Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Just want to point out that a lot of wildfire management, including prescribed burns, is controlled by the federal gov not the state government of CA. Part of the biggest issue of the lack of prescribed burns is due to a lack of staff and lack of budget. The pause on prescribed burns only came in October 2024 and it was based on preserving staff and equipment for non-prescribed burns.

The SW Region Fire Director sent a record for the number of prescribed acres burned last year. I know it's fun to rant and rave about CA government but let's focus on who actually controls this.

Ask congress to send more money to US forest service, which I am sure will happen this Presidency.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1994972

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just want to point out that a lot of wildfire management, including prescribed burns, is controlled by the federal gov not the state government of CA. Part of the biggest issue of the lack of prescribed burns is due to a lack of staff and lack of budget. The pause on prescribed burns only came in October 2024 and it was based on preserving staff and equipment for non-prescribed burns.

The SW Region Fire Director sent a record for the number of prescribed acres burned last year. I know it's fun to rant and rave about CA government but let's focus on who actually controls this.

Ask congress to send more money to US forest service, which I am sure will happen this Presidency.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1994972

Do you think it is also a staffing issue, as in too few firefighters? LA has less than half as many firefighters as NYC. A lot of neighborhoods I am watching on tv have homes burning with no firefighters around. One father/son duo were on the roof trying to save their house when a firetruck pulled up, and there was plenty of water in hydrant to intervene, which they did, so not always a lack of water as it's been stated.

[Anonymous]

CalFIRE definitely not doing a prescribed burn:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t the wind in Europe result in massive wild fires?

You’re not so bright are you?

NP

Why do you have to be such an a-hole? Do you think it’s helpful?


Her question is a legitimate one. I’d bet a lot of people wonder the same thing.

Portugal? Spain? Greece?
I think that may be why the PP responded as such.

Oh you enormous moron. Not desert regions.

[Anonymous]

This thread is the pits. I am sitting here looking at the roof from my neighbor's house strewn all over my back yard and front drive and roof and all the trees down in the neighborhood and the enormous smoke cloud approaching from Altadena.

And you guys as usual are talking about politics.

What a bunch of enormous arses. ARSES.

[Anonymous]

Spencer Pratt's house burned down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people will turn anything into a lame "argument" about politics.

NYPost and Fox News is actively attacking California Democratic politicians as being the ones who are responsible for the wild fire. Rightwing media has wasted no time and is on the attack.

Ironically, Pacific-Palisades is around 30-35% Republican. It's a very wealthy area.

[Anonymous]

Not sure if this is accurate, but a celebrity whose mansion burned down claimed that many had no insurance because they had been dropped recently by a big insurer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

jfc. Can we all agree to ignore these posts? The stupidity is overwhelming.

Yeah it’s so stupid other countries use it.

https://www.wired.com/story/spanish-wildfire-defenses/

Not sure it would be effective in the face of huge winds, and considering how many of these sprinklets LA would need since so much of the residential areas borders nature. You really cannot compare that to a tiny village's set up with 40 towers. LA would need thousands.

Damp surfaces put out the embers carried by wind, it’s not a wall of fire moving through the area. Water on roofs and yards would go a long way.

Not in high winds. There is no damp when you have Santa Ana winds. Water evaporates almost immediately. There isn't enough water for everyone in this huge area. You DO NOT GET IT.

Do I don’t and I don’t think you do either. You seem to have a defeatist position on this topic. I’m not saying it will eliminate all risk but it certainly wouldn’t make it worse. I’m literally watching people on tv using buckets and garden hoses to protect their homes, I’m suggesting it be implemented on wider scale. You still haven’t offered ANY suggestions

DP. It actually can make it worse because it diverts resources and puts people in harms way. The hypothetical miles-long hose to the ocean + pumps and manpower is a distraction and impediment to actual firefighting. Especially if not centrally organized, because you will get a bunch of rich people buying up hose and clogging the roads with private (probably untrained) crews trying to experiment in real time to save their personal house that's a mile inland and uphill.
If you want to organize an experiment like this when disaster is not actively happening, that's great and I wish you luck. Though I'm pretty sure you are not the first person to notice the ocean.

BTW, the people with buckets aren't accomplishing anything in this situation. In smaller fires, perhaps.

