Fire in Malibu — Again
It has burned 35 homes so far.
Do me a favor and refrain from the “serves them right” comments.
It has burned 35 homes so far.
Do me a favor and refrain from the “serves them right” comments.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Powered by WordPress.
I won’t say serves them right….but how about we declare the area blighted, and seize the homes using eminent domain.
We can turn the area into wilderness parkland.
Expensive in the short term, but we’ll save money in the longterm.
gahrie (5ae14f) — 11/24/2007 @ 9:37 amI’ll refrian from “it serves them right” if you’ll refrian from the “courageous homebowners promise to rebuild in fire prone hazard zone”
phaedruscj (74b46a) — 11/24/2007 @ 10:41 amMalibu Barbie(cue).
Jim Treacher (5e5b1e) — 11/24/2007 @ 10:49 amToo bad for the families losing their homes. I’d rank it right behind death of a loved one in terms of stress.
Today is not the time but the country needs to have an honest dialog about areas at higher risk to fires, floods, and hurricanes.
voiceofreason (da1cef) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:18 amLet the conversation start with the long term plans for New Orleans
I won’t say serves them right either. [Remainder of comment REDACTED.]
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:24 amI wish I could send you some of our snow.
DRJ (973069) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:38 amToday is not the time but the country needs to have an honest dialog about areas at higher risk to fires, floods, and hurricanes.
And tornadoes.
And earthquakes.
And blizzards.
It’s basically stupid for anyone to live where they live, because things can go wrong.
Patterico (2586cd) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:47 amFine, Patterico, it looks like you’ve joined the discussion.
There are degrees of risk. In the vast majority of the USA, homes are not in danger of being destroyed by blizzards to use one of your examples. And to the degree they are, people can by insurance at reasonable rates to cover the risk.
However, building in an area where you know for a fact wildfires periodically sweep through and relying on the taxpayers to rebuild your extravagant homes — even more extravagantly than before — is closer to the situation as it exists in Malibu. And in many flood prone areas.
Each of these are considered premium, expensive, sought after locations. Fine. Then self-insure yourself or buy insurance at whatever rates are necessary to cover the risk.
But don’t expect hard working taxpayers who live in Iowa trailer parks to help assume that risk. They’re already paying for their own tornado insurance!
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:53 amIt’s basically stupid for anyone to live where they live, because things can go wrong.
Why does this not surprise me?
voiceofreason (da1cef) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:53 amI’m all for people insuring themselves and not relying on government handouts.
I just don’t like the snide “serves them right” type comments that always come up when wildfires make the news.
vor, I think you must misunderstand my comment. Can someone explain it?
Patterico (2586cd) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:56 amChicago and San Francisco learned from their fires and adjusted their building codes. If Malibu needs stone houses with tile roofs, a thousand feet from each other with nothing higher than three inches growing in between, that’s what the county and municipalities should enact. Same thing in New Orleans. All the houses that were below sea level should be allowed to be rebuilt only on concrete pillars which raise them above sea level.
nk (09a321) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:57 amMy point is: nobody who lives in California should make these comments, because we’re subject to earthquakes.
Nobody who lives in Tornado Alley should make them.
Nobody who lives on the eastern seaboard should make them, because of hurricanes.
Etc. etc. etc.
Patterico (2586cd) — 11/24/2007 @ 11:59 amhttp://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2000/nf00201f.htm?scriptFramed%3FscriptFramed
Note this was written five years before Katrina. Mary Landrieu just won an earmark for another 3 billion to fund her “road to home” initiative to repopulate New Orleans.
But hey, let’s go ahead and spend a half trillion to build 60 foot levies to keep it for another 200 years instead of 100.
Hypothetical: SF gets hit with the big one and is similarly devastated. How much of the city is rebuilt exactly as it was? Or does the logic “New Orleans got rebuilt so should we” apply.
voiceofreason (da1cef) — 11/24/2007 @ 12:15 pmYou know, of course, most of us are simply talking about financial responsibility and not wishing harm on Malibu residents or their property, right?
That it’s really about insurance and government subsidies for rich multi-millionaires so they can live in expensive neighborhoods? That you can actually buy insurance for earthquakes?
That there are serious issues at work here you urge us to not talk about when the matter is in the news — because of yet another wildfire destroying homes which will be rebuilt using taxpayer money. Unlike my urging during the last time you asked us to make critical comments, you don’t cover extensively these issues once the emergency has passed?
