I think I just figured out WHY there is a Dis the California Fire attitude.

[Tyler Durden]

Every year or two we hear about The Fires in Southern California.

They SUCK. People die, people lose everything. The fires are a "BAD THING."

Here's the reason why the California Fires/Earthquakes/Floods/Mudslides get disrespected: They keep happening, and California keeps rebuilding in the same spot.

Why?

SURE, it's pretty. Nice Climate. And it's not against the law to live and build there. But why do it?

It's a lot like Florida or the rest of the Gulf Coast. NOLA from Katrina is an exception: if the levees had held it wouldn't have been anywhere near that bad.

But everyone keeps building on Monty Python's SWAMP and the castle keeps sinking into the swamp or burning down and sinking into the swamp. AND the houses cost ridiculous amounts of money.

Now it's your "God Given" or "Constitutional" or whatever RIGHT to build there. But folks like us in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and a slew of other states are at a loss as to why you build on railroad tracks. The train doesn't come by every day, but eventually you will have a very interesting caller at your domicile, and you won't enjoy the visit.

I don't get it, and I'm a very smart guy. If you gave me a house in Southern California, I'd sell it at a loss and stay here in economically depressed Michigan.

When people in the Midwest are losing houses left and right because now that we're unemployed and there's no work we can't hang onto a $50,000 house, it's very hard to feel sorry for people living in a fire/flood/earthquake/hurricane zone who are on their second or third re-build, especially when we hear about how much it's going to cost.

We aren't all rocket scientists here, but we don't get that logic, and there lies the rub.

It doesn't make "sense" to us, and getting government/insurance company support to rebuild in an area where you are GUARANTEED to have a fire/earthquake/mudslide sounds like YOU are getting what WE need and aren't getting: HELP. And you're going to need it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN...

We don't hate you. We don't begrudge you lives and homes. We just don't understand you, and nothing you say about how GREAT it is to live there is going to convince us that you aren't being realistic.

That said, I hope your house is ok, I hope your pets are ok, I hope YOU are ok. AND I hope you are ok the next time this happens.

[Ian David]

1. We lose more people than that every single winter in New England.

Yet we don't all evacuate to Florida every November.

[eShirl]

2. that's because the destruction of property is not as wide-spread

usually our houses protect us

[havocmom]

4. Hmmm, maybe those of us in colder climes should winter in California

and clear brush?

Seriously, I grew up in Southern Calif and I could NEVER understand building more and more homes in areas less and less able to be kept safe from fire, slides, beach erosion. Just boggled my young mind.

[axollot]

205. I lived in San Diego County (which is huge) and burning...as is Mexico..

I lived there from the 3rd grade till 17 when I moved to Australia. The home prices were nuts! Fallbrook was FARM LAND - now its 4 and 5 mil homes - and others that never sold and live modestly still. But yes, they do keep building more Mcmansions on cliff sides than necessary - I remember when it was barely cool to live on a Mesa!

Duel Citizen and DAMN proud of it! My kids are Aussie, so am I!

Cheers
Aussie/American
Sandy

[roguevalley]

152. people don't get the population density and scarcity of land in

places like California. I know someone who has friends who rent couch space in their livingrooms to commuters every week so they can get to work without driving for hours everyday. Every inch of land that can hold people has them. Where are you going to go? Most people don't live in such places. Until you do, then you can't know.

[axollot]

204. NO but alot do LMAO in FL n/t

[merh]

3. There is NO PLACE on this earth free from destruction caused

by natural disaster. I've live on the Gulf of Mexico for better than 45 years and this is my first need to rebuild.

Home is home, community is comfort and security.

You go find a hole to live in and try to escape a bad event if you like, I know I cannot and choose to find happiness and beauty and pleasure and security where I can and enjoy life as it comes.

You have the conservative mind set, give up your freedoms and rights to be "secure" from bad things, the trade is worth it for you. It is not for me.

[EST]

5. Even a hole can have it's catastrophes, right?

Witness underground mining, everywhere.

[merh]

11. exactly

:thumbsup:

The tragedy, the crime if you will, of Katrina is that the large majority of folks had insurance and have not been paid on their policies or have had to sue to get paid.

The corporate buyout/welfare handed to insurance companies came in the form of the FEMA grants to homeowners and those that lost so much. If * had kept his word and held the insurance companies responsible, a lot of the area would have been rebuilt a long time ago with monies legally due to those of us that did what we could do. We boarded up our houses, we evacuated as best we could and we had insurance. No one knew that Katrina was going to be as destructive as she was.

[EST]

20. All hail deregulation!

I realize a lot of normal people make their living from working in the insurance industry and they, no doubt, believe in what they do.
However, Imo, the insurance companies involved should have to pay every valid claim, no matter if it drives them into bankruptcy. Sell their assets, empty every bank account and brokerage account. Pay up as you promised when you sold the idea to innocents, claiming you would do just that.

[merh]

30. Go look at the profits that insurance companies realized

in '05 and '06. They could afford the claims.

[redqueen]

Is it not also the taxpayers who foot the re-insurance bill?

Bills like the Homeowners’ Insurance Availability Act encourage re-building in risky areas... areas where private insurers will no longer provide coverage.

It's disastrously stupid.

[merh]

154. Oh sure, your tax dollars have gone to bail out those billion dollar

corporations.

[daninthemoon]

68. Unfortunatley, the insurance co's have their deck stacked. They

will not suffer no matter how many claims they pay off, they just raise rates for everyone. That is why some places need to be off limits to developers.

[EST]

113. There needs to be, I think, a balance in any successful government

between "capitalist" or fascist forces and those described as "socialist" or "communist."

That mix can shift a bit from one extreme to the other but an overwhelming move or one that remains too long, moving the center almost permanently to the side, seems to always spell trouble.

Your point about limiting developers is both well taken and backed up by overwhelming evidence.
Even the tsunamis that destroyed hundreds of thousands an 2004 would have been - according to many reports I have read - far, far less destructive had the coastal areas been maintained in a more nature friendly state.
Oyster beds and greedy developers seemed to raise the cost to the rest of the population far more than the economic "value" that was derived from such runaway "development."

[susanna]

191. Hear, hear.

I think insurance companies are greedy, rapacious entities. If I HAVE to maintain insurance on a structure, auto or other, you damn well better pay up when things hit the fan. THAT'S WHAT I PAY YOU FOR. If you want to write policies in places that are gonna be huge losers, well, that's your own problem. End of story.

Otherwise, if you don't pay out for valid claims - your industry is a con, which is what NOLA finally understood, and California will probably find out (i.e., it's only a good thing if you don't actually need the payout).

This is just home/auto insurance I'm griping about; don't get me started on health insurance. You'll never shut me up.

To the OP: I'm from Michigan and pay my part of insurance for home, fire, flood, and health. I'm sure denials of coverage could happen to me in the event of a mass disaster. I sincerely can't decry people who have paid their insurance and believed it would be there for them. Yeah, MI's economy sucks, but when you pay for something (insurance) it SHOULD BE THERE. The end.

on edit: info to the OP.

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. It's not black and whilte ... and you're leaving it to insurance companies

and poor policy owners who don't know beforehand what the rules would be.

I live in a century old building ... no, not everyone can build in a statistically safe zone. But we can, as civilized people, restrain natural impulses for the public good.

[merh]

14. Bully for you - where do you live?

Did you know that most of the USofA is subject to some natural disaster and NO HOME is disaster free?

Oh and go check your policy for the "does not include acts of war or terrorism" clause?

Insurance companies were bailed out, policy holders paid for a service they were not provided. It truly is that simple.

[Fredda Weinberg]

28. 'disaster free' is black and white thinking - there are parts of

this city where you just can't build. And yes, even in Brooklyn, a tornado can rip off some roofs. There's no black and white line - hopefully, reason will prevail and the most dangerous areas, like beach fronts, flood plains and hillsides adjacent to national forests can be left to natural forces.

[Ian David]

8. There's some island off the coast of Africa that could have a landslide any moment...

that might cause a super-tsunami which would destroy the entire East Coast of the United States.

[Tyler Durden]

13. And it WILL happen. EVENTUALLY.

Maybe TOMORROW.

Sorry, but with all the other disasters I've been through in my life, I think I'll stay in Michigan.

