4 ms·

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 i

by 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.
SllX 6y ago
You’re assuming city limits exist. There’s a lot of places with names and lots of people in California that are just part of the County.
- novok 6y ago
  "If you live in a place that is wooded, you must have a firebreak or or be within a firebreak perimeter unless your housing can mobilize in 1 hour, such as a RV / tent, etc" Thinking of how to deal with edge cases is not hard people.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Not disagreeing, but you need a means of taking enforcement action. Legislation is meaningless without enforcement. Millions of people live in places that are for all practical purposes, towns, but without all the trappings of a town like a municipal government, local PD, fire department, etc. and rely on the County for these services. That’s hardly an edge case. Fire breaks are good if you can get them and maintain them, but you’re probably better off addressing that and other factors through the Insurance market. You also still need to actually maintain the forests to reduce risk. That means allowing some fires to burn so there isn’t a massive fuel build up, and removing dead trees which will burn and explode instead of leaving them as mulch. You still need a market based solution to encourage people to cull the woods near their property though because sometimes the only thing keeping responsible property owners from culling the woods near their property lines are their own neighbors who outvote them when it comes to making a decision. California is very democratic like that.

by novok 6y ago

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.

SllX 6y ago

You’re assuming city limits exist. There’s a lot of places with names and lots of people in California that are just part of the County.

novok 6y ago
"If you live in a place that is wooded, you must have a firebreak or or be within a firebreak perimeter unless your housing can mobilize in 1 hour, such as a RV / tent, etc" Thinking of how to deal with edge cases is not hard people.
- SllX 6y ago
  Not disagreeing, but you need a means of taking enforcement action. Legislation is meaningless without enforcement. Millions of people live in places that are for all practical purposes, towns, but without all the trappings of a town like a municipal government, local PD, fire department, etc. and rely on the County for these services. That’s hardly an edge case. Fire breaks are good if you can get them and maintain them, but you’re probably better off addressing that and other factors through the Insurance market. You also still need to actually maintain the forests to reduce risk. That means allowing some fires to burn so there isn’t a massive fuel build up, and removing dead trees which will burn and explode instead of leaving them as mulch. You still need a market based solution to encourage people to cull the woods near their property though because sometimes the only thing keeping responsible property owners from culling the woods near their property lines are their own neighbors who outvote them when it comes to making a decision. California is very democratic like that.