Some thoughts on the California fires and human politics/economics.

This isn't a California bashing thread, but a response to all the threads I've been reading.

If I buy a house and know that a new septic system is required, I will walk away from the deal unless the cost of the house is reduced by the cost of the septic system. If I buy a house and know a septic system should be installed, but everyone is agreed to let me run my sewage pipe directly to a stream, the money that would have built a septic system ends up in the pocket of the person I buy the house from. Of course, now the stream is polluted, but that's not my problem, right?

Consider the California towns now in the path of wild fires.Is it possible to build safely in these areas? Anything is possible, if the will to spend the money is there. For example, how many fires have started because high voltage wires were brought down by the wind? It is entirely possible to develop wires that will withstand 500mph winds, but they will cost a lot more money than standard lines. What about burying the lines? Again, there is an added cost.

Is the money there to build safely? I think so, but it has been diverted. Fire safety must be a communal effort, and communal efforts in our country require government spending to determine what the requirements are, enforce laws when that is the solution (zoning, brush ordinances)and take community actions when those are the solutions (brush clearing, backfires). Government costs money, and that means taxes. California is ham strung because it chose to limit taxes some 30 years ago. That tax money didn't vanish, but it didn't stay in people's pockets, either. It went to fund the outlandish property boom we've all seen. In a sense, the fires we see today are a direct result of the refusal to work together thirty years ago.

This isn't a Californian problem, it is an American problem. Houses five miles from where I grew up in a Buffalo suburb are sinking because no one forced the developers to put in the foundations required to build in a swamp. Other developments went in to areas that all the local farm families recognized were flood plains. "Scenic stream views", indeed! People on the East and Gulf coasts are realizing that their homes may be gone after the next hurricane.

Maybe the costs to build safely in certain areas is so high that no one will build there. Maybe the land should be left undeveloped and turned into a park. Maybe some people will take the risk, anyways. Fine. Let people take the risk, but make sure they understand the risk they are taking.

We need to take several steps:

1. Determine the risks inherent in each area and develop and enforce local building codes to minimize the individual risks and develop and fund the community efforts required to address the risks.

2. Recognize that step 1 costs money. Keep an eye on how tax dollars are spent, but be willing to pay the communal costs.

3. Make sure everyone is aware of and agreed as to what the risks are. No more situations where people buy protection against wind damage and think they've bought "hurricane protection".

While "everyone knows" that there are fire-safe roofing materials, for example, there are still far too many homes with shake roofs. (Real shake instead of the concrete/metal cosmetically formed to appear like shake.) While "everyone knows" that homeowners should clear space around their homes and plant succulent ground cover (like ice plant) as a fire retardant, altogether too many allow fuels (including dry grasses) to accumulate.

To the degree that the fire insurance premiums for such behavior don't adequately reflect the risk within the insurance pool, everyone winds up subsidizing the behavior in both their insurance rates and in the public costs.

This is, however, consistent with a 'liberal' philosophy and there are strict limits on how far I'd go to enact enforcement. There's MORE than financial issues in a fire ... and, except for the grossest of abuses, compensation just doesn't come close to neutralizing the suffering and hardship of a fire. (I had one. I know.)

Whenever we have events like these, we run up against the "Nanny State" folks who're obsessed with their wallets to the degree they just don't fully appreciate the suffering of the victims. It's exactly like the "smoking threads" where it's just not enough for some to know that smokers bear an increased risk of suffering and death. That misery just isn't enough for some - too many want to inflict even grater burdens on people who suffer. I just don't understand that kind of sociopathic attitude in people who call themselves 'liberal' or 'progressive.' It sure doesn't reflect what I understand those terms to mean.

:shrug:

It may be a time to grab everyone by the throat and make them see that if we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately.

No one wants to pay taxes. Few local governments are willing to stand up to developers. In fact, many times, the people in local government are the developers. That's what happened in my town and we're hoping to throw the bastards out this November.

I think I've stumbled across a very basic law regarding the intersection of economics and reality. It's a variation of the law of the commons, I think. The people in California didn't save any money when they put a limit on local taxes. Instead, they inadvertently chose to hand their money off the land speculators. Those who sold up and got out have the money now. (some of them took the money and moved to wilderness sites in Colorado where they now live in fear of cougars!) Those who bought in at the high prices are left without the funds to ensure that they can live happily and protect their investment.The money that should be spent on fire protection is instead gobbled by an outrageous mortgage payment. If the taxes had been raised to cover the costs of the living in these areas safely, then the land prices would have stayed lower and/or people would have built their homes elsewhere. My contention is that the decision to keep taxes low was a decision to transfer wealth away from the area.

