3 ms·

People need to take the CalFire defensible space guidelines seriously: https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/communications/defensible-space-prc-4291/ https://www.fi

People need to take the CalFire defensible space guidelines seriously: https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/communications/defensible-space-prc-4291/ https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/communications/defensible-s... Drive into any nice, quaint community at the interface between wilderness and development and you'll see homes surrounded in close proximity by fire vulnerable vegetation. I get it, it looks nice. But there's no way you should be able to get insurance if you allow it. Not only that, many of these mountain towns are serviced by a limited number of roads, sometimes only one. A wall of fire can easily overtake the population even with advanced warning due to traffic issues. Climate change is a threat, but fire is also part of the CA ecosystem in many places. It isn't going away and we need to be intelligent in how we anticipate and deal with it.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
This desire to live in wildfire prone forests bemuses me. Yes, trees are pretty, but... well, fires. Australia's bushfires often destroy houses built in very similar areas, lovely and leafy, surrounded by trees that have evolved to burn. I'm not sure if it's a holdover from the mindset that we can fully and effectively manage nature, or just because we prefer to live in hope, and the trees are pretty. But damn, either way, how much effort and risk is taken on to protect people living in areas prone to fire out of choice? In NZ, we've begun some "managed retreat", which is naturally contentious when it's your house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matat%C4%81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matat%C4%81
willidiots 4y ago
I live in the WUI among trees. We've already spent $20,000 removing some fuels, and are spending $30,000 to remove more. This is in a county with a median annual income of $26,000. We can only afford this because of my remote tech worker salary. My neighbors aren't as privileged. The state could contribute more funds to these efforts, helping property owners reduce the fuels around their homes and improve defensible space.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

This desire to live in wildfire prone forests bemuses me. Yes, trees are pretty, but... well, fires. Australia's bushfires often destroy houses built in very similar areas, lovely and leafy, surrounded by trees that have evolved to burn. I'm not sure if it's a holdover from the mindset that we can fully and effectively manage nature, or just because we prefer to live in hope, and the trees are pretty. But damn, either way, how much effort and risk is taken on to protect people living in areas prone to fire out of choice? In NZ, we've begun some "managed retreat", which is naturally contentious when it's your house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matat%C4%81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matat%C4%81

willidiots 4y ago

I live in the WUI among trees. We've already spent $20,000 removing some fuels, and are spending $30,000 to remove more. This is in a county with a median annual income of $26,000. We can only afford this because of my remote tech worker salary. My neighbors aren't as privileged. The state could contribute more funds to these efforts, helping property owners reduce the fuels around their homes and improve defensible space.