Can we balance compassion for those who lose their homes with dislike for irresponsible development?

There are more obvious cases of insane, criminally irresponsible development as in the Outer Banks in NC, but anyone losing a home deserves sympathy. Are those pointing out the problems with unsustainable development really heartless and cruel, or glib about the loss of someone's home? They shouldn't be, because I think you can be wary of the dangers real estate in these areas face while still being compassionate about the losses that the people living there face. We can do that, yes?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The OP asked for balance. You demonstrated why it needs to be sought.

Aquart you need a break. You are starting to lose your judgment completely.

but probably better left for another time.

where something else happens and wipes out a bunch of houses, so it'll be put off for another time.

There's a time and place for everything. This is a time for concern about what the people of SoCal are going through. Where people should or should not build is certainly a topic worthy of discussion but would be better left for a time when so many aren't losing their homes and everything they own.

I have a house in the lower Sierra Nevada mountains and it could go up in flames any day when people are careless with their smokes or sparks from a grinding machine as in the Zaka fire. It's got less to do with development than from those who do not live here and come here and start fires through carelessness.

Then there is the natural occurring reasons fires start. Wind downing power lines, lightening etc.

you 'deserve' to get hit in the head.

It's about being aware of your actions and potential consequences.

That is what Karma is.

If you don't want to get hit in the head with a ball then either catch it, move out of the way or DON"T THROW IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I -- like millions of others here -- live in a boring tract on the boring flatlands, not in a box canyon or the wildland-interface.

AND MY HOUSE IS JUST AS MUCH AT RISK FROM BLOWING EMBERS COMING OUT OF THE MOUNTAINS.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this dilemma.

Hekate

Irresponsible development, uncontrolled growth, overpopulation, bad management of public lands (in not allowing natural fires to burn and remove a lot of the fuel for future fires). Introduction of exotic species like Eucalyptus which burns like crazy. Many, many examples of human folly and greed. All of which is a recipe for disaster.

We have the same thing going on here. Building like crazy on the barrier island, knowing full well that global warming will mean more and bigger hurricanes. So it is only a matter of time before those rich out of towners (most of them are from elsewhere) lose their places to a hurricane. And the government will pay yet again (Federal Flood Insurance) to bail out people's second homes. When we know better RIGHT NOW. We have seen what it did to Mississippi, in many ways very similar to the Texas Gulf Coast. And yet every stupid-ass rich developer gets the city council in his pocket and wants to put a giant resort on OUR beach. I hope the fucker gets blown to El Paso in the next hurricane.

There have to be places that are off-limits to development. Places prone to flooding, to hurricanes (mainly the barrier islands which are most vulnerable but also provide protection for the mainland from the surge- they should be parks only), etc. I am not sure you can do much about tornado alley. It's too big. But we need to have standards, building codes, etc and some places do need to be off limits, if only to serve as a barrier to hurricanes, floods or fires.

And there is no reason why we shouldn't have this discussion. It's a fair one. I also have to wonder at how much the absence of the California National Guard is affecting this situation. They are their equipment are in Iraq. It is possible they could have been contained earlier if not for their absence.

I didn't even think about that. Good point.

and not designing the communities to take that into consideration. Whoever decided to build homes among the 3 million eucalyptus trees of Rancho Santa Fe apparently didn't bother to think about the fact that eucalyptus trees are highly flammable - and they're not even native. The native chaparral of southern California contains lots of volatile oils which make them highly flammable as well. Oh when will they ever learn... to prevent the fire, you must remove the fuel. But people want to live in lush, green areas (i.e. lots of fuel all around them).

Until the worst of the crisis is over. People are literally fleeing for their lives at the moment.