If you wanted to have a post, “Pray for the homeowners and/or send them your best wishes…” I’d join you in it. Yet it seems to me, “Don’t bring up the serious issues on this blog now, so we can all ignore them later,” is a less than compelling reason not to raise them presently.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/24/2007 @ 12:18 pm*not to make critical comments
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/24/2007 @ 12:20 pmI live in California. I’m aware of the risks. No matter where you live there are risks. We have zero danger of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, ice storms and other disasters that plague other parts of the country. Fires, earthquakes and droughts are our risks.
All we ask is that you be consistent. If Katrina victims deserve years of sympathy and aid so do fire victims. If tornado victims deserve aid for sudden disasters so do earthquake survivors. If you live in a river valley and think you should be able to call on all of us if a flood occurs doesn’t it seem fair not to criticize others for choosing to live where they do?
And nk, if another quake like 1906 hits San Francisco, it will burn in spite of building codes. You cannot plan for everything. If the New Madrid fault lets go like in the early 1800s, Chicago will burn.
Ken Hahn (7742d5) — 11/24/2007 @ 12:29 pmKen Hahn, the point is giving aid to Katrina victims in an emergency situation is one thing… giving money to them so they can return to a below sea level city which, upon being hit by a Category 3 hurricane, was flooded with loss of life and massive loss of property — is frickin’ stupid.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/24/2007 @ 12:44 pmWill Californians be compelled to buy offsetting carbon credits for this emission?
JSinAZ (cb0ee7) — 11/24/2007 @ 1:41 pmHypothetical: SF gets hit with the big one and is similarly devastated. How much of the city is rebuilt exactly as it was? Or does the logic “New Orleans got rebuilt so should we” apply.
Depends on when The Big One comes, I think. If the sibling of the govern(at)or is running for president when it hits, I think we we can count on tons of aid going to my old hometown (and potentially soon to be new hometown – thinking of moving back). Otherwise, SF is likely to only get a heckofajob.
I mean that in a bipartisan way.
fishbane (1f2790) — 11/24/2007 @ 5:11 pmYesterday’s Anchorage Daily News reported that USGS research scientists believe a big quake is in the Alaska valley’s imminent future. The threatened communities include some of Alaska’s most populated areas, highways, and the Alaska Railroad. Alaskan leaders and residents are discussing ways to limit damage:
This seems like a reasonable response. Depending on the threats they face, other communities could do the same.
DRJ (973069) — 11/24/2007 @ 6:39 pmHow many of the recent brushfires were deliberately set, versus the number of naturally occurring fires?
It’s one thing to say “it serves them right” for being in the way of natural fires, but no one should say it about folks whose homes were destroyed by arson.
Steverino (c33cc5) — 11/25/2007 @ 1:47 pmLets hold the enviromentalists wackos totaly liable and responsible for those lost homes LETS SUE THE SIERRA CLUB
krazy kagu (bab2f6) — 11/25/2007 @ 1:54 pmI feel badly for the people affected, but they need to stop building homes in malibu. Or they need to build homes that don’t have the same risk of fire.
The argument that since every location has risks all locations are equally risky is silly.
joe (c0e4f8) — 11/25/2007 @ 3:59 pmHow did anyone jump to the conclusion that federal funds were going to rebuild Malibu?
Other than a few FEMA coupons and the odd hillside stragglers from the 60’s who didn’t get burned out the last 20 fires, I think most are pretty well insured.
Building codes in those hils for new construction is tight.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/25/2007 @ 4:04 pmThere is an AP photo in our paper today of a stucco home, complete with stucco eaves where the wind has blown embers into a wooden door setting the door ablaze.
A wind driven fire will burn homes, no matter the codes. I’ve seen stucco homes explode from the inside out due to the heat.
On the clearing, you can’t touch what isn’t yours.
Touch what belongs to the Feds and get ready to pay hefty fines and maybe do some time.
Seriously, I’ll bet driving drunk gets less jail time than you’d get for maiming a lizard while cutting it’s endangered (yet highly flammable habitat)
Major fires in Malibu with loss of multiple homes:
Malibu fire in 1956
Malibu fire in Ocotber 1958
Malibu Canyon fire in September 1970
Malibu fire October 1978
Malibu fire in 1982
Malibu fire in October 1985
November 2, 1993 Old Topanga Malibu fire
Malibu fire in October 1996
Malibu fire in January 2003
Malibu fire in January 2007
Malibu fire in October 2007
http://www.malibucomplete.com/mc_hazards_fires.php
ROA (8d9fdd) — 11/25/2007 @ 4:48 pmMalibu Floods
Heavy, damaging rain during the winter months is not unusual. It has happened regularly in the past and will continue to happen into the future. The scope and power of the storms and accompanying rain are beyond human engineering to overcome. We can mitigate the effects and can get out of the way, that’s about all.
