7 ms·

> The main problem there No, the main problem there was a neighborhood situated in a highly flammable area in the middle of a forest.

carpedimebagjoe 6y ago
It wasn't a "forest." I lived there for five years. It was islands of tall trees. Nearly all of them were maintained by arborists because of the liability of widowmakers. Our 1/2 acre yard had 7 tall trees and two giant lawns, nothing close to a "forest." The trees were only "highly-flammable" because of the extreme lack of rain drying out the brush acting as kindling and the trees acting as fuel.
- listenallyall 6y ago
  > It wasn't a "forest" Says you. “People were living in the forest,” he said. https://amp.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article249017825.html https://amp.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article24901782... “Anybody in their right mind would know that the whole town was a large oak forest, and everybody was at risk,” Scherer said. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-deathtrap-20181230-story.html%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/local/californi...
  - carpedimebagjoe 6y ago
    Don't insult or disrespect me because I lived there and escaped the fire. Did you live there? Were you there? I have eyes, noticed the many tree species everyday, and density that was there before the disaster capitalism resource exploiters came in and cut down every tree that homeowners didn't defend ($1000+ per log). We had mostly pines in our yard that were constantly attacked by borer beetles and helped by woodpeckers. There were some places with more trees than others, but it wasn't an "oak forest." There were a dozen different species of trees. Our house survived because there wasn't fuel right next to the building and building codes work. Many of the houses that burned were dilapidated/poorly maintained, had trees overhanging or too close to their homes, or had fuel like bushes, pine needles, or firewood next to them. Do you know how many trash cans-full of pine needles I cleaned out of the gutters before putting gutter-guards in? Gimme a break with your know-nothing reporter regurgitated soundbite quips.
    - listenallyall 6y ago
      You're reinforcing my point. YOUR house didn't burn because you took a great deal of preventative measures and were extra-vigilant. The majority of people's houses did not survive, because they simply never realized (or just discounted) the enormous danger their property, and the entire city, was in, based on its location and proximity to the surrounding forest. In other cities, homes don't have large quantities of pine needles piling up. I really don't see how you can claim the town was NOT extraordinarily prone to fire, given what happened. PG&E has poorly-maintained powerlines all over the state and they often start small fires, but those don't result in the destruction of an entire town, except when the town and its surrounding area is a tinderbox.

carpedimebagjoe 6y ago

It wasn't a "forest." I lived there for five years. It was islands of tall trees. Nearly all of them were maintained by arborists because of the liability of widowmakers. Our 1/2 acre yard had 7 tall trees and two giant lawns, nothing close to a "forest." The trees were only "highly-flammable" because of the extreme lack of rain drying out the brush acting as kindling and the trees acting as fuel.

listenallyall 6y ago
> It wasn't a "forest" Says you. “People were living in the forest,” he said. https://amp.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article249017825.html https://amp.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article24901782... “Anybody in their right mind would know that the whole town was a large oak forest, and everybody was at risk,” Scherer said. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-camp-fire-deathtrap-20181230-story.html%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/local/californi...
- carpedimebagjoe 6y ago
  Don't insult or disrespect me because I lived there and escaped the fire. Did you live there? Were you there? I have eyes, noticed the many tree species everyday, and density that was there before the disaster capitalism resource exploiters came in and cut down every tree that homeowners didn't defend ($1000+ per log). We had mostly pines in our yard that were constantly attacked by borer beetles and helped by woodpeckers. There were some places with more trees than others, but it wasn't an "oak forest." There were a dozen different species of trees. Our house survived because there wasn't fuel right next to the building and building codes work. Many of the houses that burned were dilapidated/poorly maintained, had trees overhanging or too close to their homes, or had fuel like bushes, pine needles, or firewood next to them. Do you know how many trash cans-full of pine needles I cleaned out of the gutters before putting gutter-guards in? Gimme a break with your know-nothing reporter regurgitated soundbite quips.
  - listenallyall 6y ago
    You're reinforcing my point. YOUR house didn't burn because you took a great deal of preventative measures and were extra-vigilant. The majority of people's houses did not survive, because they simply never realized (or just discounted) the enormous danger their property, and the entire city, was in, based on its location and proximity to the surrounding forest. In other cities, homes don't have large quantities of pine needles piling up. I really don't see how you can claim the town was NOT extraordinarily prone to fire, given what happened. PG&E has poorly-maintained powerlines all over the state and they often start small fires, but those don't result in the destruction of an entire town, except when the town and its surrounding area is a tinderbox.