The Fires go on

[_Jersey Girl]

Every_single_one of those homes, when being re-built, ought to be subject to strict fire-proofing standards.

I recall reading, years ago about the Oakland fires, about homes that were built smartly with the fire threat in mind that not only withstood these blazes, but did so magnificently.

- Doc

What types of fire proofing are you thinking about?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Every_single_one of those homes, when being re-built, ought to be subject to strict fire-proofing standards.

I recall reading, years ago about the Oakland fires, about homes that were built smartly with the fire threat in mind that not only withstood these blazes, but did so magnificently.

- Doc

What types of fire proofing are you thinking about?

If you scroll down a bit, and go through the slideshow I think this more or less captures the idea.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Cam do you mean this stuff?

https://serc.carleton.edu/NZFires/megaf ... proof.html

I've mentioned most of those (I think) on my fire related posts. All excepting stucco exteriors, composite roofing shingles, and vent screens.

In that above article you'l see the 30-50-100 defensible space and zones I mentioned previously.

When you remove fuel from around your home, that includes wood fencing wood mulch and that sort of thing.

Still, no house is ever fully fireproof. Fire resistant would be the more relevant term.

Just a simple example of what can happen in even a so-called fire proofed home is that a second story window may be left open in a house unattended that creates a draft. That's all it takes for a fire to destroy a home.

Some insurance companies will demand that defensible space and zones from it's homeowners. Some will not. And again, undeveloped properties don't have any restrictions--and I think they should.

Our landscaping has been changed to tons and tons of rocks and gravel that we hauled and placed ourselves, we removed even more trees, we work on mitigation every year of our living here--rakes, chainsaws, etc., and still, the adjacent property is undeveloped and dense with old growth, behind us is a developed property where the homeowner has a stack of old lumber bordering our fence--I'm sure their insurance didn't place restrictions on them or if they did, they somehow managed to ignore them or they lied about it.

We didn't lie about it. We worked our tails off and paid out the butt for additional tree removal 200$ per tree that insurance doesn't pay for.

So while it's likely that homeowners in CA will try to rebuild with fire in mind, the insurance companies are part of that process and will not pay for tree removal, etc., FEMA doesn't pay for it so the homeowners will have to get at least some of their trees out of the way to rebuild to begin with. Homeowner costs associated with fire recover are pretty darn astronomical.

It sounds like a good idea to demand that homes be fire proofed and regulated. I think that the recovery process presents obstacles to that. I'm guessing well over a decade recovery period for CA and in that time, fly by nights will swoop in like vultures over a rotting carcass to do inferior work, “F” up people's crap and rip them off. Gen Con's will be overwhelmed as well as will sub cons. After it's all said and done, flash floods and soil erosion will be an issue. Wildlife relocating is also an issue. For example, mountain lions have joined our animal population.

Also just FYI, when I talk about folks lying to their insurance companies, the follow up to the list of modifications that are demanded is done by mail. The insurance companies can barely cover the burned areas to inspect and prepare claims on site before the next fire breaks out. They send out mobile units to do that and then head out to their next locations and so on and so forth.

You're basically on your honor to do the work that was demanded and verify that in writing in response letters. Some folks probably lie and bank on an inspector never showing up.

The whole situation is like recovering from a war.

[_Jersey Girl]

If you scroll down a bit, and go through the slideshow I think this more or less captures the idea.

- Doc

Hey I just did a lengthy reply to your post while you posted this above. I think I'm familiar with the methods you referred to.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Where I live specifically fire-proofing one's house isn't super necessary outside of some common sense measure like not using, say, cedar shingles (seriously, who thought that was a great idea and why do they hate themselves?). For example:

California law requires that all wood roofs sold in the state be treated with fire retardant and pass a natural weathering test. ... In 1992, when Burbank first approved the measure, the city Building Department estimated about 19% of the buildings — or about 8,000 of 42,000 — had wood-shingle roofs.Aug 9, 2011

My wife and I kicked around the idea of going with a metal roof once it's time to replace ours, but I haven't seen anything that I really like. However, if I lived in a fire-prone area that would be like the first thing I do. The second thing I'd do is create, like you mention above, some standoff between my house and anything flammable, like, I dunno, trees. I mean, I'd plant trees, but I'd research a bit and plant trees that are friendly to the wildlife and not so friendly to fire. Same with my yardscape.

When we were driving through Oregon and California I was struck by how flammable everything looked, and was confused why people insisted on living in a tinderbox in the middle of a what amounted to a dry woodpile.

I think I read somewhere you can apply some sort of fireproofing to your house. It's a spray or whatever. I'd have to google it, but again if I lived in a fire-prone spot that's something I'd be looking into.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Cam a thought started to pass through my mind while doing stuff here and I did my best to hold on to it. I don't have time at the moment to read your above but I did quickly scan it.

Can the areas be somehow subject to new regulation that will specify what types of materials and measures can be used in rebuilds? Like what we call covenants over here?

The fire has already taken care of the mitigation for now. I'm wondering if the cities can rezone or whatever to ensure that new builds use the fire resistant methods.

If that is possible, do you think that state gov'ts can force owners of existing homes to do the same?

If I could do exactly what I want with our house right now, I would stucco the exterior and install a metal roof. The metal roof would also be excellent in winter.

I'm still trying to sway the opposition! ;-)

bbl

[_MeDotOrg]

From Politico:

President Sauli Niinistö of Finland told Ilta-Sanomat, the country’s second-largest newspaper, on Sunday that he never discussed raking with Trump during their brief meeting in Paris last weekend, where the leaders attended various commemorations marking the centennial of the armistice that ended World War I.

“I mentioned [to] him that Finland is a land covered by forests and we also have a good monitoring system and network,” Niinistö said, adding that he recalled telling Trump: “We take care of our forests.”

If you ask me, this sounds like a cheap ploy by Sauli Niinistö to appeal to radical anti-raking factions, both in Washington and Helsinki. Why do people contradict the man who has one of the world's best memories?

[_Doctor Steuss]

“I was with the president of Finland and he said, ‘We have a much different—we're a forest nation.’ He called it a forest nation, and they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things,” Trump continued. “And they don't have any problem.”

The Fins have been having a pretty good time with this.

[_MeDotOrg]

“I was with the president of Finland and he said, ‘We have a much different—we're a forest nation.’ He called it a forest nation, and they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things,” Trump continued. “And they don't have any problem.”

The Fins have been having a pretty good time with this.

Had to post one of the pictures from your link:

[_moksha]

My guess is that Trump either assumed that taking care of the forest meant that you raked it, or that it just represented another opportunity to lie.

75% of Finland is forested. That would be a lot of raking.