these situations one of the things I have found out is that, after the fire has come through their yard and done it's damage, people don't want to leave unless they absolutely have to. Amazing but true. In my experience people would rather inspect their property to see just how bad the damage is, to salvage anything that can be salvaged, to say goodbye to the homestead or to just be there "at home". I guess it's out of a sense of familiarity. And for the most part, unless there is imminent danger, the authorities seem willing to let citizens go through their property as long as the circumstances are within reason.

Another thing that I have noticed in years of working in crisis situations, once people have located each other and been assured that everyone is healthy and have had something to eat and drink, the first thing the group wants to do is "go back home and see what's left". I am guessing that a staging area would not be utilized in the first few hours following a disaster, only after the first day or so.

In a disaster situation, some level of confusion is expected. After all disasters aren't everyday matters. There will be some areas where improvement can be made. Not every need can be predetermined and met. The authorities can only do the best that they can do. Even with a preset staging area not everyone will know where it is or be able to get there.

In a disaster the best thing is for help to come to the victims, not the victims go to the help.

In New Orleans during Katrina there was a staging area for citizens. That didn't work out at all.

I used to serve on the American Red Cross Disaster Action Team, and have responded to everything from middle-of-the-night house fires to the Murrah bombing when victims were still being rescued. I was forced out of my house for a week during the December 2007 ice storm, and a medical emergency once put me in a friend's guest bedroom for a week. IMHO post-disaster needs ARE being adequately met with the exception of truly epic events. For those latter events - such as Katrina and a nuclear strike - the more specific that a plan is made, the more it will cost and ultimately miss its mark. Everybody needs to understand that the government and NGOs should be a person's LAST line of defense, not their first. My family has a disaster plan in place that involves alternate housing, transportation, communications, gear in a bug-out bag, cash in a fireproof safe, and a couple of credit cards with $0 balances. We're not crazy survivalists, we're self-sufficient realists who can count on family and friends to get us through a tight spot (and they can count on us), who have given some thought to "what-if" scenarios. It's not very different than buying life, health, house and auto insurance, only personal disaster preparation like this costs less, does more, and is tailored to our specific needs.

I used to serve on the American Red Cross Disaster Action Team, and have responded to everything from middle-of-the-night house fires to the Murrah bombing when victims were still being rescued. I was forced out of my house for a week during the December 2007 ice storm, and a medical emergency once put me in a friend's guest bedroom for a week. IMHO post-disaster needs ARE being adequately met with the exception of truly epic events. For those latter events - such as Katrina and a nuclear strike - the more specific that a plan is made, the more it will cost and ultimately miss its mark. Everybody needs to understand that the government and NGOs should be a person's LAST line of defense, not their first. My family has a disaster plan in place that involves alternate housing, transportation, communications, gear in a bug-out bag, cash in a fireproof safe, and a couple of credit cards with $0 balances. We're not crazy survivalists, we're self-sufficient realists who can count on family and friends to get us through a tight spot (and they can count on us), who have given some thought to "what-if" scenarios. It's not very different than buying life, health, house and auto insurance, only personal disaster preparation like this costs less, does more, and is tailored to our specific needs.

Its good to know that you and your family are readily prepared, however, everyone does not think like you. What about the less fortunate people who live in impoverished areas, who don't have the luxury of cell phones, storm shelters, or 0 balance credit cards? Or families who live in mobile home parks that are prime targets for tornado disasters? My theory is to target a population who don't have the means to prepare for "what if scenarios". Too many Oklahomans have lost their lives "in their bathtubs" hiding from tornadoes.

G. Walker - People should get by the way they've done for millenia (with the support of friends & family), not the way we've done it since the 1930s (by looking to the federal government). This isn't an issue of the haves versus the have-nots, it's an issue of deciding to be personally responsibile and self-sufficient, and turning to others when all else fails. When in need, my solutions start close and expand outward: Self, family, friends, community, country. And that progression results in decreasingly-appealing solutions, for example sleeping in my own bed, a family member's bed, a friend's bed, a hotel or a shelter.

There are other smaller charities that are not affiliated with the national 'brands' - They come in locally and assist more than most think/see. They sont have paid PR people to spread the word and beg for donations.

I was looking for a place to donate food and personal care items but was turned down by the Red Cross, they only wanted money. This other org was happy to take my items and was grateful about recieving them.

Plan ahead to take care of yourself and use some common-sense...

I have always thought it my job to take care of me and my family. Not the Government.

I have always thought it my job to take care of me and my family. Not the Government.

You must be a Republican!!

You must be a Republican!!

You must be a Democrat. :doh: