Mobile Home Parks and Tornado Shelters

[Mike Johnston]

Some of you are likely more up-to-date than I am on this topic. Some of the last information I read on this topic was from a book by Nancy Mathis entitled "Storm Warning." At that writing, she stated that only the state of Minnesota had a requirement that mobile home parks have storm shelters for their residents. There were only 2 other localities that had similar ordinances - Wichita, KS and St. Joseph, MO.

Considering that roughly 50% of tornado fatalities occur in mobile homes, doesn't it make sense that mobile home parks could reasonably be required to provide shelters for their residents? I'm not much for governmental over-regulation, but it seems kind of obvious from a public policy standpoint - considering the vulnerability of mobile homes - that landlords could be required to provide underground shelter. The evolution of the warning system has been commendable, but if there is literally no safe place to go, there's no prospect of safety for some.

 

[Cynthia Van Den Broeke]

I'm also not much for government over-regulation, but it does make sense for vulnerable locations to have some kind of shelter for their residents. Is there a way to encourage mobile home parks (and perhaps other vulnerable residential areas, like completely above-ground apartment complexes) to put in shelters? Some kind of incentive perhaps? Maybe we should have a brainstorming session on this one, perhaps it could be productive.

On another note: does anyone know what percentage of mobile home fatalities occur in actual mobile home parks vs. in individual mobile homes not associated with a mobile home park? There are a lot of areas in the Southeast and on parts of the Plains where mobile homes are purchased and put on a piece of property to make home ownership more affordable. I'm not downplaying the role of having shelters in areas of exceptional vulnerability for reducing fatalities. I would like to see these facilities more widely available for such purposes. I bet the statistics for where the mobile home fatalities were located haven't yet been broken down, but it would be nice to have a better understanding of where these fatalities were taking place to maximize future education and outreach or other appropriate preventative measures (like shelter placement, etc).

 

[Mike Johnston]

I looked, but couldn't find, any stats on mobile home fatalities on individual lots vs. parks. And, you're right, in the southeast region of the country it is very, very common to see mobile homes along the roadside on individually owned lots. The simple concentration of mobile homes in parks, though, at some point calls for a need for community shelters. Perhaps '12 or more contiguously located lots rented or being held out for rental' would be a practical definition of a park.

As for providing inducements, I agree. Maybe the most obvious would be limitations on the landlord's legal liability related to a shelter. For example, a policy on whether pets would or wouldn't be allowed in the shelter should be completely up to the landlord, with no liability for lawsuit one way or the other.

 

[J Tyler]

Watch video >

 

[William Monfredo]

Woodward, OK mobile-home park had a shelter, but the lock had to be cut with bolt cutters at ~ midnight on the recent mid-April tornado event; ~ 20 people crowded down. Who's in charge of opening, cleaning, keeping the party kids out, rhetorically-speaking?

 

[rdale]

Whoever installed it. Which is why many parks don't bother. No liability that way...

 

[Keith Wilson]

I had hoped to see more requirements along these lines after the 2011 season, but it doesn't appear that much has happened.

 

[rdale]

No, and they never will. Many of the state where parks are big are also anti-big-government states. Nothing screams big g more than a directive telling business owners to double their trailer park rent to build a shelter that will likely never get used to save a life.

 

[Greg Flint]

Just like with anything - if there is financial incentive, it will get done.

 

[Joshua Nall]

My favorite part is where he staples his hat on….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyTY_oYR_c

I had hoped to see more requirements along these lines after the 2011 season, but it doesn't appear that much has happened.

No one likes requirements... unless placed on someone else.

Just like with anything - if there is financial incentive, it will get done.

Finances from whom?

I personally would be more agreeable to requiring park owners to put up signs encourage all residents to eat only raw organically grown vegetables…. and drink water. Trailerhood residents face much more dangerous threats to life and health every day. We all do. And most of us don’t care about those either. Whether it’s a 1 in 500,000 chance they might die in a tornado, or a one in 50 chance they will die of a midlife heart attack or complications with diabetes. It's a personal decision. Try to encourage things one way or another if you feel like it. Then live and let live.