You're welcome to visit, I cook a mean barbecue.

[Ian David]

17. Michigan gets hit with more meteorites than any place on Earth.

If you don't believe me, go Google it.

There's a chance that I'm correct, even though I believe I just made it up.

[Tyler Durden]

24. I know that. and they are VERY SMALL.

And the chances of getting hit are much less than the risk of disaster in California or Huricaine on the Gulf Coast.

And the property values are 1/20 what they are there.

We feel badly for you. We just don't understand you.

[renie408]

35. Wait a minute...is that for real?? n/t

[cali]

25. You're thinking of an explosion of Cumbre Vieja

a volcano on the Island of La Palma, one of the Canary Islands. The volcano is active and expected to erupt within the next 50 to 100 years, dislodging massive amounts of rock.

http://www.rense.com/general13/tidal.htm

[Tyler Durden]

32. And the wave that hits the East Coast will be ENORMOUS.

The ocean is a great place to VISIT, but I don't choose to live there. That's MY right.

I should post a pic of my house. Nice place, for a "hole."

[renie408]

31. If chunks fell off that island every Fall and caused a major tsunami

in the same general area of the East Coast every year...would you say it wouldn't be smart to live in that area? And if people DID choose to live in that area and take their chances, would you then say, "Well, that's on them."


Isn't that pretty much the case with the fire prone areas of California?

[Ian David]

55. You have small disasters distributed over a number of years compared to a large disaster... in a day

Let's pretend that your odds of getting killed in a California fire were 1 in 10,000 in a given year.
Now, let's pretend your odds of getting killed in a New York Supertsunami sometime during the next 50 years were 1 in 2.
That would mean, if you live in New York for 100 years, you'd be 100% likely to be killed by a Super-Tsunami. But, you'd need to live in California for 10,000 years to be assured of dying in a fire.

I'm just pulling numbers out of my hat to make a point about the difference between guaranteed-yearly-small-disasters and statistically-guaranteed-but-rare-largescale-disasters.

[renie408]

57. I saw that Discovery Channel show, too.

I think I remember them saying that they have no idea when that chunk is going to fall off. It could be tomorrow..or a thousand years from now. Doesn't that diminish your one hundred year odds??

And hey, I don't live in NYC, either. I live in the place where if everything melts and the chunk falls off and the Gulf Stream stops, I'm OK. But like I said somewhere else...we have rednecks here. Sometimes I think I would rather take my chances with the chunk.

[Ian David]

146. Ignore the numbers I posted. I made those up for the sake of illustration.

The point was that you can live for 100 years someplace where your odds are 1 in 10,000 of being killed by disaster A per year, or you can live in an area where your odds are 50/50 or 100% of being killed by disaster B within 100 years.

People in San Diego also don't usually die of heart attacks shoveling the driveway, slipping on an icy sidewalk, freezing to death, or skidding on an icy road into a snow embankment.

[renie408]

165. I am telling you man, the southeast is where you ougtta be.

No snow, no earthquakes, no tsunamis....

[Ian David]

170. But hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, tornados... n/t

[renie408]

175. We are far enough in that the hurricanes

don't really bother us much and there hasn't been any significant seismic activity here in...I dunno, at least 43 years. Tornados are not that much of a problem here, either. Now drought...that IS a bitch. But over all, we live in a pretty anti-climactic area natural phenomonen wise.

[Ian David]

193. Heat Waves are the single most deadly natural disaster.

Remember when 20,000 old french people died one summer?

[daninthemoon]

64. Here's where your numbers are skewed. You can't consider all

of California, or even all of So Cal. Shrink it down to those semi-arid chapparal covered foothills developed in the last twenty years, and your chances of a firestorm are way higher than 1 in 10,000. Over a ten year period your chances are nearly 100%. The brush on those hills evolved to burn every few years. They always have, and always will. This particular firestoem was indeed massive, and did get into some long established communities, but once the numbers come out, most of the damage will be in newly built homes. Still, my heart does go out to all the victims.

[Land Shark]

106. for something worth Dissing re blame on California fires

here's something closer to the mark of blame I think (bush policy)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2141076&mesg_id=2141076

[PATRICK]

77. You should post

in the heated debates over the Kerry election and the exit polls which also reoccur from time to time. As rational and provident as we like to believe most people are I think enough real hits will decide the issue- unless you live on the Bangladesh flood plain i suppose.

[Tyler Durden]

12. I never denied you that "right." We just don't understand you.

In Michigan, we avoid flood plains. It's about the only potential "Disaster Areas" we've got.

There's no need to say things like that. Home is home to us TOO, we just think you have an odd idea of "Security."

I don't live in a hole, and it's not nice to say so. I like my house. I just don't understand you. I lived in California while in the service and I never spent a calm day after the first mild earthquake. I never felt safe in Oceanside after the first fire I saw.

I also weathered hurricanes in Texas and Virginia. I wouldn't live in either place again on a bet.

That's MY right too.

I am only trying to explain why SOME people (not ME) MAY have given you a hard time about the fires.

In Michigan at the moment we are fighting the "freedom" to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I used to ride, but I now say that I caught a bad case of "sanity" as a road rash complication after ditching my 750cc Royal Enfield. I don't SKI anymore, because broken bones are an occupational hazard of the sport, and I'm not willing to spend anymore of my life in casts than I already have.

If you want to do these things, feel free. The point I was making is that being this is ONE NATION, are we not supporting YOUR RIGHT to behave in a way we consider unwise? This is our right TOO.

That said, once again, my fondest hopes are that you stay safe and your home and family does as well.

[merh]

22. My house wasn't built in a flood zone and had survived Camille

Thousands of homes were not in flood zones or even on the coastline, they were inland. The winds that lasted well over 8 hours prior to the surge and the duration of the storm surge caused the greatest part of the destruction. Katrina was not forecasted to be all Katrina was, that's the thing about mother nature, you can't predict her.

[Tyler Durden]

26. NOLA died from Levees breaking, not the storm.

I lived through many floods in Texas. One reason: I got a geographic survey, and when the first house in the highest part of the area went on sale, I bought it.

I never got flooded out, even when the road near us was under 4' of water.

LIVE in So. Cal. LIVE in Florida. It's your RIGHT. We just don't understand you.

[merh]

53. I've been to Michigan

I don't understand you (and my father was born there and still has family there).

I hope each time you dog those of folks in California and Florida and along the coast, you knock on wood. Karma is a bitch.

.

[hedgehog]

96. Well, clearly your home was in a flood zone, it just wasn't in a

designated flood zone. I think the Geological Survey issues the topological maps, but it's up to local governments to determine the flood zones. SOmehow local governments tend to favor growth, which means they tend to ignore reality.

[merh]

153. Bullshit, but thanks for playing

I'm not in the fema flood zone now, though my house is in the same area and I am building higher than required just cause I know what the water did

[KitchenWitch]

121. Hi Tyler

My two cents here.

I am a midwesterner (at heart) but my residence is in California. I remember the terrible floods of 1993. I was living in the Twin Cities then. Those floods came and hit Grand Forks, ND, etc. They also hit the mighty Mississippi in many places. A lot of stuff that was built in the flood plains was a total loss.

Fast forward a few years, lo and behold, many homes and businesses were built back in the identical places. Why, you ask? Because FEMA flood insurance, and insurance regulations in general, require that things be rebuilt where they were before the loss. Homeowners Insurance is not like Auto Insurance. If I total my car, I am not required to have the same car restored to its pre-collision condition. I am cut a check (minus my deductible) for the current value of my car and I go buy a new (or used) car. Unfortunately it is not like that with Homeowners policies. Thus the problem.

[Tyler Durden]

128. Thanks, Witchy.

I was hoping YOU personally didn't see this mess.

You know, when they piss on you for not understanding (instead of explaining like you did) it sort of makes that "Well of Compassion" dry up just a little bit.

I was so glad you made it in one piece! No damage I hope (MOST SINCERELY!)

[KitchenWitch]

130. I hear ya!

But who am I?

Apparently I am a rich vapid Californian whose only concern is why my yoga class was cancelled.

[Tyler Durden]

137. Yeah Bullshit and you know it.

The assholes on that side are as bad as these assholes.

