8 ms·

Precisely true. For a state so prescient about the effects of climate change, it's downright hypocritical to foresee droughts and fires but then allow that zon

Precisely true. For a state so prescient about the effects of climate change, it's downright hypocritical to foresee droughts and fires but then allow that zoning (it's the same to worse in Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt). All the towns built flush to or into ther forest, little access, and no buffer. They're big on the dramatic things like establishing a carbon exchange or banning gas cars 15 years from now, but obvious and pragmatic preparedness escapes them. Time to balance "heads in the clouds" with "feet on the ground".

sjtindell 6y ago
That definitely comes down to the simple fact that those changes being made to address climate change fears are new. Building all the communities was done a while ago.
rsynnott 6y ago
Those towns are quite old. Once a town exists, in a non-totalitarian country, it is virtually impossible to get rid of it, no matter how impractical.
- clairity 6y ago
  folks shouldn't be trying to get rid of those towns wholesale, just price in the risk and the externalized costs appropriately. easier said than done of course, as our legislative and regulatory apparatus has been broadly subjugated to real estate interests.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Pricing in the externalities of peoples’ houses is a bit of a Pandora’s box, and I can understand why no-one’s too eager to do it. If you’re going purely utilitarian, well, that’s rural housing out the window for a start. Essentially all of it.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Plenty of rural housing has minimal fire risk, especially if homes are built from fire resistant materials and homeowners take proper responsibility for clearing defensible space.
    - warkdarrior 6y ago
      Assume houses/buildings in those areas WILL burn down each year and price insurance accordingly. Then have regulations (and government enforcement) that owners must have insurance.
- novok 6y ago
  It's not about getting rid of the village, but legislating that the town needs a gravel firebreak around their city limits, which might get rid of the 'we are in the middle of a forest' feel that they are going for. Somewhat like building codes so people don't live in toothpick houses that burn away or shake away in a flash.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Again, though, the houses already exist. The firebreak might be doable, but who’s paying for it?
    - novok 6y ago
      The city and the people who live in it? Municipal bonds? Firezone income & sales taxes? It's like a special assessment in a condo when you haven't been managing your reserves properly and by law / ADA you MUST fix your elevator to make your building accessible for people who cannot walk up stairs. As to how? Like many other govt infrastructure projects, eminent domain. Except this land nobody will be living on, it will probably just be uninhabited farm or forest land or already owned by the state.
      - nradov 6y ago
        If we're talking about New Almaden, it isn't even a city. Just an unincorporated small community in Santa Clara county. There is no realistic way to fund major fire safety projects there. The county is tapped out, there is no way to raise taxes significantly, and other more heavily populated areas have higher priority.
        RhysU 6y ago
        Sure there's a way to finance it! Make everyone else in the country subsidize New Almaden! Works for hurricane and tornado areas too!
        novok 6y ago
        We made roads & electric services to that place, I think a small gravel firebreak for their small community is not so much of a stretch.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  California's become used to rebuilding to address threats following earthquakes. It will come to do so to wildfire.. It won't be governments which remove these towns. Or at least their structures.
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  In the absence of government intervention, renters/homeowners insurance rates would rise to reflect actual fire risk. This would naturally result in people leaving risky towns. But the government doesn't allow that to happen by over-regulating the insurance industry.
gamblor956 6y ago
In the Camp Fire that killed 100 people, the trees in the town of Paradise didn't burn. The buildings did. Firefighters were shocked to enter the town and see so much foliage unburnt between the ruins of smoking buildings. You can see some of those pictures on the Wikipedia page for Paradise, CA. While the trees and dry bush do provide the bulk of the fuel for fires, man-made structures are far more flammable than the forests that surround them, especially in the towns consisting of older structures that don't have modern anti-fire alterations.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  The trees were alive and had moisture, whereas the buildings had dead leaves and pine needles that were dry, so when fire brands/embers landed on them they had lots of kindling. I'm not sure why firefighters would be shocked as the fire scientists at (e.g.) the USDA Forest Service have been doing research on this for many years: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_syp1ZScM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_syp1ZScM
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Yes, my point was that trees are not the risk, the buildings are. CA forests are built around wildfires, and have adjusted to them over the centuries. We have not. (The firefighters were shocked because they weren't expecting the trees in the town to be almost untouched, given the devastation in the surrounding forests.)
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
  Yeah, a lot of trees are pretty fire resistant as well. Not all trees are kindling.
- m463 6y ago
  fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#/media/File:Paradise_after_the_Camp_Fire,_July_2019-7428.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#/media/Fi... You can see that the outer layer of the trees burned but they retained their form. Seeing this I can imagine that tree rings for the sequoias probably have a lot to teach us.

