Pacific Palisades Wildfire

[edyvw]

Nice try. You still dodged answering the question why they are most capable firefighting department. I don't which department is and I'm not the one claiming I do. That's you. So why is CalFire the most capable as you stated?

I answered it. I work on FD training. That agency (to repeat again) has the most capacity. No other agency has that aerial firefighting capability, other resources, manpower, etc. They are at the forefront of wildfire training.
If you want numbers, you can easily find them in government documents.
When we develop a curriculum for training, CalFire (as well as LAFD, generally that region) is the go-to for experience, know-how, etc.
Also, CA is 4th largest economy in the world, it matters! No other state can match its resources for this.

 

[Cropduster172]

So, are you saying that they are not doing that there? You still did not tell us anything here. Who does it better? What are they supposed to do? Are you living in So Cal? Did you live?
No, it is not. But here I am.

Yes. Evidently they are not...either as a trade off measure to avoid mudslides or flat out negligence. I lean towards the negligence as wildfires cause far more damage than mudslides in CA. Fact.
No. I don't live in Southern California. My best buddy is retired San Diego FD Captain. He's actually volunteered and fought wildfires in retirement but mostly in Northern California.
I'll go with what he tells me over BITOG
"experts" though.

 

[edyvw]

Yes. Evidently they are not...either as a trade off measure to avoid mudslides or flat out negligence. I lean towards the negligence as wildfires cause far more damage than missing CA.
No. I don't live in Southern California. My best buddy is retired San Diego FD Captain. He's actually volunteered and fought wildfires in retirement but mostly in Northern California.
I'll go with what he tells me over BITOG " experts" though.

So, basically, what you are saying is that in your opinion, they could prevent fire if they just cut the trees etc?

 

[Rmay635703]

No. They cut down trees, cut grass, cut and remove brush at the request of fire departments.
Written English isn't your first language is it?

Federal and Privately owned lands aren’t maintained by the county, state or local municipalities and fines, levies and lawsuits occur if the wrong entity does the work. The 5% of the land that burned that is under local jurisdiction does nothing to solve the issue.

Lack of Federal land “management “ started decades ago around the Reagan era, so look up if you want to start scapegoating.

 

[Cropduster172]

So, basically, what you are saying is that in your opinion, they could prevent fire if they just cut the trees etc?

Brush in suburban areas.

 

[buster]

I'm not knowledgeable on fire prevention at all. I find it hard to believe that nothing could have been done to prevent the scope of damage knowing the threat that was there for years. I'm reading too many excuses.

 

[edyvw]

Brush in suburban areas.

Considering that brush fire mitigation is at the top of prevention measures I bet they do. I am not going to pretend here and say I know exactly what and how much they do. Nor you know that.
We do that all the time and yet, few weeks ago we had brush fire after 5” of snow.

 

[edyvw]

I'm not knowledgeable on fire prevention at all. I find it hard to believe that nothing could have been done to prevent the scope of damage knowing the threat that was there for years. I'm reading too many excuses.

The problem is type of vegetaion. When 100mph gusts hit, ambers fly for miles. Last night there was a video where amber landed on top of palm tree and ignited it in the middle if the neighborhood where otherwise was no fire. Luckily they managed to put it under control.

 

[Cropduster172]

I'm not knowledgeable on fire prevention at all. I find it hard to believe that nothing could have been done to prevent the scope of damage knowing the threat that was there for years. I'm reading too many excuses.

SoCal gets Santa Anna Winds every year. It's not like it's a freak, unknown risk. They also get extended periods of heavy rain. Would seem for the taxes folks pay out there, a viable water storage solution would've been established by now.
Seems there's other priorities.
The LA mayor being in Ghana while this disaster is ongoing tells one where California government priorities are. Certainly not for the best interests of it's citizens.

 

[ripcord]

Just wait until these fire victims start trying to pull building permits to rebuild, and run into the wall of bureaucracy that has become the direct result of who they voted for. They will quickly become victims of their own creation. This entire mess has only begun.

If the recent experiences in Lahaina, Hawaii are any predictor, local folks are in for a long, tedious and frustrating time before everything gets rebuilt. The way my Hawaii in-laws talk about it, the frustration levels with state and local government miss-management are sky high. Municipal bureaucracies are just not equipped to handle this kind of thing. Plus there's probably more lawyers per square mile in the LA area than anywhere outside of New York and you just know a bunch are already writing motions for lawsuits that will gum up the works for years to come.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Maybe I missed it but what started it?

Under investigation... Here's what we have been told so far:

Days after the National Weather Service in Los Angeles warned of extreme fire risk amid “life-threatening and destructive” windstorms, a fire broke out at about 10.30am local time on Tuesday in the Santa Monica mountains.
The cause remains under investigation, but it was exacerbated by the strong winds and dry conditions after a period of low rainfall.
The blaze quickly moved down to the wealthy Pacific Palisades neighbourhood between Malibu and Santa Monica.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Maybe I missed it but what started it?

You haven't missed anything yet. As of this morning they said inspectors are looking at it, but no information is available.

Home insurance is a huge problem in California. Apparently, the state hasn't allowed insurance companies to adjust rates for reinsurance costs, so the big insurers have not been allowing policy holders to renew. Rather than lose money, they are leaving the state. This happened ~ 3 years ago to me with fire prone property in the Sierra foothills in Northern California, and recently to my sister in non-fire prone Santa Paula (near LA). Those are only two examples, but it has been happening on a massive scale state wide. Many people have been forced into the Cal FAIR plan, an extremely expensive, poor coverage option of last resort.
On the NoCal property, the new owner went with the mandatory policy the mortgage holder put on the property when his policy didn't renew. Hard to believe this the cheapest, and actually only option. The Cal FAIR plan was too expensive, and wouldn't cover much, so it was a no go.
An odd coincidence - my sister's house burnt down last month shortly before her policy expired (house electrical fire, not associated with the wildfires). She had been looking, but it appeared the FAIR plan was the only policy available.

When the final tally is in, I'll bet there is a heartbreaking number of uninsured houses that have burned down in the recent fires. That might help start a bloodless coup in California, much like Prop 13 did when people were forced out of their homes with ungodly tax increases.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Drop the politics and petty comments. Start your own thread.
We have people who will need emergency housing, medical care, food, etc.

Fire Departments as far as the Great State of Washington are sending help. Maybe try doing something positive, helpful.

 

[dnewton3]

Folks -

Tensions are running high and talk is going political.
Time for a break; a cooling off.