• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I assume that area hotels are completely booked up, as they aren’t really going to be there in numbers sufficient to deal with a large number of evacuees. Hmm. I guess that this is probably a common problem in disasters. And you don’t want to have lots of liveable properties just sitting there idle most of the time, as it’d be expensive.

    Hmm.

    I wonder if it’d make sense to have some kind of “mobile hotel” service that uses RV-style trailers or something? Like, when there’s some kind of event that produces massive demand for hotels in a particular spot, they just start hauling trailers into place. In cases where people lose their homes, they might be able to arrange for a longer-run stay.

    • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s easier to move the people away. The infrastructure needed to have a mobile housing would be incredibly costly, especially to maintain it.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        If the people continue to be employed in the area – and in some disasters, they might not – putting them somewhere a long ways away may not be an option.

        • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Moving apartments into areas surrounding evacuation zones seems like a good way to cause traffic and logistical issues.

          If it’s so bad that they don’t have shelter within a reasonable area you start airdropping tents into nearby stadiums.