On mandatory evacuations

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

The talking news heads here in San Diego are urging people who are holding out in mandatory evac areas to leave.  They are saying the police don't have time to go in and drag them from their homes. 

That's all well and good, but I think if someone wants to stay, they should be told that they are in extreme, life threatening danger, and then left alone.  They news is right, the fire and police can't drag every one from their homes, so they should just let them stay.  Thoughts?

[ilbob]

why are they ordering evacuations in the first place? fire?

i am not a big fan of government ordering anyone to do anything.

it seems to me if you are dumb enough to stick it out, feel free.

i do know that in some of the "mandatory" evactuations that were ordered in previous fires out west, a fair number of people stuck it out, and were able to save their homes by judicious use of chain saws. i read that at least of few of the chain saw users were later charged criminally for cutting down the trees before they could burn down.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Huge fire.

[Brad Johnson]

I go with "Tell them the danger and let them decide."

Of course, some dipstick will die out of of sheer stubborn stupidity.  Then we'd never hear the end of it from the bedwetters.  They would cry incessantly about the gov't "not doing something to keep the people safe."

Brad

[Tallpine]

I've cleared defensible space around my house, and I have my own f/f system (tank and gas powered pump).  Other than the fact that I'm also on the local VFD, I would stay with my house.  As it is, once I get paged out I can only hope I get to save my own place ....  

I've seen aerial movies of a lot of those places in California.  The houses have no defensible space at all.  If they had cleared out around their houses the way I have, there would be no vegetation left between the houses at all.

[Brad Johnson]

If they had cleared out around their houses the way I have,

They can't.  Enviro regs won't let them clear the brush to create said fire barrier.

Brad

[Tallpine]

I don't really have a lot of sympathy, except for the firefighters who have to make an attempt to save houses and stop the fire. 

[charby]

If they had cleared out around their houses the way I have,

They can't.  Enviro regs won't let them clear the brush to create said fire barrier.

Brad

Really? I think the insurance companies shouldn't have to pay then because preventative maintenance isn't being allowed/done.

[Brad Johnson]

If they had cleared out around their houses the way I have,

They can't.  Enviro regs won't let them clear the brush to create said fire barrier.

Brad

Really? I think the insurance companies shouldn't have to pay then because preventative maintenance isn't being allowed/done.

I think the insurance companies offer wildfire insurance just like they have earthquake insurance.  Not 100% certain on that, though.

Brad

[Typhoon]

Fire insurance in California is still private, as far as I know.  Earthquake insurance is offered through the California Earthquake Authority, a state-run agency.

[Paddy]

If they had cleared out around their houses the way I have,

They can't.  Enviro regs won't let them clear the brush to create said fire barrier.

Brad

Never heard of that. It takes me two weeks every year to weedwack around this place out to at least 100'.  Everything right down to the ground.  Then I go around six acres with a chainsaw and cut off low hanging branches (fire ladders) that might allow a fire to get into the canopy of the trees.  Nothing flammable is up against the house, which is stucco with a mission tile roof.

[BobR]

 think once the evacutions are mandatory, and every one has been told, it is up to them to decide to leave.

If they die, there should be no payout of insurance to the heirs. It is life insurance, not stupid insurance.

My ex did not evacuate the last time there was a fire like this in SoCal, and she was fine. All I can hope is she stays put this tme and the fire gets a better aim on her place.

bob

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Crest was just evacuated.  It was devastated during the 2003 Cedar fire.  My friends lost their home in that fire.  I hope to God they don't lose the new one.  It took them two years to get rebuilt.

[HankB]

If they had cleared out around their houses the way I have,

They can't.  Enviro regs won't let them clear the brush to create said fire barrier.

Brad

I remember a case some years back where a guy cleared the brush as the fires were approaching, saving his home, and the EPA, FWA, or some other government agency fined him on the basis that his actions threatened an endangered species of kangaroo rat.

He told the .gov to go to hell, and told them to take him to court, as he wanted them to convince a jury that a rat was more important than a person's home.

In this case, fearing adverse publicity and a loss in court . . . the .gov backed down. 

Anyway, clandestine spraying of Round-Up will take care of the unwanted brush. ("Honest, inspector, I LOVED the brush around my home - vandals must hate me, and I hope you catch them!!!")

[Thor]

If they had cleared out around their houses the way I have,

They can't.  Enviro regs won't let them clear the brush to create said fire barrier.

Brad

Never heard of that. It takes me two weeks every year to weedwack around this place out to at least 100'.  Everything right down to the ground.  Then I go around six acres with a chainsaw and cut off low hanging branches (fire ladders) that might allow a fire to get into the canopy of the trees.  Nothing flammable is up against the house, which is stucco with a mission tile roof.

I used to live in El Cajon. It amazed me how people that lived in Lakeside, Santee, Jamul, etc had CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES on their roofs!! I was like......... people...... get with reality!! Riley, I am pleased that you've done the sane thing and went typical southwestern style. It only makes sense in those areas.

[Antibubba]

Crest was just evacuated.  It was devastated during the 2003 Cedar fire.  My friends lost their home in that fire.  I hope to God they don't lose the new one.  It took them two years to get rebuilt

And I hope they built the new one with fire in mind.

[Manedwolf]

Apparently, one of those 60's-ish concrete dome homes that was up on a hilltop survived perfectly intact, despite literally having fire go right over it and engulf it. It's just covered with soot, but didn't catch fire.



So...ugly, but practical. 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Cool, that house sorta looks like a suburban bunker.  The overhangs for the windows could be overhead protection for low-angle artillery.

