https://www.latimes.com/busine...os-angeles-wildfires

How many $billion? How many $billion in losses just within LA city limits?

I again would respectfully suggest that if those same $billions had been spent in prevention there would have been no loss.

Spend the billions one way or another.

California is run by idiots!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
https://www.latimes.com/busine...os-angeles-wildfires

How many $billion? How many $billion in losses just within LA city limits?

I again would respectfully suggest that if those same $billions had been spent in prevention there would have been no loss.

Spend the billions one way or another.

I'm not sure what you do with 80 mph winds that create the kind of conditions that were seen in that fire. Most of the commentary I've seen indicates that with those kind of winds, firebreaks, brush clearance, etc. is not going to help that much. The problem was choosing to build in a high-risk fire location.

What do the real estate people say? Location, location, location. The market drives it. It's like living on the coast in Florida....at some point, that hurricane is going to hit. All you can do is have a good evacuation plan and implement it in a timely manner.

Or, not live there.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
https://www.latimes.com/busine...os-angeles-wildfires

How many $billion? How many $billion in losses just within LA city limits?

I again would respectfully suggest that if those same $billions had been spent in prevention there would have been no loss.

Spend the billions one way or another.

I agree with you. I just think the problem is more from the Federal Government than California Government.

Mike, the fire needs fuel. In the Oakland Hills fire the area was heavy vegetation including lots of eucalyptus trees, an Australian import know to be roman candles when lit.

If they can't help the heat and they can't help the wind they can help the fuel abundance.

And i wouldn't point the finger at California, I'd simply blame government. None of this is a surprise and it's just negligence to procrastinate.

who will you blame for the next big fire in alaska?

quote:

Originally posted by medved:
who will you blame for the next big fire in alaska?

? Jealous subjects?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Mike, the fire needs fuel. In the Oakland Hills fire the area was heavy vegetation including lots of eucalyptus trees, an Australian import know to be roman candles when lit.

If they can't help the heat and they can't help the wind they can help the fuel abundance.

And i wouldn't point the finger at California, I'd simply blame government. None of this is a surprise and it's just negligence to procrastinate.

I guess. Not sure having the government tell you that you can't plant Australian eucalyptus trees in your yard would be well-received by the locals. I bet it wouldn't up in your neck of the woods.

All of this reminds me of what's going on in Texas right now with the flood deaths on the Guadalupe River which was a much more catastrophic event than the fires we're discussing. Hindsight is 20/20. The reality is that it is difficult to plan effectively for 100 year weather events.

It's a high-risk fire area. Drought conditions are common. High winds are common but not 80 mph winds. Sooner or later, that combination is going to result in wild-fire. Based on what I've read, the abundance of fuel was the result of two extremely wet years prior to the fires. Shit grew. A lot. Then it dried out. That's what caused so much fuel to be available for the fires to consume. Not sure how you control that....I guess you could pass ordinances mandating rock and sand front yards but I don't think the rich folks are going for that one.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Mike, the fire needs fuel. In the Oakland Hills fire the area was heavy vegetation including lots of eucalyptus trees, an Australian import know to be roman candles when lit.

If they can't help the heat and they can't help the wind they can help the fuel abundance.

And i wouldn't point the finger at California, I'd simply blame government. None of this is a surprise and it's just negligence to procrastinate.

I guess. Not sure having the government tell you that you can't plant Australian eucalyptus trees in your yard would be well-received by the locals. I bet it wouldn't up in your neck of the woods.

All of this reminds me of what's going on in Texas right now with the flood deaths on the Guadalupe River which was a much more catastrophic event than the fires we're discussing. Hindsight is 20/20. The reality is that it is difficult to plan effectively for 100 year weather events.

It's a high-risk fire area. Drought conditions are common. High winds are common but not 80 mph winds. Sooner or later, that combination is going to result in wild-fire. Based on what I've read, the abundance of fuel was the result of two extremely wet years prior to the fires. Shit grew. A lot. Then it dried out. That's what caused so much fuel to be available for the fires to consume. Not sure how you control that....I guess you could pass ordinances mandating rock and sand front yards but I don't think the rich folks are going for that one.

