Southern California is burning

[animalcroc]

The folks I've been reading and hearing interviewed today have suggested that as well, that there are just too many houses being built out too close to the national forests, and it's the worst combination possible. It combines all the combustibles of a house, along with all the hazards of human inhabitants (bbq's, campfires, carelessly tossed cigarettes, electrical and gas lines, etc.) in an environment that's already a tinderbox. They were also commenting that it's so bad this year because two years ago they had a really wet year that helped all the underbrush grow rapidly, and now the drought turned that all basically into kindling.

The other problem is with more houses out near the forests, they can't really manage the forestland like they would like to do...no more prescribed burns if there are houses too close by, and no letting smaller fires burn out, again, for the same reason. They know that not allowing small fires can allow fuel to build up for these large fires.

An interesting thought that was raised after some of the hurricanes too is whether it's appropriate for the insurance companies to refuse insurance, or make it exhorbitantly expensive, to those who rebuild in these high risk areas. I'm leaning toward thinking it's perfectly within reason for them to be allowed to refuse insurance. Perhaps the knowledge you can't get insurance if you build in a certain place, or at least certain types of insurance, might make people think twice about building there. And if you do it anyway, then you're assuming the risk without burdening others for your foolishness. When the same area is hit multiple times in a short time frame, you have to start thinking it doesn't make sense to rebuild, and there's no reason an insurance company should have to help you keep doing that. Cover you to rebuild, and then drop you for future policies should be it.

If I'm correct, insurance companies are starting to no longer cover new people

 

[Moonbear]

If I'm correct, insurance companies are starting to no longer cover new people

That might have been the context of the news story I heard...or that they were threatening not to insure any new people anyway. Then, someone in Congress (I don't recall who) was saying that if the insurance companies don't insure them, we need some form of Federally backed insurance for those people. WHY? We should be discouraging people from building in unsafe areas, not using taxpayer funds to permit them to keep building more.

 

[Evo]

I say if someone wants to build in an unsafe area, they

1) Need to put enough money into a fund they cannot withdraw from until there is a need to rebuild. They will need to continue paying into their fund to make certain it is enough to cover current costs to rebuild, including enough money to cover living expenses while waiting to rebuild.

2)They must waive all government financial aid and assistance, and pay back any city, county, state, or federal monies used to try to save their home, since they would be in a designated unsafe area.

Ok, now they can build anywhere they want.

 

[Moonbear]

I say if someone wants to build in an unsafe area, they

1) Need to put enough money into a fund they cannot withdraw from until there is a need to rebuild. They will need to continue paying into their fund to make certain it is enough to cover current costs to rebuild, including enough money to cover living expenses while waiting to rebuild.

2)They must waive all government financial aid and assistance, and pay back any city, county, state, or federal monies used to try to save their home, since they would be in a designated unsafe area.

Ok, now they can build anywhere they want.

If they want to take the risk of not being insured, I don't have a problem with that either...that's their problem then. Of course, I see no reason why they should expect to get a mortgage if they can't insure the property either, but if they really are determined to build there, then they'll have to save up to pay cash up front. That way, the only one hurt if their place goes up in smoke (or gets washed away by a flood) is them. They can have the right to build anywhere they want, they don't have a right to expect others to cover their losses for building foolishly.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We should be discouraging people from building in unsafe areas...

Where is it safe?

 

[Astronuc]

Where is it safe?

Just pick a place that you've never heard of - nothing ever happens there.

How about Flagstaff, AZ?

 

[Moonbear]

Where is it safe?

Someplace other than flood plains and the path of regular wildfires is a good start.

 

[Astronuc]

Someplace other than flood plains and the path of regular wildfires is a good start.

Add to that list places with high potentials for hurricanes, tornados, and/or earthquakes.

 

[TMM]

I live in Los Angeles, near the ocean. It's a beautiful place with plenty of action and stuff to do. Risk of earthquakes, fire, etc. is just something we live with. I'd rather live here than in some empty town no one's heard of where nothing happens.

 

[Astronuc]

I live in Los Angeles, near the ocean. It's a beautiful place with plenty of action and stuff to do. Risk of earthquakes, fire, etc. is just something we live with. I'd rather live here than in some empty town no one's heard of where nothing happens.

I prefer to live in place where the sky is blue - not brown. :rofl:

I like the quiet of the country-side. There is plenty that happens. Lots of wildlife.

Here's the first place I lived 48-50 years ago - way before "a range of superb restaurants and cafes, art galleries, museums, a fabulous seaside golf course." When I lived there, there were less than 200 people. Now it's too crowded.

http://www.greatoceanrd.org.au/otways/apollobay/index.asp

The lady who lived next door to us raised goats, we grew much of what we ate, and we'd get fresh fish/seafood from the places down by the harbor or off the boats.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Add to that list places with high potentials for hurricanes, tornados, and/or earthquakes.

You've emptied out the whole West coast, including Alaska, every state in "Tornado Ally" (Evo has to move yet again), and all the Southeast states, as well as those around the gulf of Mexico. This cuts the country in two and now there are masses of people who have to relocate because they are uninsurable in their present location.

 

[TMM]

Actually the air isn't bad at all closer to the coast. It's more inland, near Riverside and such, that the air gets really bad.

As for the Apollo Bay, I agree that it's beautiful, it's just that I wouldn't be able to live there very long without losing my mind. You have your perfect place and I have mine; I'm just presenting the sort of viewpoint that many Californians have that makes them stay in such a dangerous place.

 

[Clausius2]

I live in San Diego. Fortunately I didn't have to evacuate, I live near UCSD and even though the fire got very near we were lucky. All this stuff seems a cathastrophe, half of the county burnt out. I am not republican or democrat, but I honestly think that Governator's team and San Diegan authorities and firefighters got a straight A when dealing with these fires. A good example of organization and care about people. They evacuated more people than needed to be cautious, and it is a remarkable figure to have only 1 victim, as far as I know, that was directly related to the fire (the rest of them were old people who died by natural causes during evacuations, and the bodies found may be already dead when fire started).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I live in San Diego. Fortunately I didn't have to evacuate, I live near UCSD and even though the fire got very near we were lucky. All this stuff seems a cathastrophe, half of the county burnt out. I am not republican or democrat, but I honestly think that Governator's team and San Diegan authorities and firefighters got a straight A when dealing with these fires. A good example of organization and care about people. They evacuated more people than needed to be cautious, and it is a remarkable figure to have only 1 victim, as far as I know, that was directly related to the fire (the rest of them were old people who died by natural causes during evacuations, and the bodies found may be already dead when fire started).

I think there was a kind of perfect proportion of evacuees to people not directly affected which lead to a false sense of how well this was handled. Enough people were directly affected to put the fear of God, so to speak, into the rest of us such that everyone mobilized to help them. 5/6 or 4/5 of us are imagining, very vividly, that it could have been us, and there are enough people still in good shape who are thinking in those terms that the evacuees got taken good care of in general. This wasn't the city or county or state government, but volunteers. If everyone had been hit and we were relying on the government it would have been no different than Katrina, I think.

 

[Astronuc]

A friend of one my colleagues shot this from Point Loma overlooking the bay toward SD.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8023/sandiegofireqv1.jpg

Those fires were BIG! Those mountains more than 10 miles east of SD.

I believe this is the Harris fire.

 

[hypatia]

Wow, somewhere I have the same photo, taken at night, without the fire. Thats is breath takenly beautiful..all hail the fire gods!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's an amazing photo!