4 ms·

It's really hard to reconcile the fact that we need to build a lot more housing in California with the fact that we can't keep building in places where that hou

by qppo 6y ago

It's really hard to reconcile the fact that we need to build a lot more housing in California with the fact that we can't keep building in places where that housing is going to burn down in the near future. I don't know how long it's going to be until we realize that in certain areas, single family homes are non-viable for the middle and lower class, since we need medium to high density housing in the valleys below hills where fire risk is at its highest and insurance rates should be obscene.

donw 6y ago
I don't think that's the problem. People, especially as they get older, tend to want more space. Being close to nature -- and California, in those rare moments when it isn't on fire, has beautiful nature -- is also a big draw. The people living in those homes aren't, broadly speaking, lower-class. They live out there precisely because they aren't interested in medium- or high-density housing, for a variety of reasons. I would say the primary cause is overzealous environmental legislation, brought to you by the same people that have fought tooth-and-nail against nuclear power -- and thus for burning lots of coal -- for the past seventy years. Clean air is great. I like strong emissions standards on cars and factories. But controlled burns have been absolutely hobbled for years by regulators and environmental groups. One of my nephews is a firefighter, currently in California. He'll rant your ear off about this.
- mint2 6y ago
  If your nephew doesn’t mention liability concerns as a reason controlled burns aren’t done then you probably shouldn’t listen to him. Light night starts a fire, it burns down a house, who is liable? Government in the name of fire prevention starts a fire, it gets out of control and burns down a house, who is liable?
  - donw 6y ago
    You know, that’s a fair point that I hadn’t thought about. I naïvely assumed that regulatory frameworks would take care of this, and I’m curious what legal precedent there is?

by qppo 6y ago

donw 6y ago

I don't think that's the problem. People, especially as they get older, tend to want more space. Being close to nature -- and California, in those rare moments when it isn't on fire, has beautiful nature -- is also a big draw. The people living in those homes aren't, broadly speaking, lower-class. They live out there precisely because they aren't interested in medium- or high-density housing, for a variety of reasons. I would say the primary cause is overzealous environmental legislation, brought to you by the same people that have fought tooth-and-nail against nuclear power -- and thus for burning lots of coal -- for the past seventy years. Clean air is great. I like strong emissions standards on cars and factories. But controlled burns have been absolutely hobbled for years by regulators and environmental groups. One of my nephews is a firefighter, currently in California. He'll rant your ear off about this.

mint2 6y ago
If your nephew doesn’t mention liability concerns as a reason controlled burns aren’t done then you probably shouldn’t listen to him. Light night starts a fire, it burns down a house, who is liable? Government in the name of fire prevention starts a fire, it gets out of control and burns down a house, who is liable?
- donw 6y ago
  You know, that’s a fair point that I hadn’t thought about. I naïvely assumed that regulatory frameworks would take care of this, and I’m curious what legal precedent there is?