When there was little development in Malibu, the floods and slides could rearrange the land with little effect on human inhabitants. When people started to build homes in Malibu, they soon found that the home that looked safe and secure during nice weather could quickly be reduced to a pile of sticks by nature’s fury. In January 1943, storms destroyed four homes on Escondido Beach, dropping them into the surf. The beautiful home of Frederick Rindge, Jr. at 26652 Latigo Shore Dr. (featured in the movie Mildred Pierce) collapsed into the surf after a week of heavy storms in January 1983 (photo, left).
1978 opened with major storms pummeling the community. Mud and rock slides closed Malibu, Topanga and Latigo Canyon roads and Kanan Road. High surf pounded homes in Malibu Colony and along Malibu Road, and the National Guard came in to assist with the sandbagging effort. Merchants in the Malibu Country Mart suffered heavy losses when storm runoff from Cross Creek flooded their shops.
Two photos on this page show flooding during the Winter 1991-92 rains, part of the El Nino storms that caused havoc all up and down the eastern shores of the Pacific basin.
In December 1992, heavy rains caused flooding in the central and eastern parts of Malibu, including areas that would burn in 1993. Las Flores Creek overflowed its banks closing Las Flores Canyon Road. Flood-swollen Cross Creek covered parts of Cross Creek Road and damaged homes in the Malibu Colony. Six Las Flores families who lived on the creek sued the City of Malibu and Los Angeles County claiming that construction and maintenance on Rambla Pacifico Road caused repeated flooding of their homes. LA County settled separately in 1996 while Malibu settled the case in 1998 by buying the six properties for $4.2 million.
The winter of 1994-1995 brought severe storms in January and March with rainfall well above normal. The areas of Malibu that had been devestated by the 1993 fires now experienced debris flows and flood damage to homes, commercial buildings, roads and highways. The January 1995 floods damaged the Malibu Lagoon Bridge on PCH requiring it to be rebuilt.
On December 6, 1997 homes in Malibu were damaged by waves and seacliff erosion. Then on February 7, 1998 Malibu Canyon Road was closed due to mudslides and rockfalls as a period of heavy rains arrived in Malibu. The next day, an ocean-eroded cliff buckled, causing one home to collapse with two others threatened. The homes along Broad Beach Road were undermined by high tides. On February 16, several houses along the Malibu beach were damaged by the rain and high surf while and further damage and road closures were experienced as that rainy month continued. Parts of Southern California were declared a disaster area after losses including Malibu’s Las Flores Canyon where about a dozen homes were evacuated because of unstable ground. More rain and mudslides on Pacific Coast Highway forced the closure of the Malibu courthouse, and a 140-foot-long retaining wall partially collapsed, damaging two homes above the slide on Calle del Barco. This list of woes goes on and on.
Bottom line, floods are part of the physical world of Malibu. Expect them, plan for them, and don’t be surprised by them. Long time Malibu residents are famous for picking up the pieces, rebuilding, and saying, “Well, that’s Malibu.”
http://www.malibucomplete.com/mc_hazards_floods.php
ROA (8d9fdd) — 11/25/2007 @ 4:52 pmIf this October 2007 article is any indication, the Malibu fires may actually help hold the value of the remaining homes in the area, although insurance rates will also increase:
DRJ (973069) — 11/25/2007 @ 4:56 pmBy no means does it “serve them right” – but past Patterico posts are worth revisting in light of recent events –
https://patterico.com/2007/10/22/mike-davis-%E2%80%93-the-malibu-fire-prophet/
Justin Levine (394d19) — 11/26/2007 @ 12:27 amToday’s LA Times (11-28-2007) has Steve Lopez’ Points West column and it is on the Fire clearance catch 22. Normally I avoid Mr. Lopez’ column due to his penchant for inserting his hatred for Bush into every third sentence, but this one illustrates one of my points, so of course now I love the guy.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/28/2007 @ 6:10 pmSeems a young couple out in a high fire risk area of Glendale got an order from Glendale Fire Dept. to remove foliage and restore clearances. So they hired a tree service to do so at the price of $3,000.
The City of Glendale’s Urban Forester happened upon the crime scene and “red tagged) it with a Stop and Desist order.
Seems the fine print of the Fire Dept. notice mentioned that a permit was required if oak or sycamore branches in excess of 1 inch in diameter were to be cut.
The homeowners were advised to retain an attorney.
The damages were assessed and the homeowners were fined $347,600 for improperly pruning 13 trees.
Plus the tree trimmer had used spiked shoes…
The neighbor across the street says the trees look good and “were not butchered”.
The homeowners noted that Glendale Memorial Hospital recently drew a fine of $25,000 for a medical error in which someone had died…