I dont live in or near California, but I am constantly seeing
disasters in that state which in my opinion are due to stupidity in
construction. Why so the building inspectors allow buildings to be
built on steep hillsides? How many of these homes have slid down the
hills in recent years? From watching the news, it would seem that
there have been many. Now we have this firestorm. I do understand
that the firestorm is a natural disaster (except those intentionally
set according to the news reports).
The part that gets me is why are so many homes burning? We live in a
time when every wirenut in our electrical system needs to be approved,
and we can not even erect a simple shed without some sort of approval
to insure it's safe. Installing a wood stove involves a major amount
of paperwork, inspections, and most insurance companies won't even
allow them without a huge increase in the cost of the policy.
I do understand that we all need to be safe, and the average homeowner
needs to be inspected since most people do not know proper building
methods, and there are lots of professional contractors who want to
make an extra buck and use inferior materials or cut corners which can
be a safety risk. At the same time, some of these rules can be
rediculous and very nit-picky, causing added expense and hassles to
the home owner.
With that said, it seems that the biggest reasons for these major
fires in CA are not faulty wiring or causes INSIDE the home, but these
firestorms. Therefore, would it not make sense to require a certain
amount of open (mowed) space around buildings in areas prone to these
firestorms, or at least prevent them from burning the buildings.
It seems to me that the inspectors overdo it as far as small details
within homes but ignore the external causes. Not everyone is the
country is in a firestorm area, but those that are should be reqired
to maintain some space. This only makes sense.
Inspectors normally don't have any control over these kinds of things.
That is up to zoning and other people. Cutting back is also outside
their jurisdiction. One of the annual rites of fire season is the
inevitable newspaper article about some hooha because a homeowner or
association wants to make an open space and environmental or other rules
don't allow them to do so.
The quickest way to stop most of these concerns is to not insure
people who set-up in these kinds of areas, but the political fallout
would be too great for the insurance companies to endure if they tried.
The flood insurance people are finally coming to grips with maybe they
shouldn't automatically insure people after the 2-3 time they are
Ahhh, you aren't aware of the restrictions landowners are put under by all
the 'environmental' regulations, are you? Much of the problem stems from the
inability of landowners to properly control the underbrush, grasses, weeds,
and other flammable vegetation. Their hands have been tied by the 'green'
That's true Dave. Last year during the Tahoe fires, about the only
home that made it through the fire in one neighborhood, was that of a
homeowner that went against the regs and cleared much more than he was
"Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom> wrote in message
Okkaaay, so how about commenting about why these idiots live in these areas
in the first place? There are lots of placed ill-suited to human habitation;
Mississippi flood plain, a LOT of SoCal, tornado alley, and most of Florida,
yet people continue to build there and the gubmint continues to bail them
out every single time. It's ridiculous that those of us living in sensible
places with no tornados, floods, mudslides, wildfires, hurricanes, etc. have
to fund the constant re-building of those who insist on living where they
shouldn't. You want to live there, great, but I'm NOT going to pay for it.
Yes, we have the occasional flood here in upstate NY, but only the 10-20
homes of idiots who feel compelled to live right ON the river. Why should
they be allowed to do this and still get bailed out by the gubmint? While
it's great farmland, no one should have a house on the Mississippi flood
plain for just this reason. Crops, sure. Houses, not so much. Same with much
of SoCal. It burns, it slides, it quakes, DON'T LIVE THERE. Duh.
all new and or replacement homes should be mandated built of concrete.
steel reinforced, very sttrong, good for 300 MPH winds, excellent
energy efficency, foam inside concrete.
concrete homes wouldnt burn, at least not the outside. with storm
shutters many homes could of survived.
concrete homes look just like wood stick built ones, and will last
Do you depend on your local "gubmint" to fix and repair roads in New
York (upstate) ? Who takes away downed trees from blizzards?
Californians: coming to an area near you, soon!
"Painting is the art of protecting flat surfaces from the weather and exposing
them to the critics."
??? ALL roads everywhere are fixed by the gubmint, not just in NY. The last
time we lost a tree during a blizzard we chopped it up for firewood. But to
answer your question, the HOMEOWNER is responsible for downed trees. Idiot.
When hurricane Floyd hit NY back in Sept. 1999. It was the homeowners
with chain saws that cleared the local roads before the highway
department could get there. I was there with my chain saw, even though I
had a 50 foot Wild Cherry down in my yard. We dumped the wood on the
side of the road for the highway department to pick it up. There wasn't
much left after the fireplace owners took most of it away.
I lived in Saranac Lake, NY for two winters (few miles from Lake
Always seemed to me the snow plows found the downed trees on public
roads first Employees could not get to work, thus needing to mandate
overtime for the un-lucky person.
Maybe a few locals carried chainsaws, not everyone. A downed tree was
good reason to call in to work
"The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!"
Huh? I was born in New Orleans and I happen to live in NY now. LA is hot,
humid, and really great. NY is hot, humid and really great, but NY is hot
and humid for MUCH less of the year, so I don't live in LA anymore. Most
people tend to stay where they are born. People with brains make a choice.
Some choose to stay, many choose to go to more livable places. Plonk.
Fran Liebowitz, a fellow New Yorker, opined "The outdoors is something
through which I pass on my way from my apartment to my car."
Any place is "livable" if you stay inside.
The "Great Outdoors" is for beavers and ducks.
And those who like to fondle beavers and ducks.
I agree "environmerntalSM" is a cult religion but there are
I'm sure there were educated ecologists who wanted to do small
prescribed burns around those houses and the homeowners wouldn't let
them because they did not want the smoke and to have to look at burned
ground for a couple months. The DEP folks have the same problem in
Wonder how that is working out for them now.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.