Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Here is the video. I'm not sure if I completely agree with Ms Curtis.. but she raises a valid point. We as a population need to anticipate these things and plan accordingly. <a href="http://www.etonline.com/video.php?vid=55105&config=/media/video/2007/10/55105/index.php" target="_blank">http://www.etonline.com/video. php?vid=55105&config=/media/video/2007/10/55105/index.php</a>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom George Carlin had some harsh words to say about Californians too. <a href="http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20153859,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.people.com/people/a rticle/0,,20153859,00.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I think it would have been better if Jamie Lee Curtis elaborated more on what she thinks everyone should be doing. I think George Carlin has gone way overboard in his statements.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I used to love George Carlin, and he's still capable of some on-the-money observations... but the misanthropy has definitely been on the rise over the past decade or so.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Carlin could have expressed it a little more humanely, but the guy DOES have a point. You build in a flood plain you are going to get flooded. What's so surprising about that? I can accept people doing it once. Maybe they were dumb. Maybe they didn't know. But whenever you read about the floods you always hear the people saying something like "I can't believe it. I finally got everything back together from the 2003 flood and now I have to start all over". Knock, knock puddin' head. What the hell were you thinking? As far as I'm concerned a person should never be able to collect on flood insurance or disaster benefits on the same location more than once. If they build back in the same spot they deserve whatever comes their way the next time around. Already I am reading about how the current fires compare to the ones they had in 2003... some of them in pretty much the same location. How many times you gotta burn before you realize it is Gods way of saying you maybe shouldn't live there? Geez... now I've been more Carlinesque than I really intended. But you gotta wonder about some of this stuff.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>As far as I'm concerned a person should never be able to collect on flood insurance or disaster benefits on the same location more than once. If they build back in the same spot they deserve whatever comes their way the next time around.<< So that means no building in much of California, which is criss-crossed with faultlines. And anywhere tornadoes hit with regularity. And just about any coastline where hurricanes happen. And anywhere where wildfires could happen. Come on, everyone! We're moving to Minnesota!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So that means no building in much of California, which is criss-crossed with faultlines. And anywhere tornadoes hit with regularity. And just about any coastline where hurricanes happen. And anywhere where wildfires could happen.>> You enter frequency into the analysis. How many times has the same area in California sustained catastrophic damage from earthquakes over the past 50 years? Tornados are very random. Even if the same vicinity is hit twice the same location usually is not. I doubt there are many places where a building in a single location has been destroyed by a tornado more than once. Hurricanes? Well yes. The rule applies to them too. Although with proper construction techniques the chance of sustaining major damage from earthquakes could be significantly reduced. You wanna live on the coast? Fine. You will have to pay a little more to construct your house. <<Come on, everyone! We're moving to Minnesota!>> Cool. Free walleye, lutefisk and corn on the cob for everyone!!
Originally Posted By jonvn If you can even smell lutefisk without barfing, you are a stronger human than me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If you can even smell lutefisk without barfing, you are a stronger human than me.>> That's Minnesota... where <<all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average>>
Originally Posted By jonvn "How many times has the same area in California sustained catastrophic damage from earthquakes over the past 50 years?" A few times. Not too often. In 1971, for example, there was a 6.5 earthquake in Sylmar. It killed 70 or so people and destroyed many buildings. Then again in 1993 or so there was the Northridge quake, in the same basic area, also causing wide spread damage. There were earthquakes in SF in the 50s, 60s, and a really big one in 89. The area is about 10 years overdue for another very large quake. The fires happen pretty much every year, but in different places. Some of them are really bad. In oakland in 1990 or so, about 3000 homes were burned, and 25 people were killed when fire swept through a street they were on when they were trying to evacuate (don't wait until the last minute, people). So, stuff happens.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<A few times. Not too often. In 1971, for example, there was a 6.5 earthquake in Sylmar. It killed 70 or so people and destroyed many buildings. Then again in 1993 or so there was the Northridge quake, in the same basic area, also causing wide spread damage.>> That is kind of what I figured. They happen infrequently enough that I have no problem with insurance or disaster aid paying more than once for the same location.
Originally Posted By Elderp Insurance is almost like betting, except in insurance's case everyone (including the payee) is hoping that its a loss. As long as insurance companies are willing to risk the policies and and as long as people like myself are willing to pay high premiums (I pay double of what most people do) then buildings will still be there. As far as evacuations go, if they tell you to evacuate and you don't and then you get hurt, oh well. You were warned, I can't understand that.
Originally Posted By jonvn It's not like there are fires in the exact same place every year. There is an article in todays SF Chronicle about locations in the bay area that are ripe for burning. One place mentioned is Mill Valley, which has not had a for for 80 years. So, it's just the luck of the draw.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut you build a house in the middle of a forest and when a bear attacks you you shoot the bear. Did the bear not have a right to attack you? You build a home in the middle of an area that is prone to fires EVERY YEAR and you get mad when your house burns down? come on now. I say they are both right on the money. People need to own up to the situations they put themselves into and building your home in an area that is prone to fires and than acting surprised and blaming people that your house burnt down is rediculous. Good for them expressing their opinion that in my book is spot on.
Originally Posted By jonvn Somehow, people are getting the impression that these houses that burned down were all in the hills and canyons. The thing is that these fires were in some fairly urban areas, like Rancho Bernardo. Even if a fire spreads from a wild area, it can spread to a fairly urban location when the wind is this strong, hot, and dry. It's also easy for someone who is a multi-millionaire to complain about where the people live, but I don't hear them making any suggestions as to where any of these people should go where it is somehow safe for them to live. My bet is that Jamie Lee Curtis probably lives in either Bel Aire, or Beverly Hills, which are hilly areas that are prone to fires as well. In fact, in 1963 there was a very large fire in Bel Aire which burned down a good number of very large mansions. It's easy to point fingers and say that someone else is doing wrong. Let's here them say what we're supposed to do about it.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut its not that they shouldnt live there but they they shouldnt point fingers and blame others or even be surprised when the fires come. Kind of like living in a flood zone. People are surprised when floods happen, even when they happen in places that flood every year. Its the way things go and these people should have been prepared.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, you should be prepared. that's what fire insurance is for. But really, this fire went way into some very urban like environments where you really would not think brush fire would go because of the winds. It's not like these houses were built in a pile of dried brush. You basically can't fight that. If the wind didn't finally die down, the fires would still be spreading. But you are right, people should prepare, and have an evac plan and know what to bring. You should do this for earthquakes too.