This stuff starts in the un developed lands. The different governments do have the ability to regulate landscaping as well as construction codes that relate to fire, but the infernos are starting on mountains and canyons. All that land should be grazed, thinned, logged, etc. There shouldn't be a single acre of suburban land that doesn't have goats, sheep, cows, buffalo, whatever on it. Let loose some zebra or camels. Use the old stunt of two Dr's dragging a big chain between them ripping everything down.

It's not a question, $billions are going to be found and spent on rebuilding. I'd suggest going forward $ billions are spent on prevention.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Mike, the fire needs fuel. In the Oakland Hills fire the area was heavy vegetation including lots of eucalyptus trees, an Australian import know to be roman candles when lit.

If they can't help the heat and they can't help the wind they can help the fuel abundance.

And i wouldn't point the finger at California, I'd simply blame government. None of this is a surprise and it's just negligence to procrastinate.

I guess. Not sure having the government tell you that you can't plant Australian eucalyptus trees in your yard would be well-received by the locals. I bet it wouldn't up in your neck of the woods.

All of this reminds me of what's going on in Texas right now with the flood deaths on the Guadalupe River which was a much more catastrophic event than the fires we're discussing. Hindsight is 20/20. The reality is that it is difficult to plan effectively for 100 year weather events.

It's a high-risk fire area. Drought conditions are common. High winds are common but not 80 mph winds. Sooner or later, that combination is going to result in wild-fire. Based on what I've read, the abundance of fuel was the result of two extremely wet years prior to the fires. Shit grew. A lot. Then it dried out. That's what caused so much fuel to be available for the fires to consume. Not sure how you control that....I guess you could pass ordinances mandating rock and sand front yards but I don't think the rich folks are going for that one.

This stuff starts in the un developed lands. The different governments do have the ability to regulate landscaping as well as construction codes that relate to fire, but the infernos are starting on mountains and canyons. All that land should be grazed, thinned, logged, etc. There shouldn't be a single acre of suburban land that doesn't have goats, sheep, cows, buffalo, whatever on it. Let loose some zebra or camels. Use the old stunt of two Dr's dragging a big chain between them ripping everything down.

It's not a question, $billions are going to be found and spent on rebuilding. I'd suggest going forward $ billions are spent on prevention.

lol....I look forward to seeing zebras and camels grazing in Hollywood!

You've got to wonder what sort of homeowners insurance premiums those folks are going to be paying going forward. That might be the deciding factor.....an inability to insure the multi-million dollar homes.

Frankly, I have never understood why anybody would want to live in California. I've been there many times and the people are just....different.

Of course, I am sitting here in DFW baking in the 105 degree heat so what do I know?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
https://www.latimes.com/busine...os-angeles-wildfires

How many $billion? How many $billion in losses just within LA city limits?

I again would respectfully suggest that if those same $billions had been spent in prevention there would have been no loss.

Spend the billions one way or another.

Headline

""January wildfire damage could total $51.7 billion within L.A. city limits""

TBH I doubt that they had anywhere near $51.7 billion to spend on mitigation efforts.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Mike, the fire needs fuel. In the Oakland Hills fire the area was heavy vegetation including lots of eucalyptus trees, an Australian import know to be roman candles when lit.

If they can't help the heat and they can't help the wind they can help the fuel abundance.

And i wouldn't point the finger at California, I'd simply blame government. None of this is a surprise and it's just negligence to procrastinate.

I guess. Not sure having the government tell you that you can't plant Australian eucalyptus trees in your yard would be well-received by the locals. I bet it wouldn't up in your neck of the woods.

All of this reminds me of what's going on in Texas right now with the flood deaths on the Guadalupe River which was a much more catastrophic event than the fires we're discussing. Hindsight is 20/20. The reality is that it is difficult to plan effectively for 100 year weather events.

