deleted by creator
I mean, yes, but also fuck the cops and fund the fire department
The main problem is that the houses are made from wood and cardbord, and are placed in and/or surrounded by dry-as-a-fart forests and brushwork. Which is a stupid idea in an area that is known to regularly hve forest and brushwork fires. More now with global warming, which makes the plants even dryer.
deleted by creator
Nonetheless, all the houses I have seen burning in the news were surrounded by dry trees and shrubs. And those houses burned as well as any other American cardboard houses. Somehow, I see no difference between them and houses with not as strict building codes. So either they only show homes that have been grandfathered in, or those building codes make no serious difference.
deleted by creator
I saw more LA houses in the news, and again all what was left was the chimney. To me, it looks like houses there are just part of the fuel. But one cannot tell whether those houses were the ones that were grandfathered in. And if the new regulation is in power for just a few years, just keep in mind how many new houses with new standards have been built since then.
Unlike houses here in Europe, which are usually made of stone, bricks, or concrete. Our house has a reinforced concrete basement and floors, foam concrete insulating walls, and concrete tiles on the roof. While it would definitively see damages if placed into the middle of such a firestorm, it would resist way longer, and would not contribute to the fire. I’d say before our house would get damaged beyond the need to just clean and repaint it, everything combustible (vegetation, sheds, fences) around would be long gone.
deleted by creator
… You realize it’s in the middle of the winter, right? All greenery is going to be dry looking, you can’t just not have greenery at all.
deleted by creator
You don’t understand wildland fire mitigation very much, do you. Every penny helps you troll. And by the way, I have my red card, and a minor in forest fire management.
deleted by creator
To keep it short, it’s called mitigation. You “prevent” crazy fires by eliminating fuel sources. But remember, homes are fuel sources as well, often great fuel sources. I will let you do the math.
deleted by creator
At least a bunch of rich fucks in Malibu and Pacific Palisades are paying the price for it.
Doesn’t help the lungs and bronchial passages of people with asthma and other breathing issues though. A lot of people will die who were nowhere near the fires.
deleted by creator
Apparently not insured enough to not be fretting about it.
They cut ~2% of the budget. Anyone spewing this funding cut bullshit is a partisan hack.
Quit being reactionary.
Why do you think it’s okay to cut funding to the fire department while keeping the police(gang) force that is notorious for not actually doing anything to help it’s citizens?
Think about the priority of the
communitywealthy community members.Fires cause insurance payouts. This means big paydays when those ‘priceless’ works of art go up in smoke. You sell the land and buy somewhere without the insurance hikes. Win-win-win for the wealthy.
Crime causes property values to decline. A break in is harder to deal with. Rabble protesting for fair treatment can get violent. The homeless need to be driven from the wealthy areas so the wealthy can enjoy their champagne and caviar in peace after snorting coke off of a trafficked sex slave’s tits. Police are so very valuable for keeping the wealthy safe.
They know exactly what the right priority is… for the people who actually matter (not us.)
deleted by creator
I have to do other people’s jobs. Slap some tin foil on em and throw them in to help.
LAPD cops can shout and order the fires to freeze!
They could also shoot it if it does not obey!
Maybe if they all shoot the fire in the back when it’s sleeping?!
Given the history of wildfires in California, someone has anti-survival traits.
Fire is a natural part of the ecological system. You can by time, but eventually, it will happen. Building in wildlands is a recipe for disaster, if you don’t create breaks, or defencable zones. It’s not a simple problem, with a simple solution. A big part of the problem, is building all those homes there, but if you’re gonna build, then you should protect. A lot of people build in forested areas and don’t create defensible zones, because, that’s why they move there, for pretty trees.
True, it’s a multi-level fuck-up, which nature is showing us quite clearly. Solutions would not need to be that difficult, just gradually stop burning fossil fuels, stop eating meat, build responsibly and spread money evenly. Too bad that all the people getting rich from these things have a succesful propaganda campaign going on. Nature will not be tamed however, not in the foreseeable future.
Just give firefighting responsibility to the cops! Then they can show up to your kitchen fire, put it out, shoot your dog, and arrest you for complaining all in one trip!
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Yeah, I don’t think taking $17m from $837m results in this. If anything, it might have something to do with those cat 1 hurricane level winds.
The new budget was increased over the previous year.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/los-angeles-mayor-karen-bass-pushes-back-criticism/story?id=117512817
lmao, what an argument for them to make. “It’s not a budget cut, the unions fought us, won, and made us hand over more money after we slashed their already hilarious low budget!”
deleted by creator
Building houses without concrete and bricks and then located in the woods - what can go wrong.
What I don’t understand- most countries have fire fighting airplanes for these things.
How in a world US being a country with such a mighty economy - doesn’t have them or doesn’t want to use them. PatheticThe US absolutely does have those planes. (That’s 1 example, here are others) But high winds are keeping most of them from operating (the winds are what is spreading the fires).
They are using helicopters, but those can’t carry as much.
California didn’t used to burn like this. Yeah, there were fires, but they were far more rare and didn’t affect as many people because the state wasn’t as populous and nowhere near as short of water.
As to your second statement, it’s bullshit. Wth the “mighty economy” statement has to do with anything. There’s a huge firefighting industry on the west coast and in California, both ground and air. They are using aircraft, even with a temporary stop due to high winds.
Bricks and mortar houses would burn, too under these circumstances.