If you want solutions, they are mostly in prevention: buried power lines, better road planning (and reduced SFH housing overall), more fire breaks, fire resistant buildings, more controlled burns, and doing what we still can to halt or reverse climate change. Notice these are all "central planning" type actions that both sides of the political aisle oppose.

You're my new favorite, PP.

Former Californian here and it’s only the crazy democrats who oppose controlled burns. The republicans have been pushing for them for years. I have had direct conversations with firefighters about this, and it infuriates them that they’re not allowed.

Prescribed burns are allowed and are part of California’s fire mitigation strategy. You’re spreading lies.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/prescribed-burning

Cool, find one that would have been allowed close enough in to prevent this.

You can't do a controlled burn that safely in the middle of a urban'ish area like Pacific Palisades. That's what we are telling you.

You either need to rip out all the vegetation on private property OR use eminent domain & redesign everything to be fire proof. Either way, you are looking at a massive fight about government overreach and lots of lawsuits by wealthy NIMBY homeowners.

California does do controlled burns. They just don't do it in the middle of the dense city. No one does that anywhere.

Unless maybe you mean do "controlled burns" of homes that are no longer up to code for fire and earthquake safety?

There are several fires burning. And yes some are in forests. If firefighters weren’t busy dealing with those, they could have been focused and concentrated on the suburban areas and not letting the little fires get so out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is the pits. I am sitting here looking at the roof from my neighbor's house strewn all over my back yard and front drive and roof and all the trees down in the neighborhood and the enormous smoke cloud approaching from Altadena.

And you guys as usual are talking about politics.

What a bunch of enormous arses. ARSES.

This

[Anonymous]

Dry + something caught fire + super windy + flammable houses and bushes/trees = urban wildfire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is the pits. I am sitting here looking at the roof from my neighbor's house strewn all over my back yard and front drive and roof and all the trees down in the neighborhood and the enormous smoke cloud approaching from Altadena.

And you guys as usual are talking about politics.

What a bunch of enormous arses. ARSES.

This

Your neighborhood is burning and you’re on DCUM. That’s odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These homes start at $2.5M and go up rapidly from there. I bet most of these folks were self-insured.

This represents a huge, extremely wealthy chunk of the Los Angeles county tax base. Lots of families with young kids. It's as if a wild fire completely destroyed CCMD and adjacent neighborhoods in upper NW DC.

This disaster will upend Los Angeles's budget - lots of costs to clean up but also lots of these people will move away. It will only be partially rebuilt, likely with multi-family housing. The entire area will be rebuilt much differently.

Californian here. I think it’s entirely possible that the state turns deep red politically. There is already a lot of anger at the left simmering under the surface.

This is your wet dream isn't it. Blame the left for everything that has happened there including natural disasters.

It's naive to think certain decisions and policies didn't make this situation much worse than it could have been. They knew damn well the risks of wild fires and did little to prevent them.

Californian here:

Uh, what? California spent nearly $3B on fire mitigation in 2023 and spent another $4B from the Feds.

People should be angry at themselves for building in a place that is not hospitable to homes. Southern California is literally grasslands-desert.

How much more should California spend? At a certain point, this is a matter of personal responsibility.

NP- I don't get this. These are well-established neighborhoods, over 100 years old. Many folks have been there for decades, normal MC people. What are they supposed to do? Are you welcoming them in your DC mansion?

Climate change doesn't care about your feelings or your socioeconomic class. It comes for everything.

Pacific Palisades was NOT a fire prone area in 100 years ago. Now? It is a fire prone area. That's nature kicking butts without apologies. And there's not much that could've been done aside from eminent domain and razing the homes.

But I'm sure you and all the Pacific Palisades residents would not have a hissy fit over that...

Californian here. You are wildly ignorant. Pacific Palisades has been fire prone since I was a SoCal child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop buying/rebuilding homes in very disaster prone areas.

Pro Tip - if the home is uninsurable or the rates are unaffordable, don’t buy there. Insurers are telling you something. You just don’t want to hear it.

We're talking about a lot of people who are older, been there generations, couldn't afford to buy right now without leaving their home state. The lack of compassion is astounding. I don't think anyone on this board is currently home shopping in LA.

True, but this is a typical East Coast response to any disaster in California. We are fairly hardened to it. East Coasters only believe their disasters matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horrifying. I am so sorry for those affected and worried for them. My DH loves CA and has always hoped our kids and eventually we could move out there. Not a chance now, practically speaking. Just devastating.

CA is a huge state. You can still move there.