Tolerance has disappeared everywhere it seems. I already have 2 major journal writers on IGNORE. You would think THEY would know better.

[renie408]

23. But then, you understand that a hurricane is a natural possible consequence

of living on the Gulf Coast, right? And you wouldn't build out on a barrier island and if you did, you would KNOW you are taking your chances. The areas where people are now building in California are like barrier islands. They are areas which should be left natural and allowed to burn as a natural part of that environment's yearly cycle. The problem isn't REALLY the fires. The fires have been comeing to that area for hundreds of years. The problem is people building houses, not clearing brush so as to preserve their view, etc. Houses are fire fuel. Brush is fire fuel. As long as people build there, they are going to get burned out of there. If they look at their odds and say to themselves, "To hell with it. I love this area and this is where I call home. I will take my chances." Fine. Good for them. But if they build there and their house burns down in five years and they are shocked...I dunno. I sympathize, but then I also see the point the OP is trying to make.

[Tyler Durden]

29. Thank you.

The Constitution indirectly gives citizens the "right" to behave in a manner other citizen think is foolish.

By the way, I wouldn't live in Hawaii EITHER.

[daninthemoon]

71. Bravo. The only possible good that may come of all this, would

be if those homes are rebuilt somehow 100% fireproof, because it is 100% certain that those fires will return. I don't know if that technology exists, but this is certainly the place and time for it. Then again, in a few months these exact same hills will suffer mudslides. There are reasons these hiils were only recently developed.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. you got it !!- and...

you said it-

There are no 'safe' places in this world-
Who would want to live in a "panic room"???
Or some sterile, climate controlled, padded environment?
Life is dangerous-and ultimately deadly- and that makes it all the more precious.



And- OT
wishing you the best of times in your new home Merh,
saw pics of it in the lounge a while back-
What a wonderful, beautiful place!!

peace~
blu

[merh]

56. thanks for the good wishes

and understanding and support. :hi:

[Tesha]

37. On the other hand, there's really no excuse for building tinderboxes

On the other hand, there's really no excuse for building
tinderboxes rather than the fire-resistant structures
that should be built.

NPR had a story this morning detailing the fact that for
several thousand dollars more (say $2,000 to $5,000), the
houses in the firezone could be built with:

o Fire-resistant roofs (clay, lightweight concrete, etc.)
o Fire-resistant decks (fire-resistant composites)
o Heat-resistant windows
o A modest amount of clear space around each house

And if everyone did this, most of these fires could pass
over most of these neighborhoods without reducing them
all to ashes. But it's the usual "tragedy of the commons"
story: if you do this but your neighbors don't, much of
the beneficial effect is lost. So no one does it and
the tinderbox neighborhoods continue to burn, lit off
by flying embers.

Tesha

[MindPilot]

42. AFAIK, most of those are already required in new construction

I think the decking is the only one that's not--but it is highly recommended. Shake roofs are prohibited. In fire-prone areas tiles are required if you re-roof.

But many many of the homes damaged or destroyed are 10-20 years old so they were built when many of those new materials were not feasible for residential construction.

If they really want to help people the government and the insurance companies should fund programs to help people pay for retrofits and upgrades to older homes.

[Tesha]

47. Not according to NPR. These exact codes failed in San Diego last year.

Not according to NPR. IIRC, these exact codes failed
in San Diego last year.

Cheap tinderboxes apparently sell better than slightly-
more-expensive fire-resistant houses,and the hidden
expense of the tinderbox is pushed into the future
of higher fire-insurance payments.

Tesha

[Tyler Durden]

49. I heard that TOO.

See? It's another reason why we don't understand the West Coast.

[MindPilot]

58. What do you mean "the codes failed last year"?

Building codes don't "fail"; they are either complied with or they are not. If your new house burned because the builder didn't comply with the codes, then it's time to bring on the lawyers.

[Tesha]

66. Rejected (i.e., not accepted) by the San Diego political process. (NT)

[MindPilot]

97. Not quite.

The roofing standard is already in place
http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/news/pdf/roofreqmnts.pdf

Other code updates are done: just not in effect yet.
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/documents/PR07-02_final__pics.pdf

[redqueen]

78. Strawman... no place is risk free, but many places are too risky.

Insurance companies' rates would be exorbitant and rebuilding would be cost-prohibitive, if not for taxpayers aiding those insurers with subsidies.

[merh]

168. Strawman - those "riskier" places pay the higher premiums

n/t

[hedgehog]

88. It's not the weather or earthquake that causes the catastrophe;

it's the infrastructure. Build for what you can expect and you'll be fine. Build the same standard model home in identical developments across 50 states and you've got problems.

[progressoid]

109. BOOOGUS.

"There is NO PLACE on this earth free from destruction by natural disaster."

That's a disingenuous statement. While superficially true, you leave out a critical detail. That some areas of the earth are more prone to natural disasters than others. Seems to me, the OP is addressing those that knowingly choose to live and rebuild in those areas more prone to natural disaster.

Just as there are areas within the US that are more prone to disasters, there are places within 50 miles of my house, that are more prone to disasters than others (e.g. flooding). Those are areas to avoid. It's not a conservative mindset to question the logic of building and rebuilding in an area with a higher potential for damage.

[merh]

155. BOOOOGUS back at you

but you go ahead and play the "superior" game.

No skin off my nose.

[progressoid]

199. Ouch

I am slain by your superior counter-argument

[merh]

202. Just as I was slain by your's.

NOT

The lovely use of the capitals and extra letters while weak and bordering on pathetic, did make me laugh out loud, but I don't think that was what you were going for.

[progressoid]

207. Ah, the old 'attack the method and avoid the message' ploy.

Since you have avoided my original statement and switched to writing critique, does that mean you have no cogent reply to the content of that post?

But, while we're on the subject of writing styles, don't you find it ironic that you call the use if capitals "weak and bordering on pathetic" while yourself using all caps in at least three posts in this thread alone?

The extra letters in BOOOGUS was a nod to The Car Guys (Click and Clack) so a laugh out loud, wouldn't be inappropriate.

[iamthebandfanman]

174. i dunno...

i live in a place that has the occasional tornado warning, but rarely an actual touchdown that causes damage let alone loss of life....
other than that ... not much else happens...

tho we did have a large snow storm back in 93, but so did alot of people ;)

[Land Shark]

6. Well, I'm in Michigan, and building in San Diego isn't ALL bad....

Whether your points have force at all depends a lot on the specific location, not just "southern California" but whether it's on a urban/wildland buffer, whether brush is allowed to pile up, and many other factors. I don't think you can write off an entire region of the country.

You have to consider the Santiago arson as something that people should not be deemed to accept the risk of on pain of "no sympathy" from their fellow americans.... Unusually strong drought, GAO reports in June of federal unpreparedness to fight fires properly, and many other factors.

Now, if people just rebuilt and insurers refused to insure at any price, that would be a real strong indication that the place was unacceptably unsafe, but then zoning laws would probably prohibit it as well.

Perhaps the OP is suffering a bit of compassion fatigue? Perhaps, there are many things in the world to pull at our heartstrings, San Diego can be a killer in that regard, I can certainly understand why we'd want to put on a shell, but perhaps we are not, in our heart of hearts, able to do that. AT least not justly. Just MHO.

[Tyler Durden]

18. You aren't getting my point.

We have compassion. We look on your disaster aghast.

But if MY house had burned down from a wildfire due to the winds and brush of the area (AND not helped by the fact that Californians are notorious for killing taxes that do things like pay firemen and buy firetrucks and clear brush) I wouldn't re-build in the place. The view isn't worth the risk...TO ME. And that is my point.

We are the masters of our fates in very few areas...like where we decide to live and build houses. But I'm sorry for your losses and hope you had none.

[Land Shark]

89. Exactly how many do you say "rebuilt" after burning, and what are chances of re-fire?

You seem to assume that fire sweeps a given house every 3 years or something and that's just not true. My take on it is here: Blame Bush policy based on very recent GAO report:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2141076&mesg_id=2141076

[Not Me]

9. I lived in LA for a while...

Liked it a lot, but my job required me to go back east.
When I was there, I found that news coverage of earthquakes/storms/fires/mudslides etc. seemed to be exaggerated especially on the feeds to the rest of the country. We would have a barely noticeable 4.0 tremble in the valley, and my parents would be on the phone frantic because it hit the evening network news. Or a house would slide down a hill 500 miles away and all my friends would ask, "When are you going to move back."

