Town Square

Post a New Topic

Californians unwilling to subsidize land owners' wildfire prevention, Stanford poll finds

Original post made on Nov 2, 2019

Years of devastating, back-to-back wildfires coupled with recent power shutdowns have not convinced Californians to fund wildfire prevention on behalf of at-risk homeowners and businesses, Stanford University researchers have found.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, November 2, 2019, 8:33 AM

Comments (13)

10 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 2, 2019 at 1:28 pm

What is the definition of "fire prone area"? Is the state mapping these out like they do with the flood zone maps?

The problem is that our climate is changing. The whole city of Santa Rosa was at risk during last year's fire. I don't think they considered it to be a "fire prone area" when the city was founded, but back then rain in October was common, unlike now when the dry season usually lasts until December. Clearing brush from around homes makes sense in sparsely populated areas, but what do we do when a whole city is at risk?


3 people like this
Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 2, 2019 at 1:45 pm

rsmithjr is a registered user.

Many people like to live in beautiful outdoor surrounding with trees, wildlife, and spectacular views. They also want to have new 4000 sq ft houses with all utilities and the comforts of the city at their their disposal while living in the country.

I noted during the Paradise campfire that responders had a difficult time driving into the areas because of the lack of adequate roads and bridges.

This is expensive and someone needs to pay for it. I suggest it is the homes and businesses that want such surroundings who should pay for their own utility and safety infrastructure.




2 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2019 at 2:50 pm

I'm a little disappointed in the results, which are akin to how people looked at seat belts. As a liberal, I'm all about personal freedom, but, as with any freedom, people need to understand the impact on other people. It may be freedom if you, individually, choose to live in a small cabin in the fire-prone woods. It is your responsibility to protect yourself, and, your problem if the cabin burns down. But, if a city grows up around you, with kids in school, hospitals, and public services, the rules MUST change.


6 people like this
Posted by George
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 3, 2019 at 9:15 am

The goal should be to shift current federal and state fire expenditures from reacting to annual disasters (very expensive) to perpetual, proactive forest cleanup. People have been moving up into the woods in large numbers since the seventies and little has been done to reduce the risk. California's woods are full of millions of dead trees due to infestation and fire - these need to be cleaned out. Better managed forests would free up fire funds for more cleanup.
City and county politicians own some responsibility - far too many buildings permits in known hazard areas. Much was written at the time of the 'Hanley fire that devastated a huge area adjacent to Santa Rosa yet the county fully approved development in that same footprint to build Fountain Grove in the seventies, Fountain Grove, of course, famous for the disastrous burn of over 1500 homes in 2017 and, the county permitting rebuilding in the exact same footprint now. That's just Santa Rosa but elsewhere, everywhere north and south, building the woods and canyons prone to blaze goes on.
True, PGE lines everywhere run through thick brush and trees on aging wooden poles which in many places don't seem to have been maintained for years. PGE does have its work to do ahead.
But the state, including the county governments, may be most to blame. The state has dreams of bullet trains and open borders but has not done too well planning for, and providing for, it's growth. Fire hazards join the list of transportation, housing, water and energy infrastructure, and unfunded government liabilities that the state has failed to plan for.
California has to stop sprawl, build up - and in places like the peninsula way up - and block further development in the woods. Building out endless housing into the foothills and valley and into the mountains is unsustainable. Hopefully, the recent outages and fires will inspire a recommitment to California's green spaces. A moratorium on any further development in the woods, Cal fire leading a cleanup of the woods to reduce the amount of tinder, and a serious PGE effort to harden it's network should all help.


9 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Nov 3, 2019 at 9:30 am

People move to those areas because they do not want to live in an expensive, small,cramped, 1.2 million dollar condo on the fourth floor with no parking and a $1350 maintenance fee.

Would You?


8 people like this
Posted by Safety First
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2019 at 9:57 am

@George,
You make many good points, but the problem is your answer. This is earthquake country, and building densely in cities is also a recipe for fire-related destruction and death on a massive scale. That is getting overlooked in all this, because safety always takes a back seat until disaster happens. The real answer is for planning to have a safety-first ethos (legally enforced). In order for that to have teeth, our state should create a health and safety fund, the way the state of Minnesota did, to help different municipalities upgrade their infrastructure, schools, and public works for safety.

@rsmithjr wrote:
"I noted during the Paradise campfire that responders had a difficult time driving into the areas because of the lack of adequate roads and bridges. "

Everyone should watch the recent Frontline about the way the Paradise fire developed. Several years ago, I remember driving through Paradise, and as a disaster survivor myself (lost a home in a major CA wildfire), I recall saying something to the effect of it being obvious that all of that was going to burn someday and wondering why no one there was doing something about the obvious danger. Given the obvious danger, the town was not set up to evacuate, either, which was strange given foreseeable disasters. (Something our own area should not be smug about.)

The Frontline show makes the point that there were people trying to improve egress for evacuees in the event of foreseeable disasters. But they felt complacency because of a complicated plan (first mistake), and they just did not have the money to devote to widening the roads that couldn't be justified based on daily use (as opposed to safety first).