Can you explain your reference to "Nanny States"?

1 - quit planting eucalyptus trees and palm trees in areas where they are not native. Cut down the ones already there and plant more appropriate fire-resistant vegetation.
2 - REQUIRE metal roofing on all new construction and prohibit exterior wood, especially decking.

The metal roofs can be hooked up to cisterns for watering landscaping, too.

I'm saying that we have to stop being penny wise and pound foolish about this. It used to be that there was always money to fight the fire but never money to prevent the fire. (After New Orleans, it is clear that there is not always money after the disaster!)
It goes beyond local issues. We can pay some money to address global warming and some people will not become millionaires. The other option is that our children will pay 1000 times more to address the consequences.

i do not understand why one of the poorest regions in the country should have more fire trucks than one of the wealthiest -- somebody's putting $$$ in their pockets somewhere that is for sure

four years later and still nothing has changed as far as resources allocated to fighting fire?

if in buffalo the city refused to buy snowplows...that's the analogy i'm seeing to the san diego fires

one problem about tough bldg codes is that they do end up forcing people into substandard housing -- tough bldg codes in florida for hurricane protection mean a lot more people can't buy houses so they end up in mobile homes mean a lot more people who will ultimately be killed when the "big one" hits over there

we do need a comprehensive strategy for safe housing but i don't know how it can be community based, well, in san diego, a wealthy (compared to american median income) county, okay, maybe you can change the tax structure and get more fire fighting equipment & strategies...but what do you do in poor areas like louisiana where raising property tax will just put people out of their homes?

i think we need a federal effort somehow to subsidize safe housing if we're going to enforce strict bldg codes

just thinking out loud here

For example - it's one thing to federalize costs, but one source of resentment right now is that people in high tax states see people in low tax states turning to the federal government. An example of this is public school teachers. Here is New York, taxes are high, salaries for public school teachers are good and it's tough to get a job teaching school. In other states, taxes are low, salaries are low and people call for federal programs to fund volunteers to teach in the public schools.

Some states can pay their way, some can't. Some states can pay their way and choose not to. Some states that rely on the federal government to pick up the tab use their low tax rates as a selling point to investors. How do we resolve this?

"In a sense, the fires we see today are a direct result of the refusal to work together thirty years ago."

All the attack and defend the rich threads are a stupidity, and a diversion. This is the key issue. The major shift from communal ideals has cost us very very dearly indeed: the same shift that built those houses now takes them down. The world is not without ironies.

Smartest post on this board in months, by the way. Bravo.

"be prepared to pay the communal costs" is great for somebody who has a high income, it is not so great for the retiree who will never see her income increase again, even though her expenses are thru the roof, nor is it a practical suggestion in a world where people can either choose to retire or to have children but not to do both on the median american income because it just isn't high enough

local communities that have a lot of retirees or poor populations, both populations who tend to have fixed incomes unless you want them to go outside the law to get more $$$, are not going to be able to agree to work together to pay higher costs, because you can't get blood from a turnip

that's why you have what you have in california to begin with -- retirees, fixed incomes, who were going to be priced out of their own homes by taxes on properties that jumped dramatically in value, if someone bought a modest home for $20K in 1950, they are not suddenly going to have the budget to pay property tax on a $250K home in 1976 (numbers pulled out of my hat, obviously, as i don't live in california but that's how the explanation was presented to me)

the answer can't be just on a community level because too many people in certain communities don't have any $$$ to begin with -- if you raise the taxes too high, then they can't pay the tax or they can't buy medicine or they start skipping meals -- you are asking an unfair sacrifice of them

too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands -- well, it's the core of most of our problems today, not just safe housing, i guess

the trouble is i'm not seeing any practical advice for changing this -- we don't need "everyone" to chip in their widow's mite, we need the billionaires to not be allowed to hold that much money while there are people with nothing in the world, and i don't see any political will to take that kind of action

contributed direct labor to take care of the local roads. As you note, it's not always a good system today. We do have a modified property tax/income tax system to pay for schools in New York State. All districts get a cut of the state income tax revenue. It's a real help for poor rural districts like mine. The problem is that the New York/Albany/Buffalo/Syracuse/Rochester districts are getting shafted and wealthy suburban districts are getting too much.

Who benefited when taxes were slashed in California? People who already had a home were somewhat protected, but their children who wanted to buy in have been paying through the nose ever since. The situation now is that middle class and lower class homeowners are still strapped for cash, but their money is going to the wealthy instead of to protecting the community. Again - it gets back to the problem of being willing to pay taxes and being willing to go where the money is to collect taxes!