Now clearly, the ongoing fires ARE devastating, but as the epicenter of the television industry, I think there's been a lot of overplaying CA's calamities in the past.

[YvonneCa]

142. Are you ever...

...right about this. We are now having to defend California against mis-perceptions created by the media. Like we are all surfers, or something. :)

[Garbo 2004]

150. Years ago I visited back east & some people said how can you live in CA with all the earthquakes?

This was in tornado and serious storm country. In the midwest we just missed by a couple days being in an area when a tornado hit and just about wiped out a small town. We also experienced scary major thunderstorms and a five state tornado watch alert. When we got near the East Coast (we were driving cross country), some residents told us, "you just missed the hurricane!" which had given them a glancing blow. (We tried to conceal our disappointment at just missing a hurricane. It wasn't hard.) But then they said they could never live in California with all the earthquakes.

That Winter the midwest was hit with what they said at the time was a record year for storms & low temps. Back at home, I watched a Cincinnati Bengals jhome game where they said the wind chill was at 60 below IIRC. (That summer in the Cincinnati area with the humidity and heat, I'd developed heat rashes.)

Yeah, people are crazy to live in California. It's a terrible scary place. Don't anyone else move here. Leave it to the natives. Please. ;)

(And about that New Madrid fault.....)

;)

[SmokingJacket]

10. Well, I do think they should stop building with wood, return to adobe and tile.

According to a fire guy I heard on the news this morning, people still have giant wooden decks out there. It seems like a relatively easy and fair fix to alter building codes, being careful, of course, not raise building costs too much.

Of course people will always live in dangerous places, but it makes sense to adapt to enviroment: no flat roofs in high-snow areas, stilts in flood areas, etc.

[YvonneCa]

166. We build in wood...

...here because if there is an earthquake (big chance of that) adobe (or tile) falling on your head does a lot more damage than wood. SERIOUSLY.

[kineneb]

171. mud-brick construction: major cause of death in ME earthquakes

the potential for loss of life using "traditional" building methods is incredible. That is why houses in CA use woodframe construction. Build houses the way they are in other parts of the US and we would have structural failure on a massive scale in fairly low intensity earthquakes.

May I refer our friends here at DU to look at photos of the 1906 SF earthquake. The buildings which survived were wood frame (and yes, many did burn in the fires that followed, but by then, there were no people in them). Brick buildings were piles of rubble on the streets.


NorCal native, family in CA since 1908.

[SmokingJacket]

178. No, I believe it.

There's got to be a way to make a house both more fire resistant AND earthquake friendly, though. I mean, if I were an insurance company, I'd insist on it...

[Ellen Forradalom]

15. Actually, some thought is being lent to this

Some of the newer developments included design principles that reduced fire damage greatly.

Exclusive homes emerge unscathed as fire-protection concept is tested
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html

Now if these principles were more widely adopted, and not just used for the fanciest developments, we'd be getting some place.

I will also add that if safety from disaster were a criterion, no one would live on the entire Pacific Rim, Iran, Turkey, Mexico, Iceland, Hawaii, New Zealand, etc. Add man-made disasters such as world wars and you can Europe to that list up to about 50 years ago.

[daninthemoon]

16. Thanks for your post. I tried expressing such thoughts a few days

ago, but unfortunately didn't express myself well, and am now regarded as evil incarnate. I lived in Anaheim for 35 years and watched the rampant developement fully invade areas that absoultely had been deemed uninhabittable. These areas burn as part of their ecosystem. In a few months, the rains will come, and the exact same places will suffer mudslides. The chapparal will regrow, a dry year or two will occur in this very arid semi-desert zone, the Santa Anas will bring more fire, and on and on. Twenty years ago when the overdevelopment was in high gear, there was a rash of mountain lion atacks. It was the first clear sign that development had gone too far. I am fully sick about the loss of life and property, and this particular firestorm did reach into areas like Ramona that have been around for a very long time. My sister lives in a condo facing some open area in Laguna Hills.

[librechik]

19. I think the insurance companies require rebuilding in the same spot

there was a thread here a day or two ago about the fix homeowners are in, but I am vague on the details.

But you know how difficult it is to change the insurance company's mind about anything--even if it's to their benefit. They are ruled by senseless nitpicking rules and regulations. The main philosophy is "do everything you can to NOT PAY this claim. If you can get away with breaking the law, we don't care."

And then the county gets involved with permits and so on. The chamber of commerce doesn't want its town to disappear, and is afraid of change. The homeowner finds himself tied to the location whether he wants to move or not. Or he could just sell (at hugely depressed price, of course.)

I'm sure there's lots of agitation to build safer houses at least, this time around, however expensive it may be. What the heck, they'll probably lose a whole layer of unsightly types in their society who won't be able to afford to live there anymore, the New Orleans effect. But relocate? No way. The land is just too valuable, there's a spiral there of unreal estate passed back and forth between millionaires. Ordinary people have to go elsewhere. And the new owners are happy that they can build a new, more valuable house on the property.

Not everyone will be screwed. Please convince me I'm wrong about this!

Watch them abandon the Lower Ninth Ward in a second. At least they saved the tourist part! (for now--I wonder what a century of Arctic ice melting will do to the French Quarter neighborhood. They never think beyond the 13 year real estate cycle...)

In short, the California fires are a somewhat more subtle bonanza for The Chump in Chief's buddies, a huge chapter of which are real estate developers. They're the ones who won't allow immigration laws to be enforced, too. See how this works?

These guys--it's like they're not even human...

[Wapsie B]

188. When I was in Florida

I talked to people who were there when Hurricane Charlie hit. The one hospital I'm thinking of was required to build right on the same spot. It was also supposed to be an exact replica of what was destroyed, or as close as they could come.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

21. San Diego's Cedar fire was 4 years ago. They called it an anomaly, the perfect storm. These

recent fires are also being called the perfect storm. These massive fires don't occur "every year or two" but they are happening more frequently. Perhaps we are in a constant state of the "perfect storm" because of the many years of drought. I believe San Diegans will take notice that these huge, destructive fires are no longer anomalies. I believe there will be some real changes in home protection and building practices.

[renie408]

34. I think a lot has to do with what you said about building practices and home protection

The way they are building the houses is adding fuel to the fire...pun intended. Between the proximity, materials used, landscaping, etc., once a fire gets going it can really run through a neighborhood. And then it is so hot, so big and so fast that the firemen can't get it under control. I also saw that they have not been clearing brush in the hills as diligently as they should. I bet that's going to change!

[AnotherMother4Peace]

39. It takes $$ to be proactive, & some cities are strapped & have been negligent.

Someone should have asked Bush why our National Guard is not here where they belong.

[daninthemoon]

82. Am I crazy( well that's beside the point), or didn't the California

National Guard used to do things like clear brush? Some reason I think they did.

[Tesha]

38. Part of it, of course, was artificial fire suppression.

"Fire climax" ecologies are meant to burn every so often,
but when you suppress that long enough, the fuel mass
builds up to "perfect storm" levels.

Tesha

[kwassa]

33. The reason people build in these areas.

The reason people in California build in these areas is that they need housing, and less dangerous terrain is already taken. This is where the jobs are, and the demand for housing, which is why the housing prices are so much higher than they are in Michigan. If you want to make a living, you go where the jobs are. It certainly is not the auto industry in Detroit.

I once moved from Michigan to California.I used to joke about Detroit that it has all the problems of Los Angeles and none of the attractions of Los Angeles. I would see a car with Michigan plates on every block of the city.

While you don't get brushfires in Michigan, and mud slides, there is no place free from earthquakes entirely, and you get such wonderful manmade disasters such as Devil's Night, which is pretty much unique to Detroit. Your arsonists burn down vacant houses, the ones in California start brush fires. Tornados are also pretty much unknown in California.

My dad did his 30 years with GM. It took my parents over a year to sell their house there, and they only sold at a major loss so they could move into a retirement community near their children on the East Coast.

[Tyler Durden]

45. I don't live in Detroit

And compared to the "OJ RIOTS" Devil's night is a minor inconvenience.

