Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I agree completely. If someone wants to get the government involved, get them involved in building codes. To build a legal home in California requires a Building Permit. This permit requires you to build your house in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. If you want to prevent disasters like the Camp fire here's what you must do. First limit where people are allowed to build. Second change the Uniform Building Code to reflect the necessary changes to make houses at least "non-combustible". That is where the government responsibility ends.

After that it is the responsibility of the residents to do "due diligence" on their choice of living areas. First and foremost anyone choosing to live in a fire zone, a flood zone, a hurricane zone, an earthquake zone or other risky areas must understand the risks and accept them, take personal responsibility for their choices and accept the results. Cold blooded? Yes it is. Life is cold blooded. Never forget that.

I have learned over the years about personal responsibility. I am a second generation Californian. I only left the state when attitudes and policies destroyed the state I kneq

Diocletian

And these yuge fires have absolutely NOTHING to do with the hot dryer-than dry global warming conditions we have.....nope, nothing to see here folks...look over here at these migrant caravans...or at the fake news media...must be all their fault...yup, yup, nothing to see here...not even my tiny hands atwittering massive garbage and hatred for my fans to gobble down in great brain dead gulps.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Actually CA does not use the UBC, they have their own building codes and the UBC is very obsolete and has been for decades.
CA requires homes to be built under the residential code which is different from the commercial CA codes. The CA code is similar to the IRC and commercially the IBC series of codes.
2016 California Residential Code, Part 2.5 is the current CA residential code being used. They fall under Title 24.
In addition there are CA coastal requirements and Bay Area requirements. Additionally local counties and cities etc. can and do have supplements you need to comply with in addition to Title 24.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Where is that information available about Catholic Charities available?

Largobob

When you speak of "illegal immigrant Amnesty"....sorry if many of us not enamored with the liberalism of California are not moved/impressed. Shakedowns? Fraud? Mistreatment by the INS? Any evidence? Perhaps they were simply following existing laws and immigration policies?

Hard for me to believe that Catholic Charities would be anything but charitable!

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Thank you Architect1776. You have forced me into more research than I have done in a long time. Since I left California many things have changed. I really wanted to download and review Title 24 but it has become a pseudo-public document and is only available for purchase $124.00 I think. The section pertinent to this discussion is, Title 24, Section 2.4 Chapter 7, Wildland-Urban Interface. This section is administered by Cal-Fire and enforced by the State Fire Marshal. How the agencies interact with local jurisdictions is too convoluted to try to figure out. None of the Code's requirements are retroactive of course so houses built before each Code revision do not have to be retrofitted.

As the population continues to expand options need to be explored. I think that first, and I have no idea how to accomplish this, folks who chose to live in risky environments need to really understand the risk and that any time they may loose everything they have and even their lives. Forest fires are going to happen on the Wildland-Urban Interface and nothing is going to prevent that. Paradise, according to what I have been able to determine, had a very well planned and practiced evacuation plan the problem is it just didn't work.

Forest management certainly needs to be explored and implemented as appropriate. I know this is heresy but perhaps what needs to be considered is to prohibit any residential construction at the Wildland-Urban Interface or any other high risk areas. Perhaps over the next several years, as these losses continue, the insurance companies will resolve the issue by raising their rates to levels that people can't afford or simply refusing to ensure high risk areas.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Even though I live in PA I am licensed in 32 states and that includes CA and the western states.
I believe all can live in harmony but the current system is completely broken.
I designed a city in eastern NV that was to start at 42K acres. This city was to be a sustainable city which we recycled water and waste. A major component was to build in a way so as to have as little adverse impact on the wildlife. Yet have all the amenities including golf courses.
We did several environmental surveys and ultimately took about 20K acres and dedicated it to NO development. Protected tortoise habitats, provided continuous game trails across the community using natural arroyos and terrain so they would be comfortable traveling through a human environment.
Quite a job but exciting. It is still growing and doing well last I checked.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

It is certainly is. Environmental compatibility as you describe is admirable, however, that is not what we are addressing here. We are currently facing two, or perhaps three issues. Responsibility of builders, developers and zoning agencies; personal responsibility; and a deep misunderstanding of risk assessment and risk avoidance by the first two.