It's a high-risk fire area. Drought conditions are common. High winds are common but not 80 mph winds. Sooner or later, that combination is going to result in wild-fire. Based on what I've read, the abundance of fuel was the result of two extremely wet years prior to the fires. Shit grew. A lot. Then it dried out. That's what caused so much fuel to be available for the fires to consume. Not sure how you control that....I guess you could pass ordinances mandating rock and sand front yards but I don't think the rich folks are going for that one.

likely go over just like it does in Texas - where we have a list of banned plants

https://www.tiscc.texas.gov/wp...eeting-3-12-2013.pdf

the only eucalyptus trees stands I am aware of, in Houston, are on the outbound ways from IAH
and yeah, they go off like sparkler fountains - and a heaping TON of shed bark, literally great kindling for a camping trip .. long strips of oil infused DRY bark, that's like thick paper

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Mike, the fire needs fuel. In the Oakland Hills fire the area was heavy vegetation including lots of eucalyptus trees, an Australian import know to be roman candles when lit.

If they can't help the heat and they can't help the wind they can help the fuel abundance.

And i wouldn't point the finger at California, I'd simply blame government. None of this is a surprise and it's just negligence to procrastinate.

I guess. Not sure having the government tell you that you can't plant Australian eucalyptus trees in your yard would be well-received by the locals. I bet it wouldn't up in your neck of the woods.

All of this reminds me of what's going on in Texas right now with the flood deaths on the Guadalupe River which was a much more catastrophic event than the fires we're discussing. Hindsight is 20/20. The reality is that it is difficult to plan effectively for 100 year weather events.

It's a high-risk fire area. Drought conditions are common. High winds are common but not 80 mph winds. Sooner or later, that combination is going to result in wild-fire. Based on what I've read, the abundance of fuel was the result of two extremely wet years prior to the fires. Shit grew. A lot. Then it dried out. That's what caused so much fuel to be available for the fires to consume. Not sure how you control that....I guess you could pass ordinances mandating rock and sand front yards but I don't think the rich folks are going for that one.

This stuff starts in the un developed lands. The different governments do have the ability to regulate landscaping as well as construction codes that relate to fire, but the infernos are starting on mountains and canyons. All that land should be grazed, thinned, logged, etc. There shouldn't be a single acre of suburban land that doesn't have goats, sheep, cows, buffalo, whatever on it. Let loose some zebra or camels. Use the old stunt of two Dr's dragging a big chain between them ripping everything down.

It's not a question, $billions are going to be found and spent on rebuilding. I'd suggest going forward $ billions are spent on prevention.

lol....I look forward to seeing zebras and camels grazing in Hollywood!

You've got to wonder what sort of homeowners insurance premiums those folks are going to be paying going forward. That might be the deciding factor.....an inability to insure the multi-million dollar homes.

Frankly, I have never understood why anybody would want to live in California. I've been there many times and the people are just....different.

Of course, I am sitting here in DFW baking in the 105 degree heat so what do I know?

The new construction will certainly be 100% fireproof for decades. All the fuel is currently gone right? No trees, no bushes, no flowers, no lawns. The houses and other buildings were ash and its blown away.

So going forward the construction will be plaster, tile, stone, concrete. No cedar shingles roofs, no wood siding, no redwood decks.

It'll take decades for the flora to regrow and it'll likely be reconsidered for fire.

It won't burn twice in our lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Mike, the fire needs fuel. In the Oakland Hills fire the area was heavy vegetation including lots of eucalyptus trees, an Australian import know to be roman candles when lit.

If they can't help the heat and they can't help the wind they can help the fuel abundance.

And i wouldn't point the finger at California, I'd simply blame government. None of this is a surprise and it's just negligence to procrastinate.

I guess. Not sure having the government tell you that you can't plant Australian eucalyptus trees in your yard would be well-received by the locals. I bet it wouldn't up in your neck of the woods.

All of this reminds me of what's going on in Texas right now with the flood deaths on the Guadalupe River which was a much more catastrophic event than the fires we're discussing. Hindsight is 20/20. The reality is that it is difficult to plan effectively for 100 year weather events.

It's a high-risk fire area. Drought conditions are common. High winds are common but not 80 mph winds. Sooner or later, that combination is going to result in wild-fire. Based on what I've read, the abundance of fuel was the result of two extremely wet years prior to the fires. Shit grew. A lot. Then it dried out. That's what caused so much fuel to be available for the fires to consume. Not sure how you control that....I guess you could pass ordinances mandating rock and sand front yards but I don't think the rich folks are going for that one.