Economic Disaster is MAN MADE. Bad analogy.

Next.

[Mountainman]

50. You know, you answered my question when you said were you live.

Basically you don't know anything about which you speak. Most of the fires were in neighborhoods were people just like you live. It just so happens that the terrain here is different from yours. There are no areas like yours in San Diego.

I don't know if you can understand what I am saying but your assumptions are full of shit.

[kwassa]

54. You completely missed the point, of course.

Which is, people build where they do because they need housing and it is the only available land.

Get it?

I didn't think so.

And unlike the LA riots, Devils Night goes on year after year after year after year.

Not that Detroit hasn't had wonderful riots of it's own.

[mondo joe]

81. Doesn't matter if the disaster is natural or man made. If you know it's going

to happen, but choose to stay anyway, do you deserve symathy or not?

[noiretextatique]

158. true to some extent...but

that doesn't explain why people build in areas where fires and mudslides happen every single year...places like Malibu, for example. of course we know why people want to live there..it's gorgegous...but the area i prone to fires, mudslides and floods.

[SteppingRazor]

36. Our Florida hurricanes are all your fault for building so many cars in Michigan.

:P


Kidding aside, I think the premise is kinda laughable, as so many other people have suggested, it's not as if the coasts are the only disaster zones. The Midwest has blizzards, river flooding and tornados that are all incredibly damaging and life-threatening events.

[MindPilot]

40. I don't get why you continue to build in Michigan.

Every winter, it gets cold and you have to heat your homes which drives up my energy costs. You know it's going to happen, but you stay there anyway. Every year you have to buy snow tires, parkas, ice scrapers. Your cars slide into each other on the icy roads, which increases my insurance rates. You know that's going to happen, yet you stay there. Why?

[Tyler Durden]

41. Cost me a max of $175/month for heating and cooling.

It's called insulation and heat pumps.

Snow tires? Haven't ever bought them. Gets that bad...we have something called "Snow Days"

CAR insurance rates are determined by LOCATION. Funny thing: Insurers in California are falling all over themselves to offer lower rates on home insurance.

NEVER had a car accident, fire, flood, live in a historic district in a 102 year old house in a city founded in 1835.

Silly.

[MindPilot]

52. Yet you continue live there.

And pretend you are so much better than me because you were smart enough to live in an area that's prone to blizzards instead of wildfire.

[Tyler Durden]

59. You really aren't listening, are you?

I don't "feel better" than you. I have a different mid set as to many people here (who sounded like they were pooh pooh Californians and their "million dollar houses").

I am compassionate to your issues: I simply don't understand you and your compulsion to live in a potential disaster area WHICH IS, OF COURSE, YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO.

Live where you want, just don't expect everyone in the country to understand why you must live there.

[MindPilot]

69. Oh I hear you fine; I have just become very tired of the attitude.

You couch it a little differently; instead of saying "you are an absolute moron for living there", you say "I don't understand it, but it is your right to do so."

See, to me--having dealt with this shit all week on DU--the difference is only in the words you choose.

[Tyler Durden]

91. I am so very glad you read minds.

It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes us NOT want to understand.

I talk about a personal shortcoming (The lack of understanding) and YOU turn it into malice.

[spoony]

43. Who's "we"? I'm in Mich. and I have no problem feeling bad for

those affected by this disaster. Or any other.

[Tyler Durden]

46. WHY is no one listening?

I have no problem feeling bad for them. I just don't understand them. As many who are confused as to why they keep living there.

This is not a compassion issue: I feel bad for them. It's just hard to KEEP feeling that PEAK "bad" for them, when we know for a fact we're going to hear about this, or the earthquake, or the mudslide again and again.

[spoony]

51. Dude, you said: "it's very hard to feel sorry for people..."

That's quite different from what you just said.

[Tyler Durden]

62. FINE, let's now play SEMANTICS,

The same game that alienated all those people and made them think California was all nuts who live in million dollar homes and play with matches.

This is the kind of nonsense that drives people to The Lounge.

I'm trying to understand you; if you don't care whether I do or not, I have to look at that as your problem not mine. Remember, I vote too, and if something comes up about insurance rates in what I might consider a dangerous place to live, I would thing you would want me sympathetic, not remembering that you treated me like a yahoo.

[jgraz]

75. Yes, quoting and parsing what you actually said is "playing semantics"

:eyes:

[kineneb]

177. allow me to answer - why we keep living here

1. Some of us were born here, as were our parent(s). It is home.

2. The climate in most of CA is great; low humidity, no snow (except higher elevations), rain only in the winter. Warm to hot summers, also with low humidity, except on the coast. Fog for those who like it. "I go to the snow, it does not come to me."

3. Natural resources: Really cool flora and fauna, not to mention geology.

4. Pacific rim ambiance: many different cultures, mostly getting along with each other.

5. The food: fresh fruit and veggies from the valleys, wines from many regions in the state. Cuisines from around the world. Four seasons of growing in the southland.

6. Geography: in a (long) day's drive, one can go from surfing the Pacific Ocean to snow skiing in the high Sierras.

So we have some earthquakes, fires, floods, mudslides. Small price to pay for an otherwise great place to live.


Writing from the scenic shores of Clear Lake (oldest lake in continental US,
kineneb, happy NorCal native,
family in CA since 1908.

[mondo joe]

44. Like not feeling sorry for people who choose to live in economically depressed

areas, because they KNOW their economy will suck but they stay there anyway.

:eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

48. Oh for pete's sake, I give up.

Like we could MOVE to where you think the economy is better. Fat Chance. I have some friends who'd like YOUR job. You going to just give it up to people who are getting ready to lose a house?

Economies are destroyed by PEOPLE. Your analogy is lousy. We can't all play Tom Joad and head West.

[kwassa]

60. Why not?

People choose where to build houses, and build them there.

People destroy economies.

Both are free will and choice. Both are economics decisions.

Good analogy.

[mondo joe]

73. No, you're in error.

Even poor people relocate. Even if you assume some CAN'T, some can. Goodness knows I did it, quite a few times.

[redqueen]

85. Conflating apples and oranges... don't let it get you off point. (nt)

[kineneb]

179. yup, we grow those, too. Apples and oranges, that is.

along with lots of other good eats.

:hippie:

NorCal Native

[Le Taz Hot]

61. Oh, goodie!

Another trash California and Californians thread. 'Cause there weren't, you know, enough. :eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

65. I'm going back to the lounge, as no one is really reading what I wrote.

You all obviously don't care whether or not we understand why you live in what some of us think of as dangerous areas, and you want to treat me badly when I suggest I don't understand and need to.

I'll remember how I was treated like a yahoo if and when stuff like this comes up for a vote or is supported by a candidate.

[mondo joe]

We read it. We just found it full of shit.

That's all.

[redqueen]

79. It's really not, though.

That's the sad thing.

*sigh*

[mondo joe]

87. We'll need to disagree.

The reasons why people live where they live are varied and complex. I don't begrudge anyone any sympathy for experiencing disasters.

I don't see why choosing to live in a disastrous economy deserves more sympathy than choosing to live somewhere that might experience flooding or fires or earthquakes.

[redqueen]

93. No, it's because it's economically feasible.

It would not be so feasible to live in high-risk places if we as taxpayers were not subsidizing private insurance companies.

Read about the Homeowners’ Insurance Availability Act.

[mondo joe]

98. Separate issue. The OP, IMO, posits that only so much sympathy

can be maintained for people who repeatedly make the same choice that leads to negative outcomes.

While I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with that notion, I do note that it is applied very selectively.

[redqueen]

101. Well if y'all want to argue about people's feelings, have at it.

I'd rather try to address the actual issues that create the problems that lead to the bad feelings.

[mondo joe]

102. Okay. Thank you.

That's very civilized and thoughtful.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's an argument about feelings so much as about logical inconsistency. :-)

[redqueen]

107. How is it inconsistent?

[mondo joe]

110. The OP fails to apply his or her standard across all such choices.

Whether you choose to live in an area more likely to experience fire, or an area more likely to remain in an economic rut, it's still a choice.

[redqueen]

111. I see it differently, because no one bails anyone out of the

economic ruts.

The taxpayers bail insurers out of these ruts by subsidizing insurance companies' risks.

