Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on San Diego is Burning

1

good. san diego needed burning.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 22, 2007 10:29 AM
2

I have the television set on here, it looks horrible. Hope your father is okay--

Posted by Boomer in NYC | October 22, 2007 10:30 AM
3

hey dan!
if cats shouldn't be on the streets of seattle, then I should point out that all those humans shouldn't be living in SoCal. humans are assholes for demanding that a water-starved dry climate like that support so many and so much sprawl. So your dad (or should I say cute little Osama?)is getting what he deserves.
tell your dad to move.
hooray for hypocrisy

Posted by onion | October 22, 2007 10:38 AM
4

The brush fire reoccurences in SoCal would have been reduced to 1/10th what they are these days IF RESIDENTS ALLOWED THE RESPECTIVE FIRE DEPARTMENTS TO ALLOW AT LEAST BI-ANNUAL BRUSH CLEARING CONTROLLED BURNS TO PREVENT THEIR HOUSES FROM FUTURE DISASTER, BUT NO THE BRUSH CLEARINGS WOULD REDUCE THE PRICE OF THEIR HOMES SO THAT CAN'T HAPPEN!

If this didn't have the side effect of endangering thoughtful residents' homes too, I would feel no pity and say the whiners deserved the "I told you so"s they got from the fire departments.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 22, 2007 10:44 AM
5

About time.

So long as it doesn't get UCSD, sounds like a plan.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 22, 2007 11:05 AM
6

What? You mean that it might not have been such a good idea to build myself a big fake colonial in the middle of the wild in Southern California? What are you, some kind of commie? Next you'll be telling me I can't use half the local water supply to keep my lawn nice and green.

Sorry. My sympathies to Dan's dad and everyone else affected by this, but it'd be nice if America got the underlying message here.

Posted by tsm | October 22, 2007 11:05 AM
7

A lot of us have family and friends in the area and are genuinely worried.

Saying that So Cal deserves to burn is the same as saying that Seattle deserves to be wiped out by Mt. St. Helens and earthquakes. Both are natural disasters, both are predictable due to geography. People still overpopulate both areas.

Quit being so high & mighty, assholes.

Posted by Sylvie | October 22, 2007 11:27 AM
8

both are predictable but only one happens often enough that people are just asking for it. of st helens and rainer blew up once every 2 years people would be idiots.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 22, 2007 11:34 AM
9

I always recommend building large wooden structures surrounded by mostly dessicated trees and shrubberies.

They burn well.

Besides, at some point Mount Rainier will go. It's just a question of when, and how many hundred thousands of people die in the laharrs.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 22, 2007 12:01 PM
10

Hey, this happened four years ago! The San Diego Chargers actually had to play a 'home' game in Tempe, AZ because of the fires in 2003.

Maybe Governator can pass some sort of state mandate requiring brush clearance before fire seasons after this.

Posted by Gomez | October 22, 2007 12:01 PM
11

Brush clearance my ass. The area is designed to burn. The plants REQUIRE burning to germinate. And trying to clear them all is about as likely to succeed as the efforts to clear out Scotch Broom around here.

Posted by Fnarf | October 22, 2007 12:13 PM
12

Fnarf, you don't have to burn off all the brush in order to make it safer for the homes in question, especially if they're done when the weather is right, where there are PLENTY of days in the year to do so in Southern California.

The problem is that homeowners have a charred view from their house for a few months, and of course that's a travesty for their equity -- why care about your entire home going up in flames? Fever dream, right?

Hence the semi-decade mega-fires that happen in Southern California, which are mostly because of the provincial attitudes of the crazy rich people that live there.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 22, 2007 12:21 PM
13

From what I saw clicking the links, the fires are actually 20 miles or more from San Diego, out in the exurbs. That's not to say that there won't be fires in town but saying "San Diego's Burning" now is like saying Seattle's burning if there was a forest fire burning houses in Sumner.

Posted by Matt from Denver | October 22, 2007 12:28 PM
14

Did anyone else see that faux medieval castle up in flames on the news last night? Seriously, I created better looking castles in the sand when I was five. Rich people have no taste.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 22, 2007 12:30 PM
15

Chevrolet cars!
And tough Chevy trucks!
At Sunset Chevrolet in Sumner!

Posted by megabyte | October 22, 2007 12:32 PM
16

kesh, L.A. is mainly residential Vegas minus the gambling. Gaudy buildings are part of the whole experience.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 22, 2007 12:34 PM
17

Too bad your dad hates America. Via Atrios.

