4 ms·
Ideally, people shouldn't live in high risk fire areas. However, there's already a shortage of housing on the west coast. Removing housing stock from fire areas
by bleepblorp 6y ago
Ideally, people shouldn't live in high risk fire areas. However, there's already a shortage of housing on the west coast. Removing housing stock from fire areas will reduce the fire risk to human life but will also make the housing shortage worse.
Short of resolving the NIMBY problem that prevents higher-density construction in fire-safe areas, paying residents in fire-prone areas to harden their communities is the best choice out of a selection of bad options.
Also keep in mind that keeping people away from fires does nothing to reduce the smoke problem, which is very severe in its own right. The solution needs to be fewer fires, whether they pose an immediate risk to human life or not.
- spaetzleesser 6y agoBuilding into fire areas is not a solution for the housing shortage. Usually these houses are widely distributed with tons of land around them. In absolute numbers they are probably negligible. But they cost a lot of money to protect during a fire.
- Ericson2314 6y ago> Short of resolving the NIMBY problem that prevents higher-density construction in fire-safe areas No, the NIMBY problem must be faced head-on. No more avoidance.