[mondo joe]

149. Ah, but we may see things more similarly than that.

Taxes do provide for the economically disadvantaged - not as much as they should, but they do. I spent my childhood on the free lunch program at school, and then was able to go to college in part because tax funded $ were there for me (as well as private scholarships).

People who gripe about tax funded programs such as those - usually conservatives - tend to be much more sympathetic to natural-disaster relief. And the point I make, on the rare occasion that I encounter them, is that some people face economic disaster because of where they live, and that's no more their fault than people who get caught by hurricanes or fires.

So I'm sticking with that.

[redqueen]

161. Okay, for standing structures, that works...

but given that these natural disasters will likely be occurring with increasing frequency due to climate change, how about we stop funding the subsidies for new development in areas where insurance companies already won't provide affordable coverage?

Does that seem more fair?

[Tyler Durden]

112. Please don't bother.

These people wouldn't take "I'm Sorry" without chiming in "WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME, ASSHOLE."

Nobody gets the real meaning of what I said, and they don't care in the first place.

[redqueen]

114. Sorry but I will.

I'm not out of steam yet. :P

FWIW, I think you made a good point... it seems to have been lost in the emotional ruckus, unfortunately.

[Tyler Durden]

118. Have at it. I ran out of gas.

I kept trying to get people to READ. Then when they did, they wanted to play who said what.

[redqueen]

123. Actually, watching how the cause is ignored... in favor of

bitching back and forth about the symptoms, I think you've got the right idea.

Oh well. :hi:

[Le Taz Hot]

103. *I*

treated you badly? How/when did I do this? :wow:

[MedleyMisty]

63. I understand that you're trying to find someone to blame your economic woes on

Earlier this week it was the South.

Instead of looking for regions to blame it on, why not look at the corporations who made the decisions that led to your area's current situation? Most people are just trying to get through their day with what they've got. Whatever is wrong in your area is not the fault of powerless people in other areas.

[Tyler Durden]

67. NO I'M NOT.

So if you don't want to really read what I wrote, I'm headed back to The Lounge, where I guess all of us Yahoos you don't like should go.

[Joanie Baloney]

86. Sigh...

I don't know why you insist on going back to the Lounge, but I suppose it is your right.


;)

[Tyler Durden]

129. Why stay here and take this abuse?

I admit to a failing, and these people say "YEAH, and FUCK YOU TOO, WHILE YOU'RE AT IT."

[daninthemoon]

99. I feel your pain Tyler. I think I'm on just about everyone's "ignore"

list for trying to express that some of these So Cal hillsides are not inhabitable. I expressed it poorly (not like you), and deserved some of the blowback, but found myself in a hopeless pile on of some really mean stuff. I'm still losing sleep over it. From my heart, I can't express enough how badly I feel for the victim's of these fires.

[Tyler Durden]

117. Like I said up thread:

You could apologize profusely here, and they'd immediately chime in with "IT'S ABOUT TIME, ASSHOLE!"

I have never seen such emotion based non logic in my LIFE. I hate to gum up the lounge with something controversial, but I guess it's my character defect to try to explain sometimes.

[jgraz]

72. And really, why would anyone live in an area that has repeated economic downturns?

After that first economic downturn, I'd have packed up my family and moved someplace else. It's your own fault, really.

[slutticus]

160. Holy Shit! It is the same D-bag!

I hadn't noticed.

LOL

Who's next, the southwest? Maybe those damn Hawaiians and their lava flows.

[frylock]

70. i suppose we can start eradicating people to free up more space..

kinda like Logan's Run. Either that or just start building hi-rises in residential and suburban regions. Perhaps you have a more viable solution.

[Beelzebud]

74. Much simpler. People act like assholes on the anonymous internet.

Put people in the same room, and you'd never hear some of the bullshit you'll read online.

[redqueen]

80. I say it's much more complicated.

But, alas...

[redqueen]

76. Blame bills like the Homeowners’ Insurance Availability Act.

Without federal assistance, it wouldn't be so easy to re-build there, because it'd be next to impossible to get insurance.

Misguided at best.

[jgraz]

83. This entire thread is about to collapse into a black hole of irony

Let's see if I have this straight: Tyler comes to GD, posts inflammatory material and then is shocked, SHOCKED when he gets flamed.

If only his OP was something insensitive about people expecting to avoid flames by doing the same thing they did last time.

Oh wait, it was. :rofl:

[Land Shark]

92. show me a REBUILT house insurers failed to insure, and I'll buy the point

but then ONLY as to THOSE houses.

Let's take a look at some real fault: Bush policy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2141076&mesg_id=2141076

[jgraz]

94. Of course, that's totally not my point

It has nothing to do with insurance and everything to do with Tyler being silly. :rofl:

[redqueen]

95. Insurers wouldn't be able to offer affordable insurance, if not for

the Homeowners’ Insurance Availability Act

*sigh*

[Land Shark]

115. Unless you're saying this act completely eliminates any incentive for insurers

to save money, and eliminates their ability to raise rates based on risk factors completely, my point still stands about the incentives of the insurers. (to a significant extent) How about blaming Bush policy, based on specific warnings on June 1, 2007? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2141076&mesg_id=2141076

[redqueen]

120. Bush policy shares blame, too, of course, in this particular event.

However this disastrous insurance subsidy burdens taxpayers with the bill in all kinds of disaster-prone areas.

Your point about how much risk seems meaningless. The fact is that insurance companies would not be able to offer affordable rates if not for taxpayer subsidies. In other words, if the market were left alone to decide, growth in those areas wouldn't be so expansive.

[fishnfla]

84. You are making a very common shortsighted assumtion

and a very ignorant one at that.

Most likely NONE of these houses were destroyed before, and if they rebuild it will very likely NEVER happen again.

People assume that when a hurricane or fire strikes it hits the same area again and again destroying the same property over and over. Newsflash: California is a big place

That aint the way it works. Try and think harder, please

[redqueen]

100. Why get nasty? Try and think harder?

Yes, California is a big place, but the insurance companies know where the higher-risk areas are, and they wouldn't insure them at affordable rates if not for taxpayer subsidies.

[fishnfla]

119. me nasty ? Jeez, see post 104

Whats wrong with encouraging better thought?

I get tired of getting ragged on for where i choose top live my life

[redqueen]

122. Yeah, I never said you were the only one... or the worst...

I just happened to read yours before that super nasty one.

*sigh*

We're emotional creatures... none of us are innocent of having those kinds of reactions, so I didn't mean to crucify or vilify you for it.

But truly, I don't see how OP 'ragged' on people based on where they choose to live... all he said was that he didn't understannd it... that's not 'ragging', is it?

[fishnfla]

124. Actually the most bothersome part is

he keeps saying "we" and "us", as in "we dont understand you" (upthread) so thats not all "he" said

Presumption is the worst part of assumption

actually read the OP again: whom does he presume to be talking to, and for? it is full of "we" and "us" not understanding

[redqueen]

125. What?

So... that's an insult? That he used "we" instead of "I"?

:shrug:

[fishnfla]

126. No, you said

" all he said is he didn't understand it"

he didn't say that. read the post I didn't say it was an insult either. I'm saying it is presumptuous.

[redqueen]

127. Okay, you didn't use "insult", you used "ragged on".

[Tyler Durden]

132. Nobody ragged on you. Certainly not ME.

I expressed a defect in that I cannot understand why people build in those fire areas. It's a common Midwestern Failing: over cautiousness. I linked that to others who were less than gracious in expressing compassion for California. For that I get BARBECUED.

I'm trying to understand. You don't want me too, fine.

[Garbo 2004]

156. I wonder how many of those "Californians" you can't understand are natives of the midwest,

mideast? And other places in the US?

You talk about "Californians" as if they're another species. A lot of them are your former midwestern/mideastern neighbors or have their not so distant roots there or in other parts of the country.

Maybe California should have a limit on immigration from other states, keeping out those folks from other parts of the country who deliberately choose to live in unfavorable environments and who contribute to urban and suburban sprawl. There's an idea. ;)

[daninthemoon]

108. California is a huge place. Desert, mountain forest, cropland...

Small parts of it are arid semidesert chaparal foothills that have evolved to burn every few years. Those places were heavily developed in the last twenty years. These will burn every few years. That is how it works.

