I have seen some people here on YA, and even an op-ed article, saying that most of the houses lost in the fire were in "dangerous" locations and shouldn't have been built in the first place.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20071026/cm_usatoday/differentnaturaldisastersameriskyhumanhabits;_ylt=AhkeQOkJVJvjlLprO7rjwuqs0NUE
In So Cal, Nor Cal (where I live,) and the central valley, nearly every city and town is surrounded by fire-prone grasslands, chapparral, etc. Unless we blanket the state with houses, retail, and asphalt, there will always be some houses on the edge of a city or town, next to flammable material. Are we supposed to only build in the few moist areas, like San Francisco (already pretty much built to maximum capacity)? Should we be moving to houseboats on the ocean? Or do you agree, that new developments are in bad locations?
2007-10-26
13:14:52
·
10 answers
·
asked by
jellybeanchick
7
in
Los Angeles