The manner in which the most vulnerable areas are viewed by the public is vital for any type of sustainable community rehabilitation after environmental disaster. In the hillsides and intertwined with skyscrapers of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, are several informal communities, home to 1.4 million cariocas or Rio citizens. There are around 1,000 favelas (named after a popular type of flower) in the city of Rio alone. These favelas were built at the end of the 19th century without government infrastructure and have been subjected to government negligence since their very inception. Favelas are referred to in popular news media as shantytowns or illegal occupations; phrases that pigeonhole favelas as isolated and ghetto-like and contribute more to a negative perspective than a positive one. Sources from both inside and outside of Rio have framed fatal landslides and floods in favela communities as a direct result of the ‘unclean’ lifestyle in them. Some Rio elites blame the increasing vulnerability of favelas to a poor sewage and trash system, little to no infrastructure, or simply their location in the hillsides. Many luxury homes have been built alongside favelas and face the same amount of damage potential during heavy tropical storms. Yet, these homes have the infrastructure to recover once the storm is over. Favelas lack this type of government or budget support: The recovery period after a landslide can be more difficult and take a significantly longer period of time without the same relief budget as a luxury condominium would have, leaving favelas susceptible to more disasters in shorter periods. Rio’s Civil Defense (the body of municipal government responsible for before-during-and-after disaster relief) is currently facing budget cuts, problems with insufficient personnel and a lack of transportation. Furthermore, the early warning landslide siren system implemented in favelas at the highest risk of flooding is only sounded after the sub-secretary of the Civil Defense and the coordinator of Rio Operations Center (COR) decide the risk is large enough to warrant alarm. In preparation for a natural disaster, many favela residents do not leave their houses. While evacuation is often necessary and emergency shelter points do exist, many residents are not able to get to these points for a number of reasons: The roads leading to them are already flowing with water by the time the alarm is sounded, and previous false alarms led to general distrust of the system. Most importantly, a fear of losing their belongings if they leave their homes is prominent and justified: It wasn’t the first time in Brazilian history that government influences were trying to erase or eradicate favelas completely. More often than not, favela residents who do lose their homes continue building into the hillsides, since the reason they lived in favelas was because they couldn’t afford an apartment in high-end Copacabana. This unregulated urban expansion will lead to further issues with sanitation and waste systems, infrastructure, and natural disaster prevention. Favela residents do not own the land their houses are on: Therefore, that land becomes susceptible to government seizure once a house has been swept away. Recently, Rio rose to a global stage through hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. According to data by Terre des Hommes, more than 6,000 families were either removed or threatened with removal for revitalization projects such as Porta Maravilha in 2010. Though some favelas like Vila Autódromo have been successful in resisting eviction, others such as Horto are still facing threats of eviction even today. Mega-events transformed Rio into a more ‘world-class’ city, with global interest rising in its sandy beaches and hillside residencies. The in-surge of foreign real estate interest prompted the government of Rio to qualify favelas situated in ideal luxury condo areas in the hills as ‘environmental risks’, as a justification for eviction. By letting landslides wash favela residencies and lives away, Rio’s government and mitigation policies allow increasing frequent natural disasters to take the blame of eviction off of itself and puts it onto those most exposed to and damaged by heavy rains. The lines are blurred between evacuation and eviction: is Rio’s government fighting for the safety of their residents, or just their organization?