[fishnfla]

116. So how many of these homes and businesses that were destroyed this time

were destroyed before?

[daninthemoon]

135. We won't know yet. Lake Arrowhead burned 3 or 4 years ago.

Most of these areas were only developed in the last twenty years or so, so even though the homes may have burned for the first time, the area is destined to burn again within a few years. Some of these areas should not have been developed. This huge firestorm also hit some communities like Ramona which have been around for much longer. It's going to be a complicated picture, and I just hope it gets some serious scrutiny with an eye to preventing further loss.

[IronLionZion]

90. How's your state's economy doing?

What's the crime rate like in Detroit and Flint? Just asking...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2007_North_American_ice_storm#Canada.2C_Michigan_and_New_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Great_Lakes_Derecho_of_1991#Southern_Michigan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb_Fire

Look, I love the great state of Michigan and hope to go to the U of M (go wolverines!), but no place is perfect. There are plenty of people who don't understand why anyone even lives in Michigan considering your economy, urban decline, crime, weather, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, bad roads, etc...

[tjwash]

104. Fuck you Tyler.

We don't want or need your fake sympathy OK?

First of all, the levies have failed in New Orleans historically before Katrina, so you might as well include them in your smarmy little list of people that are sucking away desperately needed money for your state as well.

Nice broad brush by the way. Everyone in NOLA, or Florida, or any coastal state is for living where hurricanes happen to hit are stupid.

You did manage to miss all those dumb asses that just continue to keep on living in the center third of the country where tornadoes always seem to blast through. How can they just keep building and building? Why if they didn't supply all of the food for the US and half of the rest of the world, they would be completely useless to everyone. How about the idiots up north in Canada that freeze up when mega-ice storms strike? You forgot to extend your "sympathies" to them as well.

Second of all, how dare you post an offhand comment to try and blame your states economic woes on disaster victims. Then try and justify it by saying; "but I DO feel sorry for them..." That is the lowest of the low type comments I have heard here.

Unbelievable.

[redqueen]

105. Fake sympathy?

Jesus.

*sigh*

[tjwash]

131. Come on...the guy can't stand there, cover himself in gasoline, and flick his bic...

...and expect to not get covered in flame.

This is a paraphrase of what everyone is seeing....

"blah blah blah...why does everyone keep rebuilding in a disaster area? It's stupid." Even though that actually applies to 90 percent of the country.

"...It's taking away money that we need here in Michigan." Sorry to inconvenience you buddy.

"...but...we DO feel sorry for you." Great. That means a whole lot after reading the rest of that.

Seriously; if you're gonna go screaming down the information superhighway blindfolded at 110 mph, you MAY want to look twice, maybe a third time before you hit "post". It's better to be thought an insensitive jerk by 50 million people than to hit "send" and remove all doubt.

Ah screw it. I'm just gonna hide this thread...

[redqueen]

136. I think people are reading into it based on other things they've read.

That's what I think.

Because honestly, it's just a fact that the taxpayer money that is spent to underwrite insurance companies so they can affordably cover those areas could be used elsewhere. Whether you think it's better spent on that sort of thing or another is simply a matter of opinion.

[noiretextatique]

133. i'm a native californian

living in oakland now, but i grew up in LA. there are areas in southern california that burn in the summer and slide in the winter, and clearly people shouldn't build in those areas. but since they are very expensive and exclusive areas, wealthy people keep building and the fires burn them out and the rains slide them down the hill. and unlike katrina survivors, insurance companies actually pay these people, just like they paid the folks in the oakland hills fire (also wealthy). and there you have it.

[Tyler Durden]

140. Careful....

I can hear it now..."TRAITOR! TURNCOAT!"

We fail when we stop trying to UNDERSTAND.

[noiretextatique]

163. one clarification...i am talking more about malibu

than san diego. malibu is an area that is prone to mudslides, wildfires, and floods. it's where all the hollywooders, pro athletes, and other very wealthy folks live.

[kineneb]

181. Hi, fellow (rare) native.

a friend from farther north greet you.
(Hubby is a native, too!)
:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Thanks for proving once again my little theory

this nation is on the road to civil war

You are right, we have less and less in common with you

Perhaps it is time for the Regions to go their own way.

[Tyler Durden]

138. It's not like we aren't trying.

It's that some people on both sides accept nothing but unconditional surrender.

I'm TRYING. Are YOU?

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. I think it is time to work for secesion

yes

After all you just told me that it is time to do that

[Tyler Durden]

141. Do what you fee you must...

I can't say I don't see good reasons for it.

I wish you luck...

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Thanks I knew you would

after all if the ninth largest world economy left the US, there would be consequences to your economy.

[Tyler Durden]

147. I wouldn't gloat.

Music and entertainment work just as well in New York and Toronto.

Most Industry DOES NOT have its headquarters in foreign nations, and we might just make Alcoa and Microsoft some offers they can't refuse.

Our industrial base hasn't disappeared: it's just not running at the moment, and you have to MAKE things to SELL things.

You won't get far shuffling paper, and New York and New Jersey can ramp up for ports pretty quickly.

See? This sort of talk is bad for everyone.

[YvonneCa]

197. Except you forgot...

...agriculture is #1 here...San Joaquin Valley...remember? We make things. We grow things. Industrial age is going away...it's the information age, and we're there. :)

[Lilith Velkor]

145. Can't happen soon enough for me

I mean regions going their own way, not civil war, of course, but it will probably come to that.

Everybody bitches and whines about those fuckers in DC, and every two/four/six years they re-elect most of them, and we don't even get a choice in the matter. :grr:

[Tyler Durden]

148. We don't EITHER.

We aren't exactly your enemies here. And my opinion that is that there will be a loss for every gain and sometimes loss without gain in a break up.

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia haven't exactly been "poster children" for the concept of nations dissolving.

[Lilith Velkor]

151. Huh?

Last I heard, every state has an election where they choose who to send to DC to represent them. DC residents get no senators, one nonvoting delegate in the House, federal control of the city budget, and any local laws can be overridden if some jagoff from the dirty-dirty wants to impress the voters in East Buttfuck.

At best, the breakup would only be as fucked-up as that of the Soviet Union, but knowing us, we'll make Yugoslavia look like fucking Disneyland.

[nealmhughes]

183. Huh? The Czech and Slovak divorce was quite amicable. Unlike the Bosnian-Serbian-

Croat-Slovenian mess.

[Tyler Durden]

187. As they both slowly slide into oblivion.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. No shit. 8th Largest economy in the world, 90% of the USA's produce.

33 Million People.

And we still only get 2 votes in the US Senate.

Fuck 'em. I think California would do much better on its own.

[NorthernSpy]

143. wow. such an outpouring of outrage your post has generated...

I only wish that the vicious things said about the Katrina victims could have generated an outpouring of similar vehemence and magnitude.



And if anyone thinks that a post asking why people use tax-underwritten insurance to rebuild in fire zones counts as "hate", then that person leads a mighty sheltered existence as far as exposure to genuine hate goes.

[kwassa]

157. Tyler, do you remember how US taxpayers bailed out Chrysler ?????

The auto industry got free money, too.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html

After weeks of rising pressure for a federal fix for the multiplying problems of Chrysler Corp., Treasury Secretary G. William Miller produced—and Jimmy Carter approved —a Government bailout. It was designed to prevent the nation's No. 3 automaker (1978 sales: $13.6 billion) from sliding into a bankruptcy that could have put many thousands out of work and sent a shudder through U.S. financial markets.

Beamed Chrysler Chairman John Riccardo "We are extremely encouraged. This fits the bill."

In his first public act at the Treasury, Miller spelled out the ideological ground rules of federal aid and warned other troubled companies against expecting similar help. Such assistance, he said, "is neither desirable nor appropriate, being contrary to the principle of free enterprise." But Chrysler was an unusual exception, he added, in which the Administration "recognizes that there is a public interest in sustaining jobs and maintaining a strong and competitive national automotive industry."

[depakid]

159. He's right about one thing- Southern California has shit for land use planning

And it's going to keep coming back to haunt people- worse and worse, year after year. And not just with respect to fire & mudslides.

Wait'll people see what $7-$10 per gallon gas does to an almost completely car dependent society.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. Having lived both in the Midwest and California, I think you all should fess up: It's Jealousy.

