Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 22, 2007, 12:32:57 PM
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?
Post by: ilbob on October 22, 2007, 12:42:41 PM
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.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 22, 2007, 01:18:43 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 22, 2007, 01:23:43 PM
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
Post by: Tallpine on October 22, 2007, 01:26:40 PM
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.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 22, 2007, 01:32:46 PM
Quote
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
Post by: Tallpine on October 22, 2007, 01:45:17 PM
Post by: charby on October 22, 2007, 02:00:11 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 22, 2007, 02:37:26 PM
Quote
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
Post by: Typhoon on October 22, 2007, 02:57:13 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 22, 2007, 02:58:22 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: BobR on October 22, 2007, 03:46:30 PM
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
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 22, 2007, 03:49:06 PM
Post by: HankB on October 22, 2007, 05:24:36 PM
Quote
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
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!!!")
Post by: Thor on October 22, 2007, 05:36:58 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Antibubba on October 22, 2007, 08:15:35 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 22, 2007, 08:20:46 PM
So...ugly, but practical.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on October 23, 2007, 07:16:29 AM
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.
Post by: Antibubba on October 23, 2007, 08:46:50 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 24, 2007, 02:41:09 AM
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?
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.
Post by: Len Budney on October 24, 2007, 02:45:01 AM
Quote
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.
In fact, she has not blessed Southern California. She has been unleashed, and she is gorging herself on civilization itself.
--Len.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on October 24, 2007, 06:55:02 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: Thor on October 24, 2007, 07:06:51 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: Boomhauer on October 24, 2007, 07:13:50 AM
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...
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on October 24, 2007, 07:55:47 AM
Quote
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.
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
Post by: m1911owner on October 24, 2007, 08:03:13 AM
They're also slightly more fire-resistant than "strike anywhere" matches.When I was a kid, we moved into a new house with cedar shakes. The contractor had left a couple bundles of leftover shakes with the house. We used them for kindling wood for the fireplace. As I remember, they would explode into flames so fast would would have thought they were soaked in gasoline.
(Somewhat off-topic: One January I put some branches from the Christmas tree in the fireplace and lit them. The result was just short of an actual explosion. Word to the wise on Christmas trees.)
Post by: ilbob on October 24, 2007, 08:06:22 AM
Post by: m1911owner on October 24, 2007, 08:37:00 AM
considering that asphalt shingles are available that mimic very closely the appearance of cedar shingles, and are much more fire resistant, one has to wonder why anyone would use ceder anything in an area known to have regular fires.
I once owned property in a subdivision in rural CA where the CC&Rs prohibited asphalt shingles.
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 24, 2007, 09:25:21 AM
Good, thick A-grade shakes are okay if you seal them and put down some fire retardant annually. If not, well, you might as well pour gas on the roof. As the shingles wear and dry they tend to fray along the grain. All those little fuzzies are a perfect place for stray embers to get the party started.
Brad
Post by: Boomhauer on October 24, 2007, 11:17:50 AM
Quote
(Somewhat off-topic: One January I put some branches from the Christmas tree in the fireplace and lit them. The result was just short of an actual explosion. Word to the wise on Christmas trees.)
I see people buying Christmas trees on Thanksgiving. Nice. You get something that dries out and becomes even more flammable...
We cut our trees no more than two to three days before Christmas and it is out the door within 1-2 days after Christmas. Of course, we recently got an artificial tree. Finding a good cedar tree on the property was getting to be too much trouble, and the cleanup and decorating wasn't much fun, either...
Post by: ilbob on October 25, 2007, 06:58:06 AM
considering that asphalt shingles are available that mimic very closely the appearance of cedar shingles, and are much more fire resistant, one has to wonder why anyone would use ceder anything in an area known to have regular fires.
I once owned property in a subdivision in rural CA where the CC&Rs prohibited asphalt shingles.
did they prohibit wild fires as well?
Post by: m1911owner on October 25, 2007, 08:04:02 AM
considering that asphalt shingles are available that mimic very closely the appearance of cedar shingles, and are much more fire resistant, one has to wonder why anyone would use ceder anything in an area known to have regular fires.
I once owned property in a subdivision in rural CA where the CC&Rs prohibited asphalt shingles.
did they prohibit wild fires as well?
No asphalt shingles, but whatever you did use was required to be class-A fire rated. And you were required to maintain a defensible perimeter, as well.