No matter how environmental friendly a development is, if it allowed to be built in the Wildlands-Uban Interface (WUI)it is at risk of destruction from uncontrolled wild fire. These risks can be mittigated but not eliminated. The blame goes first to the developer. If that entity doesn't recognize the risk of his project he should not be trusted to develop an outhouse much less a housing project with real people living there. Second the zoning agency for approving a development in a WUI. They, of all involved in this venture, are most responsible. The zoning agency is tasked with identifying safe areas for this type of project. They failed the residents who lost homes in the Carr fire near Redding, CA as well as the residents in the Camp fire area. Certainly the residents bear a certain responsibility for failure to do due dilligence on their purchase. Unfortunately they had a misplaced trust in the builders and regulators.

Finally, I believe the ultimate blame (responsibility) lies with with the alliance of builders and zoning agencies. As you, of all people, should know there has historically been a close and incestuous relationship between regulators and regulated. I would never suggest that money and favors pass back and forth between these two groups but...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Quote from, Butch Crawford
Californians take note! The same forest, the same trees. The private property on the right of the fence was logged and properly managed. To the left is US Forest Service land that hasn't been managed. See a difference? ~ Photo Credit: "I took this picture in 2013 on a ranch I was running west of Helena, MT" - Jim Priest **notice the remains of a USFS boundary marker on the first fence post in the photograph

(Download)

gerdog

A natural, UNMANAGED forest has its own special beauty. Just as with hurricanes, people have to take threats from disasters more seriously. Logging leaves behind debris and opens more area for brush to grow. It's the dry brush, hot temperatures, and high winds that cause the fires to spread so fast in the first place. It's why a place that suffered a devastating forest fire one year can have another 10 years later, long before trees have become a forest again. Dried out plants are just going to burn. No amount of so-called management is going to stop that, unless you choose to defoliate the area completely. This is not a new problem out west, and it is likely to keep happening for the foreseeable future.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I guess you totally missed my post just ahead of yours. look at the photo. My cousin has a fellow rancher who took this photo.
Logging does nothing to hurt the forest.
You have never seen the rim above Oak Creek Canyon forest.
When my mother was young it was forested, I remember the trees were very small, now look at it today, I'll bet you would never know it had been forested.

gerdog

And you entirely misunderstand what is happening in California. Read the headlines. The fires that are killing people out there are not forest fires, they are wild fires, a totally different beast. A fire in an old growth forest moves slowly, giving people time to flee. In fact, your picture shows the problem. The old "unmanaged" forest on the left forms a natural windbreak that will slow the fire's spread. It's also where the wildlife will choose to live. The "properly managed" area on the right allows a 40 MPH wind to blow straight through, spreading fire through the underbrush at that same speed. I live in the middle of a forest in Michigan where lumber companies have "managed" it. They cut down the old hardwoods, and replaced them with fast growing pines. They choose varieties that grow tall and straight and drop most of their lower branches. Then the canopy deflects the wind down through the old dead branches and brush at ground level, allowing any fire all the dry fuel and oxygen it needs to move fast. Thinning a forest and allowing more brush to grow in its place isn't going to help. During drought, the new little trees are going to burn up like match sticks. And California is dealing with a long term drought problem. If the area from your picture in Montana was subjected to the same hot, dry, windy conditions as in Paradise, all the trees on both sides would suffer the same fate during a fire. Forest management has nothing to do with it. If you know of a lumbering company that will issue a warranty guaranteeing that their work will prevent fires, please tell me so I can check into it. It's not a situation where politics should be coming into play. The weather was the cause of the fire, and no amount of "management" is going to restore water to the trees and brush and grass so that it won't burn so fast.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Makes no difference. where the fire is the fires should be left to burn as nature intended. That is my point over all. for millions of years the planet naturally cleaned itself and survived and the animals survived. Putting out the fires allows crap, regardless of where, to build up and we are now reaping the reward of complete stupidity here and everywhere. PS, build your building according to the danger of the area, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and FIRE.