Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Travel Discussion
Reply to "Los Angeles?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I wouldn't go. There's the active fire risk, the air quality, and then there's just the fact that resources are needed for LA residents.[/quote] Los Angeles is fine. Yes some people lost their house but it is a very small part of Los Angeles. Most of the fires are in the hills. It has 3.8 million people and a GDP of 1.3 trillion. That is a higher population vs 22 states and a higher GDP vs 45 states. Los Angeles is 4,084 square miles Hughes Fire Fire Size: 10,396 acres 56% contained Eaton Fire Fire Size: 14,021 acres, 95% contained Palisades Fire Fire Size: 23,448 acres, 77% contained 47,000 acres burned mostly in the hills. Los Angeles is 2,613,760 acres. [/quote] The fact that large areas of LA haven't been directly impacted by fire does not refute that the entire area has been indirectly impacted. The city needs to spend resources on those significant numbers who are directly impacted. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