 

[STexan]

Yet, the federal government in it's infinite wisdom has "listened" to a handful of disabilities group leaders and decided all pools that can be accessed by the public (hotel pools, public pools, etc) are to install at least one handicap assistance device that will place and remove invalids into/from the pools at a cost in excess of $6,000 each installed, or drain the pool and remove from service. Such a reasonable, sensible, and intelligent government bureaucracy we have been blessed with.

Obviously, some storm shelter manufacturer's consortium has not made their influence known in DC yet.

 

[Mike Johnston]

From what little I've been able to find out about costs, it sounds like an underground shelter might run about $1,200 per occupant. If a competent mobile home park operator could finance this at 6%, amortized over 20 years, it would work out to about $14 per month per occupant. Now, that may seem minor to alot of us, but it's not necessarily inconsequential to some for the perceived benefit. Some years ago, it appeared there were FEMA grants available for up to 75% of cost. I can't find if these are still available or not - maybe someone else knows.

One thiing is for sure: such a campaign wouldn't work if alot of "requirements" were mandated, such as handicap access, pet allowances, stocking provisions, etc. It would basically mean bare bones, very short term shelter with owner protection from lawsuits.

 

[Keith Wilson]

From what little I've been able to find out about costs, it sounds like an underground shelter might run about $1,200 per occupant. If a competent mobile home park operator could finance this at 6%, amortized over 20 years, it would work out to about $14 per month per occupant. Now, that may seem minor to alot of us, but it's not necessarily inconsequential to some for the perceived benefit. Some years ago, it appeared there were FEMA grants available for up to 75% of cost. I can't find if these are still available or not - maybe someone else knows.

One thiing is for sure: such a campaign wouldn't work if alot of "requirements" were mandated, such as handicap access, pet allowances, stocking provisions, etc. It would basically mean bare bones, very short term shelter with owner protection from lawsuits.

It wouldn't be that hard to give them handicap access, and it would be required (at least I hope so). Nobody is expendable, IMO.
In many cases you would be talking about more than one shelter, too. I have seen some mighty big mobile home parks.

The idea of the storm shelter is to "get me through the tornado alive". It doesn't have to be fancy and I doubt if a stinking mutt in the shelter would draw alot of attention if a tornado is raging overhead.

But keep your kids quiet, please.

 

[David Wolfson]

Re-upping this thread seems appropriate for discussing a particularly disturbing aspect of the Moore disaster. It's not my business since I'm not an Oklahoma resident, but I must rant anyway. Ten years ago, after the storm tour group I was in had to shelter from an approaching tornado in a restaurant's flimsy walk-in freezer stuck on the outside of the building, I ranted on this board about the lack of any apparent storm shelter requirements for commercial and public buildings. This astounded and appalled me then, and it does now, as the dead and injured are mourned and counted.

 

[Eric Wind]

There are a lot of ways to appropriately justify forcing property owners to build safe rooms or underground shelters in the event of a tornado. Start a campaign to have towns and cities amend their building codes; if a trailer park or apartment complex owner wants to own a group of buildings for profit, then they need to provide reasonable accommodations to tenants. In severely tornado prone areas, like Moore, which has been directly impacted by a tornado 5 times in the last 14 years, providing a shelter is a reasonable accommodation, I'd argue. Providing an adequate shelter for employees and children in the workplace and school should not only be considered a reasonable accommodation, but an absolute safety requirement.

The exhortations against "big government" for this type of thing is purely ideology, and it needs to stop. On the flip side, when the government says it's going to provide funding for the damn shelters, then they need to do it. The red-tape needs to stop being an issue. Had FEMA actually gotten the money to homeowners to build the safe-rooms, then we probably wouldn't have the death toll that we have now, and I'd say that, partially at least, the fact that the bodycount was so devestating might've had something to do with that.

Tangentially: Senators who are driven by ideology should be ashamed of themselves for trying to parse out what kind of storm-aid is appropriate and which isn't. Hurricane Sandy relief is just as worthy and important as Oklahoma tornado relief. It all should go toward rebuilding and reinforcing these properties to prevent the loss of life. This crap about "big government" needs to stop. This is why we have government. It was said right in our Declaration of Independence: this government is to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All three of those things are violated when people's homes, schools and workplaces are decimated through no fault of their own, and are then told that they need to just bootstrap themselves, or that they need to hold in order for the government to finalize apparently amorphous standards.

The Mayor of Moore is going to push a shelter law saying that every new building must have a safe room. Bravo to him! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22630185