Admit it.

Also, despite this bullshit about some places being "not meant to live in", disasters happen all over. Even in the midwest- flooding, tornadoes, even giant fucking snow and ice storms (I was in Chicago in 1979, ahem.)

When was the last time San Diego was destroyed by fires? This isn't happening every year, certainly not in the exact same place. Last massive fires, destruction-wise, that I can remember being this bad in California were in the Berkeley/Oakland hills. And that was, what, over 15 years ago?

California is a BIG PLACE. Yes, "every year" there are "fires, mudsildes, earthquakes" somewhere in California, but that doesn't mean we're constantly rebuilding our houses every six months. Certainly not on YOUR dime.

Maybe no one has explained to you how insurance works, but trust me- they have professional bean counters who carefully quantify the risks of these fires and earthquakes (which is paid for on a separate insurance policy, by the way) so the people who are getting "paid" by their insurance companies to rebuild have PAID for it in their policies and in the policies of other people living in places where pissed off, bitchy frostbitten midwesterners don't think they should be allowed to live.

Let's take your logic one step further- you're unemployed and you can't afford your house in the Midwest because there are no jobs there? Why is that our problem? Why don't you move? What business do you have, living in an area where there are no jobs? :shrug:

[daninthemoon]

169. San Diego was destroyed by fire? I'm so ignorant, I thought it

was the over-developed chaparral covered hills around San Diego. Wow, so it is just like the disaster danger of living anywhere. It's not that small areas outside the established cities are prone to these fires every few years, and have been over-developed in the last twenty. It's the actual city itself that burned. :sarcasm: This is what is so unfortunate about the outrage coming from California. And yes, I know this was a particularly bad firestorm, and it did reach into San Diego and some other established places like Ramona. The common folk out there, stuck in incredibly over-valued homes, are just like common folks anywhere. These newly developed areas in these hills are a separate matter, and those places will definitely burn the same place every few "year after year". Then there will be a mudslide. Then the natural cycle will repeat. Not every part of California, not even all of So Cal, but some parts are not habitable, and will suffer these things at a much higher rate than the natural disasters mentioned.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. As long as you know who to hate, that's what's important.

Bet it feels so gooooooooooood. :eyes:

[daninthemoon]

189. Who do I hate? I must've forgot.

[slutticus]

164. I live here because of my job.

My industry is pretty much based here. Does that make "sense" to you?


Should I move to Michigan and be poor because I'm afraid of quakes? Sure, i could buy a house for about $5,000 in MI, but that's not enough incentive for me.


Fuck that.

[kestrel91316]

172. Note to Tyler: #1 - It's different places that burn every year.

#2 - Most of us have never been burned out and never even come close.

I happen to think anyone who builds or rebuilds in these areas that have a history of periodically burning should be building to a much higher standard of fireproofing: steel roof, steel window shutters (functional), concrete block or stucco exterior - all those things they KNOW will virtually fireproof a house. And ditch the damned eucalyptus and palm trees. Seriously. They are like Roman candles.

[daninthemoon]

184. But it's not different places. It's the over-developed So Cal

chaparral covered hills. Those places evolved to burn every few years. That's where development should have never happened. Not the other 90someodd% of the state.

[kestrel91316]

185. So, what do you propose to DO ABOUT IT right now? Evict the

people who live there and abandon the neighborhoods??? Seriously.

You come up with a proposal as good as or better than mine and maybe we can start talking.

[daninthemoon]

190. Fireproof as possible is good. Will it be done? Smarter

landscaping also good. What about the surrounding chaparal? I hope it all happens. You're right, the people are there now, and if there's a blame to be placed it should go on the greedy developers that put these people at risk.

[kestrel91316]

194. The "surrounding chapparal" is already taken care of by regulations

in effect re brush clearance on private property. It would be COMPLETELY environmentally inappropriate (and physically impossible, besides) to clear all our brush. That's the native ecosystem and we value it, believe it or not. It's what grows here, and you take what you've got.

The developers who want sprawl sprawl sprawl for the sake of more $$$$$$ and the county officials who approve the sprawl for the sake of tax $$$$$$ are both to blame.

Somebody who lives in Topanga and has seen his share of fires told me that, when the fires come through and get houses, the houses that burn are usually older construction with poor fire-resistance. We still have homes in these areas with wood shake shingle roofs and wood siding, believe it or not. Folks with metal roofs, metal shutters, and fire-resistant siding are much better off. Apparently LA County has had regulations since the 70s about sprinkler systems (rooftop?? indoors??) in housing. The trendy tile roofs are not completely safe. And the mandatory attic vents suck embers into attics......

[YvonneCa]

198. How old are you...

...daninthemoon? Even the established areas, built 50 -100 years or more ago were once chapparal covered hills. S. California is a desert...all of it.

[daninthemoon]

201. That's certainly true.

[daninthemoon]

203. Or to be a bit more specific: time wise you are absolutely correct.

The main urban areas of LA and Orange counties are in a relatively flat basin. Before dams were built, it was a large alluvial plain, with estuaries and marshes as well as seasonaly drier flatlands. Abutting that are mountains to the north, and chaparral foothills to the east and south down to Mexico. East of that are mountains, and then the high and low deserts. The deserts and even the mountains generally do not burn. The alluvial basin doesn't burn. The chaparral foothills and canyons burn often.

[fishnfla]

173. tyler, seriously

you keep switching back and forth from first person singular ( "I& Me") to first person plural ( "we&us") whenever it seems to suit your needs. It has been directly asked and ignored: when you say " we" who are you talking about? The whole state of Michigan, or what?

Do you not understand how devisive that comes across? How can you presume to speak for others? Why the "dis"?

It sounds to me like you have a bitter rusty chip on your shoulder and you are using a natural disaster as some sort of platform. Was that you harping on the Southeast stealing jobs last week?

Come clean, whats your beef, really?

[Marr]

176. Well I find it hard to care about your economic problems then.

What an arrogant post.

[slackmaster]

180. As for you folks who live in areas prone to blizzards, tornados, hurricanes, etc.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that you choose to live there either.

Or why you would choose to live in a place that has no jobs.

[bigwillq]

182. But these places are people's "homes"

And I would rebuild there too if disaster struck. If a flood, fire or blizzard destroyed my house in CT, I would rebuild because it's my "home". But I don't see why people choose to move to disaster prone areas (maybe unless they have to move for work but then hopefully they would find the safest place to live).

[QueenOfCalifornia]

192. Oh my fucking GOD!

Someone gets it.

Holy shit... May I buy you a drink?

I have been saying this for a week and have been told to STFU.

*LOVE* from a SURIVOR in San Diego.

[bigwillq]

196. I'll take a Heineken.

Thank you. :beer: :) :hi:

[Paladin]

195. Skirting The Edge Again, Are We, Mr. Durden?

Let's see---Michigan is in awful shape, so it's really hard to feel sorry for people in another region of the country who are dealing with a catatrophe. That about cover it?

You got your ass in a crack over the unfortunate comments you made about the southeastern drought a few days ago. If you're such a self-described "very smart guy," why the hell are you pulling this same miserable crap all over again? I hope you're enough of a "very smart guy" to realize just how bad all this makes you look.....

[YvonneCa]

200. And, finally, Tyler...

...to these words:


"We just don't understand you, and nothing you say about how GREAT it is to live there is going to convince us that you aren't being realistic."

1) Everyone rebuilds in their 'home' city, if they can...because home is where they want to be.

2) I take issue with being judged as 'realistic' or 'not realistic' about my choices, by others who "have not walked in my moccasins." Rebuilding in a home city (even one plagued by earthquake, fire, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) is easily as realistic as staying in a home city impacted by the shift from the industrial age to the information age and the impact of globalization. Or maybe being a little 'unrealistic' is how we all cope. PEACE.

[pinto]

206. Overall, I think Californians know the risks. Fire is a given, as you say.

As in 2003, this fire may well be another heads up to many about how to mitigate the recurring wildfires, preparedness and our overall policy for fire suppression in the American west.

The 'no fire at any time' policy is self-defeating. Controlled burns and allowing some small fires to burn themselves out more closely matches the natural cycle. A patchwork of burned out fuel may limit the ability of late season fires to become firestorms.

Thanks.