Posted by skweetis | October 22, 2007 2:07 PM
18

It;s entirely unfair to use the "too bad shouldn't have built there" argument in the case of wildfires. Yes, by all means use it when Mc Mansions slide down the hills when it rains, but don't use it here. Living in a desert area does make So Cal. prone to drought but desert area doesn't mean wildfires. Most wildfires are started by humans whether through arson, controlled burns, or simple carelessness (tossing a lit cigarette, etc.) Natural wildfires are started by dry thunderstorms (not a factor in this case) and very rarely by spontaneous combustion.

The problem is people, not nature.

Posted by clarity | October 22, 2007 2:40 PM
19

In many cases, crews couldn't begin to fight the fires because they were too busy rescuing residents who refused to leave, fire officials said.

"They didn't evacuate at all, or delayed until it was too late," Metcalf said. "And those folks who are making those decisions are actually stripping fire resources."

Among those who wouldn't leave was Ken Morris, who stayed at his rural San Diego County home to rescue his horses.

"I heard the cops come by and I just ducked," he said. "I had a beer and waited it out."

Christine Baird, 42, was ordered to evacuate her apartment at 5:30 a.m. in San Diego's densely populated Rancho Bernardo area. She and her husband moved there in February from Ottawa, Canada.

"Instead of snow we had ash all over the car," she said. "This is all new for me. We've got no family in the area, so there's really nowhere else to go."

Is it too mean now to say these people are unfairly spared Darwin Awards?

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 22, 2007 2:58 PM
20

Shit. End italics after "nowhere to go"

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 22, 2007 2:59 PM
21

@7: The most dangerous volcano in the state isn't St. Helens, actually. It's Rainier. And if it blows, the cities to be buried under lahars are Orting, Puyallup, etc. Seattle's probably okay in terms of avoiding big mud flows.

Posted by Greg | October 22, 2007 3:17 PM
22

Anyway, I'm sure people out there are saying it's God's revenge against California.. you know, especially to heretics like Mel Gibson, whose home is literally in the line of fire.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 22, 2007 5:03 PM
23

@11- Sort of true. In California, it is possible to clear the chaparral plants around a structure and replace them with drought-resistant, fire-retardant plants. Surrounding areas will still burn, but at least the fire will be kept away from homes.

@4 is correct too. Check out my first link, which mentions the comparison between fires in So Cal and Baja Mexico. In So Cal, there are fire prevention measures which create longer times between burns and, thus, more fuel and bigger fires when they happen. In Baja, with basically the same terrain, fires happen more often but without the massive devastation.

Posted by Mahtli69 | October 22, 2007 5:41 PM
24

Wait for it: yes, and now all the religious nutjobs can start talking about how we are about to witness the second coming of christ because this has something or other to do with the apocalypse!

p.s. I'm sorry for you dad and all those other people down there. it sucks ass. in fact it sucks ass like that two girls one cup thing that is roaming teh internets. OMG...that was so disgusting! did anyone here see that???

Posted by Kristin Bell | October 22, 2007 7:19 PM
25

Dan, here's hoping your dad's OK.

@17, thanks for the link. One more reason to hope Glenn Beck comes to a bad and preferably embarrassing end.

And to the rest of you, fuck off. Nature can kill you no matter where you live. If you think someone "deserves it" for living in a certain area, I'd keep my eye on the sky/ground/ocean/heavens if I were you.

Posted by Paul | October 22, 2007 9:34 PM
26

i agree with you paul! people suck. no one "deserves" what is happening down there. just like we won't deserve the disaster that is bound to occur here.

Posted by agreed | October 22, 2007 11:32 PM
27

And I agree with the previous two posters!

My mom and sister (and both of their families) all had to evacuate yesterday, and it's damn scary. They got out early, but saying "you deserve it" when lots and lots of people are losing everything they have is pretty callous. I live on the other side of the country and I'm terrified for them, I can only imagine what they're feeling.

People live in certain places for all sorts of reasons. My grandparents moved to SD during the war because that was the best place for them to find work. Everyone else in the family stayed there because that's where they were born and raised, and that's where the rest of the family is. There are pros/cons to living anywhere, and not everyone has the resources to just pick up and move whenever they feel like it.

Posted by GirlAnachronism | October 23, 2007 7:41 AM
28

You should all move to Cleveland.

Low coyote population and River Fire Free Since 1970!

Posted by pain | October 23, 2007 8:12 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).