• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Any lessons learned??

Any lessons learned from this one???
As I have said before:
Stop building in wild interface zones
Stop building in Flood Zones
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41627751
A 2014 study of residential growth in the state predicted that by 2050 there will be 645,000 homes built in "very high severity" zones.
Homes and other structures are increasingly being built adjacent to combustible areas of woodland. California law requires any structures in such a position to create 100 ft of "defensible space" - or firebreak - in every direction. But the law is not aggressively enforced, it is left largely up to homeowners to police their own safety measures.
Even in the world's most developed country, there is no high-tech solution to a wildfire of this size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
Why should the taxpayers and insurance companies continue to pay for flooded properties?

One of them shouldn't have been involved from the beginning. In a non-incorporated area, the government has no business telling a guy where he can build his house. His bank and his (independent, non-subsidized) insurance company are going to be more than enough headache for him already. Even in "town", there's still no good reason for the .gov to be backing up insurance co's.
 
One of them shouldn't have been involved from the beginning. In a non-incorporated area, the government has no business telling a guy where he can build his house. His bank and his (independent, non-subsidized) insurance company are going to be more than enough headache for him already. Even in "town", there's still no good reason for the .gov to be backing up insurance co's.
Except when the taxpayers are asked to replace it.
Or when it costs taxpayers to sandbag it.
Or when rescuers lives are endangered to rescue the people,

FEMA was the agency that requested the floodplain requirements in the code....
 
Taxpayers wouldn't have to replace it, or sandbag it, if all the four-letter idjits would stay out of it. Does anyone really understand what business the government, especially the federal government, has setting insurance rates??

Neighbors will help other neighbors stack sandbags, almost every time. If they can't or won't, you can pay some evil company to come do it for you. Either way I'm pretty sure you don't need a FEMA guy watching to make sure they do it correctly, or telling you what you should pay them.

We're already off topic, so my apologies, but we'll leave the "rescuers lives are endangered" for another time.



Serious question - are the fires any better out there? Midwestern local news is not great for updates on such things...
 
Back
Top