I used to live in El Cajon. It amazed me how people that lived in Lakeside, Santee, Jamul, etc had CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES on their roofs!! I was like......... people...... get with reality!! Riley, I am pleased that you've done the sane thing and went typical southwestern style. It only makes sense in those areas.

I think that's just what the houses were built with, and often people can't afford a new roof, or have other priorities that are more pressing than the possibility of fire.

[Antibubba]

Quote
I used to live in El Cajon. It amazed me how people that lived in Lakeside, Santee, Jamul, etc had CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES on their roofs!! I was like......... people...... get with reality!! Riley, I am pleased that you've done the sane thing and went typical southwestern style. It only makes sense in those areas.

I think that's just what the houses were built with, and often people can't afford a new roof, or have other priorities that are more pressing than the possibility of fire.

70 years ago that might have been the case, but cedar shakes are a premium item.  They make the place look "rustic".    They're also slightly more fire-resistant than "strike anywhere" matches.

[Jamisjockey]

The talking news heads here in San Diego are urging people who are holding out in mandatory evac areas to leave.  They are saying the police don't have time to go in and drag them from their homes. 

That's all well and good, but I think if someone wants to stay, they should be told that they are in extreme, life threatening danger, and then left alone.  They news is right, the fire and police can't drag every one from their homes, so they should just let them stay.  Thoughts?

I'm fully with you there.  I grew up partly on the NC coast in Hurricane country.  Of course, that was before Bush engineered super Hurricanes to destroy coastal cities so he could kill black people.

[Len Budney]

Lew Rockwell commented today on the madness of environmental regs, antiquated firefighting techniques and forced evacuations.

The fires force us to choose. We thrive and rule nature, or nature rules and eats us alive. The tendency nowadays is to believe we can have it both ways. We can build great cities and gorgeous suburbs, amass glorious wealth, live in comfort, and meanwhile let the surrounding areas take their natural course. This allows us to sit in the safety of our homes with a pious sense that we have done right by Mother Nature and she will bless us.

In fact, she has not blessed Southern California. She has been unleashed, and she is gorging herself on civilization itself.

--Len.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Quote
I used to live in El Cajon. It amazed me how people that lived in Lakeside, Santee, Jamul, etc had CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES on their roofs!! I was like......... people...... get with reality!! Riley, I am pleased that you've done the sane thing and went typical southwestern style. It only makes sense in those areas.

I think that's just what the houses were built with, and often people can't afford a new roof, or have other priorities that are more pressing than the possibility of fire.

70 years ago that might have been the case, but cedar shakes are a premium item.  They make the place look "rustic".    They're also slightly more fire-resistant than "strike anywhere" matches.

Well, my house that's in a suburb built soon after WWII had those super-flammable shakes until about 10-15 years ago, because of financial issues that prevented proper house maintenance.

Furthermore--I might very well be wrong about this--but I thought it was generally not possible or legal to put up shake rooves in this state.

[Thor]

Quote
I used to live in El Cajon. It amazed me how people that lived in Lakeside, Santee, Jamul, etc had CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES on their roofs!! I was like......... people...... get with reality!! Riley, I am pleased that you've done the sane thing and went typical southwestern style. It only makes sense in those areas.

I think that's just what the houses were built with, and often people can't afford a new roof, or have other priorities that are more pressing than the possibility of fire.

70 years ago that might have been the case, but cedar shakes are a premium item.  They make the place look "rustic".    They're also slightly more fire-resistant than "strike anywhere" matches.

Well, my house that's in a suburb built soon after WWII had those super-flammable shakes until about 10-15 years ago, because of financial issues that prevented proper house maintenance.

Furthermore--I might very well be wrong about this--but I thought it was generally not possible or legal to put up shake rooves in this state.

For the record, Creeping, I left San Diego some 20 years ago. I watched brand new houses being built with cedar shakes back then. I was just flabbergasted. I was like, duh, this is a fire prone area, why not use tile roofs?? Granted, one can't totally fireproof their houses, but at least they can use some sense in building and take the area they are building in, into consideration.

[Boomhauer]

I can't wait till we replace our roof with a steel roof...

We've got asphalt shingles on it now. Of course, we aren't in a fire prone area, but we have had some scares- dry weather and summer lighting strikes create worries...

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Quote
I used to live in El Cajon. It amazed me how people that lived in Lakeside, Santee, Jamul, etc had CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES on their roofs!! I was like......... people...... get with reality!! Riley, I am pleased that you've done the sane thing and went typical southwestern style. It only makes sense in those areas.

I think that's just what the houses were built with, and often people can't afford a new roof, or have other priorities that are more pressing than the possibility of fire.

70 years ago that might have been the case, but cedar shakes are a premium item.  They make the place look "rustic".    They're also slightly more fire-resistant than "strike anywhere" matches.

Well, my house that's in a suburb built soon after WWII had those super-flammable shakes until about 10-15 years ago, because of financial issues that prevented proper house maintenance.

Furthermore--I might very well be wrong about this--but I thought it was generally not possible or legal to put up shake rooves in this state.

For the record, Creeping, I left San Diego some 20 years ago. I watched brand new houses being built with cedar shakes back then. I was just flabbergasted. I was like, duh, this is a fire prone area, why not use tile roofs?? Granted, one can't totally fireproof their houses, but at least they can use some sense in building and take the area they are building in, into consideration.

Okay, you guys forced me to look it up:

"Q: Can cedar shakes and shingles still be used in California?
 
A: Yes, if they conform to fire-retardant standards. Effective July 1, 1995 California State law mandates minimum Class C fire retardant roofs. Class B rated roofs are required in specified "very high hazard severity zones". 

http://www.clarkegroup.com/products/cedarplus/question.html