- Nov 11, 2008
- Las Vegas
The problem in California isn't the mountain dwellers, it's all the flatlanders living in their rat infested cities that make all the rules. California public forests have not been properly maintained for decades. Private landowners are not allowed to cut their own trees or remove vegetation in many locations. As long as the terrible fires can be blamed upon climate change (without any supporting scientific data) and further an agenda don't expect anything to change.
Originally Posted by bdcardinal
This is so true. People want to live in the middle of no where but have all the amenities like they are living in suburbia. If I was going to buy a house like that I would have solar panels along with battery storage and generators.
Originally Posted by xfactor9
The real issue is that a segment of the population wants to live in rural, rustic areas of the state and but aren't willing to pay for the infrastructure to support their desired life. Calif has mountainous & hilly terrain and huge expanses of forests. It is expensive to build a robust power grid in that type of terrain. And since those areas are sparely populated, the per-capita cost is enormous. The residents of those areas want to enjoy Calif's scenery but aren't willing or able to pay all of the costs to safely live in it. The state has 80,000 miles of overhead power lines; thousands of miles would need to be buried. Is the relatively small population of rural residents willing to fork over tens of billions to do that? I doubt it. The urban areas aren't affected and don't want to subsidize their lifestyle choice. And not all those rural areas are rich people -- Paradise, the city that burned down, was relatively poor. In fact, rural areas of the state are on average poorer than the urban areas. Wealthy residents will pay $10k for a standby generator, so this won't affect them in the future. The others will have to make a choice.