4 ms·

And that action is? Government seizes control of any property that is on these interfaces and kicks the people out of their homes? Or maybe the less harsh: gove

And that action is? Government seizes control of any property that is on these interfaces and kicks the people out of their homes? Or maybe the less harsh: government buys all these properties with eminent domain, kicks people off and lets the lands go fallow? What reality are you guys living in that you think any of this will happen and why do I feel that that same type of people placing forth such armchair planning and development mandates will be part of the crowd up in arms when people are being told they can no longer live where they do because we need to give the land back to the earth to burn in a peace. The reality of the situation is far more complex as is the solution.

nitrogen 5y ago
There's no need to jump to kicking people out of their homes. There are plenty of options: Special taxing districts and/or community volunteer programs in high fire risk areas to fund fuel removal initiatives -- think a crowd of people with power tools clearing dry grass and underbrush. Incentives and/or code changes for fire-resistant building. I know of someone in a fire-prone area who had to replace their cedar shake roof with a metal roof because the fire department told them they won't bother trying to save houses with wooden roofs. Changing expectations and funding for controlled burns, and helping/expecting property owners to assist with clearing debris so that controlled burns remain controlled. Ecosystem engineering beyond controlled burns -- it's a wicked hard problem, but it might be possible to breed, engineer, or import cultivars and species that are less prone to out-of-control fires.
- deeviant 5y ago
  So instead of kicking them out of your homes, you price them out with taxes? Mind you, I'm more mirroring the sentiment of the people who would be affected by your policy rather than simply dismissing it. There are policies, lots of policies. State, county, local. All up and down CA, but none of them are moving at the speed of climate change. Controlled burning is there, fire resistant buildings are there (although if you ez-bake a house it's gone regardless), building defensible areas (green belts) around cities that fuel control is economically feasible, all on the table. You can look at cities like Paradise, which was basically destroyed, for what these policies look like. The thing is, these policies take money, and time. Lots of both, and they already largely exist.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    If someone builds a home in a flood plane... Oh wait they do. Something has to give, subsidizing those who live in harm's way; to continue living in harms way; isn't the answer. Mistakes were made with zoning and building code. The proper fix seems situation dependent, but probably includes some combination of local engineering changes to safety (materials, what's allowed how close to what, evac routes, etc) and abandoning indefensible positions as unsafe for habitation. It generally makes sense for society as a whole to make a one time payment to reclaim areas for nature.
lliamander 5y ago
Why do you think those proposals you suggest are ones I would support? I actually know people who help fight these fires every year, and they seem to have some rather concrete ideas in mind of what should be done and I don't think it involves kicking people out of their homes.
- deeviant 5y ago
  Then share these concrete ideas with us all instead of going with, "just make local policies that fix everything".
  - lliamander 5y ago
    A big one would be opening up more forest for logging. Edit: but the main point here is listening more to the people who risk their lives to fight these fires, and the impression I get is that state politicians aren't doing that enough
mannerheim 5y ago
> And that action is? Government seizes control of any property that is on these interfaces and kicks the people out of their homes? Or maybe the less harsh: government buys all these properties with eminent domain, kicks people off and lets the lands go fallow? If a fire comes, just let their houses burn.

nitrogen 5y ago

There's no need to jump to kicking people out of their homes. There are plenty of options: Special taxing districts and/or community volunteer programs in high fire risk areas to fund fuel removal initiatives -- think a crowd of people with power tools clearing dry grass and underbrush. Incentives and/or code changes for fire-resistant building. I know of someone in a fire-prone area who had to replace their cedar shake roof with a metal roof because the fire department told them they won't bother trying to save houses with wooden roofs. Changing expectations and funding for controlled burns, and helping/expecting property owners to assist with clearing debris so that controlled burns remain controlled. Ecosystem engineering beyond controlled burns -- it's a wicked hard problem, but it might be possible to breed, engineer, or import cultivars and species that are less prone to out-of-control fires.

deeviant 5y ago
So instead of kicking them out of your homes, you price them out with taxes? Mind you, I'm more mirroring the sentiment of the people who would be affected by your policy rather than simply dismissing it. There are policies, lots of policies. State, county, local. All up and down CA, but none of them are moving at the speed of climate change. Controlled burning is there, fire resistant buildings are there (although if you ez-bake a house it's gone regardless), building defensible areas (green belts) around cities that fuel control is economically feasible, all on the table. You can look at cities like Paradise, which was basically destroyed, for what these policies look like. The thing is, these policies take money, and time. Lots of both, and they already largely exist.
- mjevans 5y ago
  If someone builds a home in a flood plane... Oh wait they do. Something has to give, subsidizing those who live in harm's way; to continue living in harms way; isn't the answer. Mistakes were made with zoning and building code. The proper fix seems situation dependent, but probably includes some combination of local engineering changes to safety (materials, what's allowed how close to what, evac routes, etc) and abandoning indefensible positions as unsafe for habitation. It generally makes sense for society as a whole to make a one time payment to reclaim areas for nature.

lliamander 5y ago

Why do you think those proposals you suggest are ones I would support? I actually know people who help fight these fires every year, and they seem to have some rather concrete ideas in mind of what should be done and I don't think it involves kicking people out of their homes.

deeviant 5y ago
Then share these concrete ideas with us all instead of going with, "just make local policies that fix everything".
- lliamander 5y ago
  A big one would be opening up more forest for logging. Edit: but the main point here is listening more to the people who risk their lives to fight these fires, and the impression I get is that state politicians aren't doing that enough

mannerheim 5y ago

> And that action is? Government seizes control of any property that is on these interfaces and kicks the people out of their homes? Or maybe the less harsh: government buys all these properties with eminent domain, kicks people off and lets the lands go fallow? If a fire comes, just let their houses burn.