# Any lessons learned??



## cda (Oct 16, 2017)

i know California has been having wild fires even before california was California

Any lessons learned from this one???

Watch the video 

http://m.mysanantonio.com/local/article/Watch-as-Berkeley-firefighters-arrived-in-Santa-12279786.php


Just wonder why some commercial buildings burned?


----------



## steveray (Oct 16, 2017)

We should makes houses illegal in California...Those things are dangerous!


----------



## mark handler (Oct 16, 2017)

cda said:


> Any lessons learned from this one???


*As I have said before:*
Stop building in wild interface zones
Stop building in Flood Zones


> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41627751
> A 2014 study of residential growth in the state predicted that by 2050 there will be 645,000 homes built in "very high severity" zones.
> Homes and other structures are increasingly being built adjacent to combustible areas of woodland. California law requires any structures in such a position to create 100 ft of "defensible space" - or firebreak - in every direction. But the law is not aggressively enforced, it is left largely up to homeowners to police their own safety measures.
> *Even in the world's most developed country, there is no high-tech solution to a wildfire of this size*.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 16, 2017)

steveray said:


> We should makes houses illegal in California...Those things are dangerous!


As are Hurricanes and Earthquakes, That will eliminate half the US, with tornados taking another 1/3rd.


----------



## SusanGrinstead (Dec 21, 2017)

It is really harmful to have construction in the Flood zone.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2017)

SusanGrinstead said:


> It is really harmful to have construction in the Flood zone.


Why should the taxpayers and insurance companies continue to pay for flooded properties?


----------



## JCraver (Dec 21, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Why should the taxpayers and insurance companies continue to pay for flooded properties?



One of them shouldn't have been involved from the beginning.  In a non-incorporated area, the government has no business telling a guy where he can build his house.  His bank and his (independent, non-subsidized) insurance company are going to be more than enough headache for him already.  Even in "town", there's still no good reason for the .gov to be backing up insurance co's.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2017)

JCraver said:


> One of them shouldn't have been involved from the beginning.  In a non-incorporated area, the government has no business telling a guy where he can build his house.  His bank and his (independent, non-subsidized) insurance company are going to be more than enough headache for him already.  Even in "town", there's still no good reason for the .gov to be backing up insurance co's.


Except when the taxpayers are asked to replace it.
Or when it costs taxpayers to sandbag it.
Or when rescuers lives are endangered to rescue the people,

FEMA was the agency that requested the floodplain requirements in the code....


----------



## JCraver (Dec 21, 2017)

Taxpayers wouldn't have to replace it, or sandbag it, if all the four-letter idjits would stay out of it.  Does anyone really understand what business the government, especially the federal government, has setting insurance rates??

Neighbors will help other neighbors stack sandbags, almost every time.  If they can't or won't, you can pay some evil company to come do it for you.  Either way I'm pretty sure you don't need a FEMA guy watching to make sure they do it correctly, or telling you what you should pay them.

We're already off topic, so my apologies, but we'll leave the "rescuers lives are endangered" for another time.



Serious question - are the fires any better out there?  Midwestern local news is not great for updates on such things...


----------

