Justice - I've been wondering the same thing, although from a distance.
1) Information infrastructure is clearly poor - both at the beginning of the fire and throughout the fire. Only basic information (where to go to evacuate) has been available, very little on the actual behavior of the fire.
2) People keep saying the houses losts were in "inaccessible" areas, which is wrong. Many homes were lost early on when they were near hydrants, the response was slow - my belief is that the firefighters needed extra time to group themselves, due to the enormity of the fire, which is understandable - but clearly, a different kind of planning is needed. Since they were incapable of responding to so many house fires at once, they seem to have been hamstrung until they developed a different kind of plan. The planning agencies/city managers were so certain (apparently) that this kind of thing "could not happen" that they weren't ready for it.
3. There may be no solution, longterm, especially given budget constraints. But if that is true, people who live anywhere near parks, tree belts, foothills, grasslands and anyplace else where fire can move rapidly and get to more than one house at a time, should NOT be told they are "safe." Instead, they should be told they are risking a lot to live there. This would drive insurance costs up (and housing prices down) and I think a lot of people have been unwilling to face that, and the city ends up telling people what they want to hear - and what seems to generate income/keep the budget under control in the first place.
4. In some parts of fire-prone California, residents have spent very large sums of money building their own automated fire responses (pools with automatic pumps, sprinklers on top of the roofs and sidewalls) and kept to very stringent landscaping/building ordinances. If steel and concrete buildings are safer, people need to know that. If cinder block firewalls work, people need to use them - there are ways of making them attractive. But people need ASSISTANCE and KNOWLEDGE in figuring out how to do this. The local community college should have classes in fireproofing one's home. There are new techniques that none of us regular folks know anything about - the word needs to get out.
Best of luck in rebuilding your house - learn as much as you can about keeping it safe, don't rely on what the city says, you'll get through this and things will be good again. I wish there was a way to donate directly to homeowners like yourself to help with costs and replacement of much-needed wardrobe and other personal items (yes - I'd donate to help someone replace their IPOD or other "frivolous" things - because that's what helps people get through something like this).
Previous Month
Posted on November 15 at 9:58 a.m.
Justice - I've been wondering the same thing, although from a distance.
1) Information infrastructure is clearly poor - both at the beginning of the fire and throughout the fire. Only basic information (where to go to evacuate) has been available, very little on the actual behavior of the fire.
2) People keep saying the houses losts were in "inaccessible" areas, which is wrong. Many homes were lost early on when they were near hydrants, the response was slow - my belief is that the firefighters needed extra time to group themselves, due to the enormity of the fire, which is understandable - but clearly, a different kind of planning is needed. Since they were incapable of responding to so many house fires at once, they seem to have been hamstrung until they developed a different kind of plan. The planning agencies/city managers were so certain (apparently) that this kind of thing "could not happen" that they weren't ready for it.
3. There may be no solution, longterm, especially given budget constraints. But if that is true, people who live anywhere near parks, tree belts, foothills, grasslands and anyplace else where fire can move rapidly and get to more than one house at a time, should NOT be told they are "safe." Instead, they should be told they are risking a lot to live there. This would drive insurance costs up (and housing prices down) and I think a lot of people have been unwilling to face that, and the city ends up telling people what they want to hear - and what seems to generate income/keep the budget under control in the first place.
4. In some parts of fire-prone California, residents have spent very large sums of money building their own automated fire responses (pools with automatic pumps, sprinklers on top of the roofs and sidewalls) and kept to very stringent landscaping/building ordinances. If steel and concrete buildings are safer, people need to know that. If cinder block firewalls work, people need to use them - there are ways of making them attractive. But people need ASSISTANCE and KNOWLEDGE in figuring out how to do this. The local community college should have classes in fireproofing one's home. There are new techniques that none of us regular folks know anything about - the word needs to get out.
Best of luck in rebuilding your house - learn as much as you can about keeping it safe, don't rely on what the city says, you'll get through this and things will be good again. I wish there was a way to donate directly to homeowners like yourself to help with costs and replacement of much-needed wardrobe and other personal items (yes - I'd donate to help someone replace their IPOD or other "frivolous" things - because that's what helps people get through something like this).
Maybe someone will start such a thing.
All the best.
On Tea Fire Morning Update