My heart goes out to the folks in California.  Our prayers are with all the families as they try to recover from this devastating life event.  Be strong.

Since the southern California hills burn so frequently and so reliably and since the hills would be all that much more beautiful without McMansions on them, wouldn't it be better for the environment and cheaper for the tax/insurance payers (that's all of us) if building were limited to the flats along the coast in higher density with a cleared swath between habitation and the wild?

My Prayers go out to everyone . I have been there before and lost everything when I lived in Alaska. It is heart breaking to say the least.

My home caught on fire Sept 9 of this year. My husband and I lost furniture, pictures, memories, and everything else that did not burn was smoke damaged. I know how devasting and surreal this was for us, I can ony imagine how the people of California must feel. God Bless everyone of you.

I have to agree with Rachel on this one. When people insist on living in places that are regularly hit by natural disaster, regardless of the risk, and really when they create the risk by choosing these places instead of safer, higher-density locations, then I don't think the public ought to have to pay for their mistakes.

Rachel,

Unfortunately, just like the area around Berkeley, it's too expensive for many people to buy homes or rent in established communities (especially the coast). Just like the Bay Area, countless people in LA and San Diego Counties have been moving to outlying areas where it is more affordable (think of the explosive growth in Dublin, Pleasanton and even Tracy over the past few years). It's the sad truth we are encroaching on land best reserved for wildlife and beautiful vistas, but is it fair to deny all these people a chance to own property and build their dream homes? No, but now we are seeing the real price they have to pay and it's exceedingly sad.

Andy,
Its good to see someone who understands Why we live here. I went to school in the bay area and moved back down here to work and start a family because it was where I grew up and could afford to live. People love to point out how "foolish" others are for where they live and i find it sad. Natural diasters happen everywhere and i hope anyone who is stuck by one gets the same helping hands we have recieved down here. On the other hand maybe i should pack up and move to New York Or Berkley it seems as though they are immune to diasters and tragedys.

I'm originally from the Bay Area (SF, Daly City)and I would have loved to have been able to return when I left the military, but unfortunately, I could not afford a decent sized home there, hence I settled down in Temecula, CA, because that is where I could afford to buy a home. Not all of us live in Malibu, and for people to make judgements about where we have chosen to live is totally uncaring.

What if a major quake hit Berkeley or God forbid, another major disaster happens in NYC?

We lived in California for decades and still have family and friends throughoutm, some of which are being greatly impacted by the fires.  Please know each and everyone of you all are in our thoughts, prayers and hearts.  

My brother and I have a friend living in the Canyon. We don't exactly know the canyon, but we know it is outside of Malibu. His name is Billy Gray, the young man who starred in Father Knows Best and The Day the Earth Stood Still. Billy is in his seventies now and healthy, from last we corresponded. We hope above all things that Billy is well and his home safe. Where does one start with so much loss? Our hope is that when it finally rains, it pours. Our best to all our firemen and police officers.

Andy good points but we are also not only talking about homes in the 100's of thousands but the millions as well.  They should probably be forced to have massive fire insurance coverage just like earthquake and flood insurance for appropriate zones.  

Other than that I am greatful the loss of life so far has been small, though those are greater losses than the proeprties destroyed.

Rancho Bernardo is not out in the hills. It is urban with many business corp offices of Hewlett Packard and Sony. No one thought the fire would burn homes in an urban setting not far from the coast. Get real and get a map. I suppose we should all move because there might be an earthquake too? We love San Diego. we are  not foolish to live here. We are lucky.

I agree, no place is immune to natural disasters.  I mean, San Diego is actually marketed as having the best climate in the US!  You can't pick a "safe" place to live.  It just doesn't exist.  It's like blaming a mugging victim for living in NYC because they could have moved to Tulsa, OK  where the crime rate is lower.  You pay the price to live where you want to live, but it is a right we all have.

mr. poway obviously didn't know what happened on 9/11 in new york...that, my friend was a tragedy, also. wasn't a natural disaster, but by all accounts...a tragedy...we r not immune. we r really very nice people, too..so c'mon over!

As an urban planner, I have to agree with Rachel.  I work in dense urban area of New Jersey, which fortunately has a statewide plan that designates environmentally sensitive areas for limited growth and chanels funds for roads and water and sewer lines to already developed areas.  While it is nice for people to be able to afford 2,500 square foot McMansions in outlying environmentally sensitve (and in California's case, fireprone) areas, it is not wise to enable the construction of these types of homes in places like that.  There are are areas of with vacant, developable land or vacant rehabilitable buildings in developed urban areas.  The housing could easily be of very good quality if developers were motivated (or mandated) to develop those areas in high enough volume (at high density) to make them affordable to would-be McMansion buyers.  These areas may be in "less desirable" section of town with, but desirability of an area of town can improve, as can the quality of school districts.  Instead of the massive re-investment needed to redevelop inner cities, many governments builds roads and sewer lines to facilitate construction in environmentally sensitive and disaster prone areas and construction companies follow suit.  The now-displaced home buyers chose cathedral ceilings and swimming pools over environmental safety.  I don't blame them, and my heart goes out to them for both their current level of stress and their loss.  The problem is that the public sector enabled these homes to be built instead of pushing for higher density development closer into central San Diego.

Alex says it better -- governments should not allow people to build in these areas, just like they shouldn't allow people to build along hurricane-prone coastlines and floodprone parts of cities like New Orleans. Natural disasters are one thing, but given So. Cal's lack of rainfall, the annual winds, etc., these fires are a sure bet. When they happened 100 years ago no one was affected because no one lived on those hillsides. And if people insist on building in areas they know are unsafe, then they're on their own.

