Tuesday, October 23, 2007


Raging Calif. wildfires force 1M to flee

Wow, largest California evacuation in its history, from fires that have burned close to half a million acres, fanned by high winds and 90+ degree temperatures (yes, it was 90+ today in late October and I am in law school in shorts and flipflops).

Quote of the day from a LA Times forum about the fire:
"You can scoff at people for building McMansions in fire-prone areas all you want, but don't forget that developers are the ones drawing the plans and city governments are the ones approving the permits."

Overall, I think that the fires are a huge disaster, and wish that the winds would die down. But, I keep on reading stories about stubborn people who refuse to leave their houses, because they think somehow if they're in their house, they can magically save it from burning (even though the fires have overwhelmed even professional firefighters). See stories here and here. I realize that the houses are a large financial investment, but these die-hards are merely taking away resources from the firefighting effort. And if these people eventually need rescuing, firefighters will be pulled from fighting fires to rescue these people, risking firefighters' own lives. No offense, but if someone tells me that I should evacuate because of fire, I leave. And if I decide to build a house in a fire-prone area, I will be sure to buy insurance in case there is a forest fire.

Like mountain rescues of foolish mountaineers where the government has begun to charge for the rescues, if firefighters eventually need to rescue these people's sorry butts from their house, they should be charged for it.


Blogger Strange Bird said...

They already are. Taxes. (Not that I don't agree...)

9:55 PM  
Blogger The Fox said...

yes, their tax dollars go to fund the fire department. but should not fund risky rescues of stubborn homeowners who get into their mess because they originally ignored the advice of the fire department.

11:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home