This is a state with specific safety planning needs. We should have a state fund to help communities put safety first. And then a state mandate! Because otherwise, it's all well and good to blame people for being in harm's way, but so long as developers can do whatever they want, unsafe development will continue.


3 people like this
Posted by Safety First
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2019 at 10:01 am

"but so long as developers can do whatever they want, unsafe development will continue."

Including overly dense urban development with perpetually obsoleted seismically unsafe tall dense buildings (e.g., SF), no egress to evacuate or natural fire breaks or disaster staging open spaces, for example.

The answer to this should not be a kneejerk move to making even more risk of massive loss of property and life in the event of a foreseeable major quake event or even just a major urban fire event.


2 people like this
Posted by George
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 3, 2019 at 10:36 am

#Resident- I agree. The peninsula is still a great place to be. It's better to build up and build well here than to pave the state with single family boxes spaced 6 feet apart, three miles from the strip mall and miles and miles from any real community. Better to drive out of the city and enjoy the mountains as they were than to drive out of the city only to be in more city. Stacking lots and lots of 2000 - 3000 sq ft. Apartments here could eventually increase supply and help to moderate the crazy costs. But I would hope that in general we build closer to the core and not, as we are, further and further out.


Like this comment
Posted by George
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 3, 2019 at 10:52 am

#SafetyFirst - more public funds - including a safety fund - equals more taxes. Cal Fire has proved to be a great resource, so, yes, this type of funding is great. Since ALL public money is dependent on commerce and private funds, the better option is to build the solutions into the normal course of business and by regulations that would effectively put a moratorium on building in fire prone areas that cannot protect themselves. Oakland imposed homeowner requirements to clean up after the big Oakland fire - that reasonable maintenance could be imposed in reasonable measure statewide.
The new Salesforce tower was built in an earthquake zone. Unless we are willing to relocate everything to safer ground, this is the place to build.


7 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 3, 2019 at 7:31 pm

What Frontline did not cover was the fact that new road furniture were put in some parts of Paradise eliminating a couple of lanes.

Palo Alto did the same on Arastradero/Charleston corridor.


I believe they built the project for two reasons:

1) Grant money from Fed, State, County

2) If traffic is impeded their is less traffic entering Middlefield/San Antonio and Charleston/San Antonio in order to pass a traffic study. Now the developers can build more buildings. Oshman center, the new hotels....ect...
More dense housing/office space = more property tax = more money for the City of Palo Alto.

I understand the thinking, I just think it is really slimy using student safety as a their pitch to get public consent. When in reality it is far more dangerous with the new traffic furniture.

Palo Alto was not thinking when they converted Arastradero/ Charleston from four lanes to two. Hopefully this will not be a factor in the next emergency


5 people like this
Posted by Betty Jo
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Nov 4, 2019 at 1:01 pm

Living on the Wildland/Urban interface is wonderful until it isn’t.

And, for so many small communities, the fire problem is near intractable. Homeowner insurance is very expensive if you can get it at all, many folks who live in the woods just don’t have much money - sometimes the only rural jobs are minimum wage at the convenience store in town. And, too often, there’s only one way in or out and that is often a narrow one lane road. One of our friends managed to get some CALFIRE grant money to help her community do brush clearing. Having property owners do prescribed burning sounds like a terrible idea. Even when CALFIRE does prescribed burning, they can get out of hand. Lewiston got burned out by one that got away a few years ago. Ya just never know when the weather and wind might change suddenly and then you’re in trouble.

Building codes already require sprinkler systems for new residential construction on the wild land interface. But these are both expensive to install and require electricity to keep the pipes from freezing.

I think we oughta forbid new housing developments in high fire prone areas, nobody should be putting on shingle roofs, strong public outreach to educate everyone about defensible space landscaping might help. Civilian Conservation Crews should be funded big-time. They provide good work experience and employment in rural areas and can help homeowners with brush clearing.

My heart aches for all the poor folks caught up in these latest conflagrations.


7 people like this
Posted by rhody
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 4, 2019 at 4:52 pm

rhody is a registered user.

I agree with the comment about the dangers of road "furniture" on neighborhood access routes like Charleston/Arastradero. There should be more critical thinking before transportation is slowed down!


1 person likes this
Posted by pinball
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 5, 2019 at 4:51 pm

pinball is a registered user.

Same opion of this that I have to public pensions etc. I think people need to pay for the cost of things upfront so that they can decide whether it's worth it. If the net cost of a pension raises a city worker's effective salary 2x, then it should be budgeted at 2x. Allowing or subsidizing building out in fire country is like having an unfunded pension. We should pay, or make people pay for it up front.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Su Hong 2.0? Former waiter reopens Chinese standby under new name in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 11 comments | 6,963 views

What gives you hope?
By Sherry Listgarten | 18 comments | 3,351 views

Living as Roommates? Not Having Much Sex?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 3,334 views

Expert witnesses are more than experts. Plus my 7 fundamental impeachment questions
By Douglas Moran | 34 comments | 3,063 views

Sure, the traffic mess in town is a complicated problem, but I want a solution
By Diana Diamond | 30 comments | 1,079 views

 

The holidays are here!

From live music to a visit with Santa, here's a look at some local holiday activities to help you get into the spirit of the season.

VIEW