Jen said:

You pay the price to live where you want to live, but it is a right we all have.

Yes, you have the right to pay that price. But why do I have to pay it too in the form of federal taxes spent to bail you out?

Andy & Robert,

quote : Andy
"it's a sad truth we are encroaching on land best reserved for wildlife and beautiful vistas, but is it fair to deny all these people a chance to own property and build thier dream homes?"

Sad or not IT IS THE TRUTH and you speak as though denial of rights for a dream home are specific to
that area. There are many places less risky to buy
and build dream homes.  If you decide to take the risk of building in an area known for natural disaster then that choice is yours to keep but, to expect the rest of the country to carry the load for that risk is not denial it's ridiculous.

Quote: Robert:

"On the other hand maybe i should pack up and move to New York Or Berkley it seems as though they are immune to diasters and tragedys."

i live in New York and grew up outside New Orleans where my entire family still resides. Outright ludicris for you to imply that this tragedy in California comes even close to the need of public
assistance and sympathy related to the attacks on
9/11 in NYC and Katrina in the tristate area down south. NO COMPARISON ...

you both refer to your choice to make homes there as the ONLY place in this country that you can afford to live.

i also lost my home and all my possessions in a fire in 1997. i had no insurance and had to wait 3yrs for any compesation at all from a class action suit. i too know the devastation of losing everything i owned but, i didn't feel it was anyone's responsiblity to help me but my own.    
 
 

Consideration has to be given for both human and wild life - with that said there are other considerations that should be thought of "before" you build a home in an area prone to fire disaster such as a complete fire retardant house - measures taken such a clearing a fire zone around the home - a submersible water tank with a back up generator to spray your home during a fire (a paint job is a lot cheaper to get your home back into shape than having to build another one - poured concrete flat roof decking, makes a great patio and gives you more living space, gable roofing construction with wood is nonsense, gable designs were brought here by the Europeans many years ago because of the dangers of snow loads, patio roof designs can be made beautiful - there's just no reason to build new homes with combustible materials anymore - so why is it continued?  Fires don't stick around for any great length of time - they sweep in consume anything that burns and continue on there way, for you to put in there known danger zone anything that they like to munch on that is important to you is crazy - concrete - glass - tile - stucco should be the order of the day - I've been building homes for close to 40 years now and know that homes could be made safe in a fire sweep if they were built accordingly - when you add up the amount it costs to frame, insulate and cover wooden roof structures and compare that cost to poured concrete and tile there will not be much of a difference in the cost - when common sense rules - you win

First off, this is not your reliable annual fire.  This is much worse, much more destructive.  Over 1 million people have been evacuated.  The Santa Ana winds are fueling those flames, and no amount of preventive measures can stop those winds unless we build a giant bubble over the county.  Secondly, all you judgmental folks seem to forget that every area has it's own share of natural disasters.  No place is 100% safe from Mother Nature. We could say the same thing for those of you that live in the path of hurricanes or flood zones.  And third, you also seem to forget that the vast majority of these fires usually are not natural disasters anyway.  They are typically man made as a result of arson, a cigarette carelessly thrown out a car window, a hiker getting lost and starting a fire in hopes of being rescued, or worse a seasonal firefighter starting a blaze in hopes of being called back to work to make money (hard to believe, but it has happened).  If you do not live here, then you have absolutely no idea the measures that residents, builders, and the government take to help prevent these fires.  And by way, we already pay outrageous amounts for insurance.  Most of these homes that have burned are not McMansions, although the national news seems to focus only on those.  One of the areas hardest hit was a mobile home park.  

Rachel,Jana and Alex, This fire may have started in the back country, but it nearly burnt to the coast.  There may have been ranches that burned, but it also burned in the urban areas.  Spring Valley and Rancho Bernardo are not in the hinter-lands.  They are off of major highways.  This fire jumped an 8 lane highway that is currently being expanded to nearly 16 lanes.  So should we all move to some other, less environmentally sensative areas.  Can you point one out?  Where you live in the dense urban areas, were they not at one point in the outlying areas?  No matter where you live, there are natural disasters.  Be it fire, tornado, hurricane, earthquake or just extreme weather.  Do we not mourn when someone on the East coast dies or loses everything in a hurricane?  Someone else in the Midwest suffers from a tornado?  Or should we just sit back and smuggly say, "that's why we live where we live.  Those people are fools and they deserve everything they got!"

the city and county is overwhelmed with this whole thing. We are getting nice relief efforts at the Stadium, which is way under quality level for anyone to really stay at for any lenght of time.

We are now at a catch 22 in the area. There are 500k people out of homes and about 125k hotel rooms. Most do not take pets. Even though we are in an emergency status, they are still relunctant to take pets and with 5 to 1 for every room, they can silently discriminate.

Areas that could be opened cannot since the fire crews to open the areas are fighting the fires. There is nobody left to clear trees, help with downed power lines, shovel dirt on little hot spots, etc. they do not want to divert the true fighters back to the homes to open them up fast enough.

So we need to really examine how we complete the entire cycle of relief. It will cost us another $1B in relief if we can't solve this soon.

If we can't be as fast to repoen areas as we are to declare major evacutation areas, then the next time they ask, nobody will leave.

Don Teague,

Good to see you back in our neck of the woods!! sorry it had to be under these circumstances. we miss seeing your reports on the local tv station, but we catch them on the national one.  Take care

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):