SAN DIEGO - Thousands more residents were ordered to evacuate their expensive homes Tuesday, bringing the number of people chased away by the wind-whipped flames that have engulfed Southern California to at least 300,000.
The dozen wildfires have burned more than 700 expensive homes and set 245,957 acres — 384 square miles — ablaze, and the destruction may only be the start for the region. Tuesday's forecast called for hotter temperatures and more explosive Santa Ana gusts.
2007-10-23 02:12:49 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
These people build homes where they should not build homes. (Hill sides)
2007-10-23 02:13:39 · update #1
These people are rich. It's easy for them to start over. People who live in the hills of Calif are rich people with insurance.
2007-10-23 02:14:46 · update #2
It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
As far as I'm concerned the USA is reaping the whirlwind for their appalling lack of concern and arrogance over the world's environment.
2007-10-23 02:21:37 · answer #1 · answered by the_lipsiot 7 · 2⤊ 11⤋
It`s amazing ! The Liberals aren`t complaining about the military being in California now ? I`m surprised the ALCU hasn`t filed a "Separation of Church & State" lawsuit against all the Christian Churches that have been helping the States` victims ? Illegals are more than likely using this tragedy as a diversion to sneak more Illegals across while the citizens and law enforcement are occupied with trying to control and stop the fire !
2016-05-25 01:41:23 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another question based on "class envy," I see.
Why is it no less a tragedy for a rich person to lose everything he holds dear than when a poor person does. Sure, they can get more "things," but the memories and momentoes are as irreplaceable for the rich as they are the poor.
They have been criticized for building on hills due to the risk of MUD SLIDES not fires. And, gee, seems to me there were a lot of criticisms about Katrina victims building back a city that is BELOW SEA LEVEL. Considering they will find it harder to start over, because they are poor, that might be even MORE of a reason to criticize them. And yet, I think people are still "bothered" about their tragedies.
Please get over your class envy and just feel for the human tragedy.
2007-10-23 02:34:15 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Only a small percentage of all the people who have lost their homes thus far are the one's who owned "big expensive homes". All the rest are just regular people. And the people who owned the expensive homes employed lots of poor people as staff - who now don't have jobs.
It's really great that you are a horrible enough person that this sort of thing makes you happy. Your parents must be really proud. Do you wear a clown suit to funerals too?
2007-10-23 03:19:33 · answer #4 · answered by badkitty1969 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree with the other poster who said, status doesn't matter....Sure, some of those homes owned by famous/rich people probably have over the top expensive things that are just status symbols, excessiveness, but hey they can afford it....But some things like family stuff, is irreplaceable. It'll still suck to lose your home, no matter what status you are....
2007-10-23 03:14:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
REGARDLESS of someone's wealth...........why on earth would I wish them displaced or to loose their lifetime of memories?? Can WEALTH replace all???? Some people may have a better standing or be more fortunate but in no way does that give me any rights nor will to wish them bad or disaster soley because I think they can better afford it. I might be sadder or feel more distraught for the person who has so little to loose yet more, but by no means do I not feel for someone due to status, should receive all the bad in life instead of......... Nor do I wish for them to or find any satisfaction in it. They are STILL human beings!!! Should we now ignore them or toss them in a mud pitt so they can see what its like to live on the other end because they should be after all punished first for having money............ I'd vote first for that to be the case for "selfish", "evil", "dominating" people before I would one for their finacial backing.
Wealth is NOT immoral, but your question might be!!!! Even you have the luxury of a computer, the net and electricty, perhaps you should loose your home to someone who lives in a shack!!! I'll bet you appear quite wealthy to them. Think about that at your next "meal" as you snub the one above you. Perhaps that time would be of better use inviting the one from the shack into your home to share that warm meal? Rather than focusing on the one who hasn't shared with you! Explain to me the difference??
lol I see "the lips" has an opinion he harbors as a catorgory....although I doubt he has ever met an American or ever been in the country to make such public judgements in a informed sense, needless to say from all I can see it is done more so only in the security of his country sitting behind the saftey of a computer screen. For which he should desperately enjoy before his house burns to the ground and he ask OTHERS for help. Thank God he isn't an American and there are other places for his tush to rest other than as my neighbor as they are of by far a better nature and being.
As for the asker himself I presume he ever finds a pot of gold or sits before an enheiritance, he will in minutes hand it over to the poor or be at risk for his own hatred and a hypocrite of his own wealth!!!
2007-10-23 02:39:16 · answer #6 · answered by savahna5 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
No matter whether rich or poor they deserve our compassion. 700 expensive homes seems a drop in the bucket when 300,000 of people have been evacuated and have lost their homes as well. I just pray no one losses their life.
2007-10-23 02:28:56 · answer #7 · answered by Choqs 6 · 9⤊ 1⤋
Because those people who don't have enough insurance will expect the govt to pay for rebuilding and the ins industry will begin to raise rates and there may even be temporary(permanent) tax increases to cover the cost.
2007-10-23 02:30:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Has your home ever burnt down? Mine has. Money has nothing to do with it. The fact that it is a tradegy in your life is the big deal. Having to relocate is shocking.
Did you know when you have more money you spend more money, you dont necessarly have extra money.....they may not have money to relocate either...like barely making payments and all that.
Even if it is not the case.....it is tragic and changes lives. It has nothing to do with income.
2007-10-23 05:11:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It bothers me because my son and his family live out there - including my granddaughter. They are not fabulously rich! I care if people are alive and safe, and I don't wish disaster on anyone - even if they are rich. I don't want beautiful horses to burn in the fire. Do you want a bunch of people and animals to die? What kind of nasty question is this?
2007-10-23 02:33:09 · answer #10 · answered by Zelda Hunter 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Who cares if they were rich? What does that matter? You don't know anything about these people. Maybe they struggled all their lives and grew up poor and penny-less, and through hard work and determination they were able to make something of themselves. Maybe they decided they wanted more for themselves and for their children so they bought a really nice house to start a family in.
And now that house is burned to the ground, or in danger of being destroyed, everything they own, gone in minutes.
It doesn't matter if the houses belonged to poor people or rich people.
The level of sympathy I have is the same across the board, regardless of their income and regardless of the fact that some may be able to rebuild when this is all over.
Have a fricken heart, buddy.
2007-10-23 02:20:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 15⤊ 3⤋