This stuff starts in the un developed lands. The different governments do have the ability to regulate landscaping as well as construction codes that relate to fire, but the infernos are starting on mountains and canyons. All that land should be grazed, thinned, logged, etc. There shouldn't be a single acre of suburban land that doesn't have goats, sheep, cows, buffalo, whatever on it. Let loose some zebra or camels. Use the old stunt of two Dr's dragging a big chain between them ripping everything down.

It's not a question, $billions are going to be found and spent on rebuilding. I'd suggest going forward $ billions are spent on prevention.

lol....I look forward to seeing zebras and camels grazing in Hollywood!

You've got to wonder what sort of homeowners insurance premiums those folks are going to be paying going forward. That might be the deciding factor.....an inability to insure the multi-million dollar homes.

Frankly, I have never understood why anybody would want to live in California. I've been there many times and the people are just....different.

Of course, I am sitting here in DFW baking in the 105 degree heat so what do I know?

The new construction will certainly be 100% fireproof for decades. All the fuel is currently gone right? No trees, no bushes, no flowers, no lawns. The houses and other buildings were ash and its blown away.

So going forward the construction will be plaster, tile, stone, concrete. No cedar shingles roofs, no wood siding, no redwood decks.

It'll take decades for the flora to regrow and it'll likely be reconsidered for fire.

It won't burn twice in our lifetime.

Well Scott, I guess it will be gone as long as nobody ever plants anything and nothing else ever grows there.

That seems unlikely. I don't think the areas where the worst damage was had a lot of undergrowth or foliage nearby. The 80 mph winds blew the fire and embers into the houses from a distance. Or maybe from nearby. Like the bushes and trees you have next to your house.

And, so if I understand your post, the government ought to now mandate "plaster, tile, stone" etc in relation to a home a private citizen is buying and/or building and probably paying millions of dollars for in that neighborhood? The government is going to tell them how to build their houses?

Let me ask you a question:

How do you think you and your fellow Alaskans would respond to that sort of directive from the government?

My point is that this is entirely about where this shit happened.

Liberal California.

The conservatives have to find some way to blame this on the liberal California government and that's bullshit.

It's a natural disaster.

Over a 100 people died in a flood in Texas this month. Republican controlled and Republican dominated Texas. More than three times as many as the California dead, god rest their souls.

How much have you heard about it being the fault of the Republicans in Texas although a very good argument can be made that they played a role.

What happened in California wasn't the fault of anybody but the weather.

well, permits first , right?

I suppose then, that we can blame Florida gov't for hurricanes? & I highly doubt those 51 billion dollar damage numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

What happened in California wasn't the fault of anybody but the weather.

That's just not true, is a self defeating attitude and your umbrage puzzles me a bit.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. I was there for and remember very well the large, well documented and very destructive earthquakes. Before, during and after those quakes and my time there great steps and leaps were being taken to build and retrofit infrastructure to be more "quake proof". It was the law and building codes, it was popular and well thought of for public and personal reasons. The differences between structures built in the early 20th century compared to the late 20th century were vast. That earthquakes were just natural had nothing to do with anything.

Likewise I lived in the Bay Area during the time of the Oakland Hills fire. I know, I lived there, most of those destroyed homes were un defensible in case of fire. The entire area resembled matchsticks coated with napalm. There was no defensible perimeter, there was no adequate emergency response access, (narrow, winding streets,) and the structures themselves were built with incendiary material. Like the earthquake changes in construction, fire prevention in building has also been dramatic. Fire sprinkler systems are by code and by law required in many more cases. Fire resistant roofs, fire resistant siding, doors, windows and trim as well as fire resistant landscapes go along way.

I saw, many, many times while there pine needles a foot deep built up against the exterior walls of cabins with the brush scratching the windows. i saw many homes and neighborhoods surrounded with dense, dead and ignored wildlands.
Having lived around and thru many wildfires you asking yourself when you see this stuff, "what do they think will happen when someone flicks a cigarette?".

Itsnota California thing, it's a western states thing and they are way past time to get their act together. If LA burns like it did, more than a couple folks are really doing something wrong.

As far as Alaska building goes, we build to survive, to live. Thick walls with good insulation, strong doors, tough, weather proof roofing etc. I'm not going to let a blizzard kill me in my own home. Don't you think LA could take a lesson?

You can't just lay back and say it's weather.