sjtindell 6y ago

That definitely comes down to the simple fact that those changes being made to address climate change fears are new. Building all the communities was done a while ago.

rsynnott 6y ago

Those towns are quite old. Once a town exists, in a non-totalitarian country, it is virtually impossible to get rid of it, no matter how impractical.

clairity 6y ago
folks shouldn't be trying to get rid of those towns wholesale, just price in the risk and the externalized costs appropriately. easier said than done of course, as our legislative and regulatory apparatus has been broadly subjugated to real estate interests.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Pricing in the externalities of peoples’ houses is a bit of a Pandora’s box, and I can understand why no-one’s too eager to do it. If you’re going purely utilitarian, well, that’s rural housing out the window for a start. Essentially all of it.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Plenty of rural housing has minimal fire risk, especially if homes are built from fire resistant materials and homeowners take proper responsibility for clearing defensible space.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
    Assume houses/buildings in those areas WILL burn down each year and price insurance accordingly. Then have regulations (and government enforcement) that owners must have insurance.
novok 6y ago
It's not about getting rid of the village, but legislating that the town needs a gravel firebreak around their city limits, which might get rid of the 'we are in the middle of a forest' feel that they are going for. Somewhat like building codes so people don't live in toothpick houses that burn away or shake away in a flash.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Again, though, the houses already exist. The firebreak might be doable, but who’s paying for it?
  - novok 6y ago
    The city and the people who live in it? Municipal bonds? Firezone income & sales taxes? It's like a special assessment in a condo when you haven't been managing your reserves properly and by law / ADA you MUST fix your elevator to make your building accessible for people who cannot walk up stairs. As to how? Like many other govt infrastructure projects, eminent domain. Except this land nobody will be living on, it will probably just be uninhabited farm or forest land or already owned by the state.
    - nradov 6y ago
      If we're talking about New Almaden, it isn't even a city. Just an unincorporated small community in Santa Clara county. There is no realistic way to fund major fire safety projects there. The county is tapped out, there is no way to raise taxes significantly, and other more heavily populated areas have higher priority.
      - RhysU 6y ago
        Sure there's a way to finance it! Make everyone else in the country subsidize New Almaden! Works for hurricane and tornado areas too!
      - novok 6y ago
        We made roads & electric services to that place, I think a small gravel firebreak for their small community is not so much of a stretch.
dredmorbius 6y ago
California's become used to rebuilding to address threats following earthquakes. It will come to do so to wildfire.. It won't be governments which remove these towns. Or at least their structures.
diebeforei485 6y ago
In the absence of government intervention, renters/homeowners insurance rates would rise to reflect actual fire risk. This would naturally result in people leaving risky towns. But the government doesn't allow that to happen by over-regulating the insurance industry.

gamblor956 6y ago

In the Camp Fire that killed 100 people, the trees in the town of Paradise didn't burn. The buildings did. Firefighters were shocked to enter the town and see so much foliage unburnt between the ruins of smoking buildings. You can see some of those pictures on the Wikipedia page for Paradise, CA. While the trees and dry bush do provide the bulk of the fuel for fires, man-made structures are far more flammable than the forests that surround them, especially in the towns consisting of older structures that don't have modern anti-fire alterations.

throw0101a 6y ago
The trees were alive and had moisture, whereas the buildings had dead leaves and pine needles that were dry, so when fire brands/embers landed on them they had lots of kindling. I'm not sure why firefighters would be shocked as the fire scientists at (e.g.) the USDA Forest Service have been doing research on this for many years: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_syp1ZScM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_syp1ZScM
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Yes, my point was that trees are not the risk, the buildings are. CA forests are built around wildfires, and have adjusted to them over the centuries. We have not. (The firefighters were shocked because they weren't expecting the trees in the town to be almost untouched, given the devastation in the surrounding forests.)
onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
Yeah, a lot of trees are pretty fire resistant as well. Not all trees are kindling.
m463 6y ago
fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#/media/File:Paradise_after_the_Camp_Fire,_July_2019-7428.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#/media/Fi... You can see that the outer layer of the trees burned but they retained their form. Seeing this I can imagine that tree rings for the sequoias probably have a lot to teach us.