Posted on 07/02/2007 10:53:59 PM PDT by Lorianne
Sacramento — ANOTHER natural disaster, another lesson. But not the predictable lesson.
Not the tired, nagging lecture about people who insist on living in the trees and on the bluffs, at the edge of the surf and along the riverbanks, asking for what they get.
That situation's not going to change, no matter the finger-wagging. People are too drawn to the beauty and the lifestyles. There's too much money to be made by developers. And too many campaign dollars to be paid politicians who make decisions on land use.
No, the lesson from the Tahoe wildfire is this: There's no economy in numbers because of an exploding population — no growth discount for taxpayers funding the services they need.
It's precisely the opposite: The more people we cram into California — not just beneath the pines and along the waterfronts, but into the comfy suburbs and struggling inner cities — the more it's going to cost each of us. Cost us not only to retain some semblance of the California lifestyle, but often to survive. There's a premium to be paid for living here, and it keeps rising.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It's precisely the opposite: The more people we cram into California — not just beneath the pines and along the waterfronts, but into the comfy suburbs and struggling inner cities — the more it's going to cost each of us.
Funny, I thought the message was, 'Care for the land or pay the price; it won't take care of itself.'
Even the aboriginals understood that much.
“...we cram...”
Whose “we”? People have the freedom to decide where they wish to live.
I say let people build where they want.
I also say what happens as a result is between them and their insurance company - not the government.
If insurance companies decide not to insure in specific locations because the risk is too high then that will limit what many can do with that land. And for those who can afford to do it anyway, that’s fine too. They’re the ones taking the risk.
If insurance companies decide not to insure in specific locations because the risk is too high then that will limit what many can do with that land. And for those who can afford to do it anyway, that’s fine too. They’re the ones taking the risk............
Seems smart to me but look at the flood insurance provided the feckless homeowner who builds in the lowlands. How soon will the taxpayer be asked to subsidize the mountain homeowner thus encouraging more unwise habitation.
Well the obvious answer is the government shouldn’t step in. When they do, it screws up everything. Why buy insurance if the government (taxpayers) is going to fix it anyway? It is an enormously stupid move by the government as it only leads to bigger and bigger disasters at the taxpayer’s expense while at the same time taking away the consequences of peoples risky actions. And if you take away the consequences of risky actions you get more of it - a lot more of it...
People are not allowed to even clear their own property of dead wood and brush and you think it is their fault that the woods caught on fire?
Couple all the senseless and destructive rules by the enviros that have to be followed with the downsizing of the forest services fire fighting corps and the policy of flying in fire fighters from other states you have a clear diaster in the making every fire season.
Want to attach blame? Blame the dems and the liberal asshats that stand behind the EPA and other freedom killing organizations that destroy more than they save.
In the video of the burning homes, the first thing I noticed were the wood shingle roofs. No surprise they caught fire.
I thought the lesson was when trees die, clear them from the land so they won’t be kindling when lightining strikes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.