SoCal Fires - Paradise Lost?

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

4 hours ago, Peter Eater said:

On 1/12/2025 at 4:03 PM, pubic_assistance said:

Does California also control the cost of dinner at Lawry's.

Last I checked, private property is still private. None of anybody business what you charge. It's always a sellers market in a crisis. Any bad Karma will bite you in the ass separately from unconstitutional emergency declarations.

Incorrect. If what you suggest were true, rather than simply an unsupportable rightwing philosophy, we wouldn’t have things like building codes. We do. 

Sadly, it doesn't look like those building codes did any good to prevent these thousands of homes from wildfire. 😢

[marylander1940]

Just like in some hurricane zones the land is worth more than the house itself. 

we need new building requirements to avoid something of this magnitude happening again. 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

28 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

we need new building requirements to avoid something of this magnitude happening again. 

Or, accept that low rise buildings aren't intended to last for centuries.  If not by fire or food, then termites or rust will take down the building

[marylander1940]

7 minutes ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

Or, accept that low rise buildings aren't intended to last for centuries.  If not by fire or food, then termites or rust will take down the building

That's the logic in japan, not here!

Many houses in Dupont circle have lasted for over a century. Obviously they are townhouses and don't have gardens around there.

After the French Quarter burned down in 1788 the Spanish applied their rules of construction that's why many buildings from the 18th century and early 19th century remain in New Orleans.

I'm not saying some buildings can stop a fire like this but they can certainly face it in a better way and last longer preventing other constructions from being destroyed.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

51 minutes ago, marylander1940 said:

That's the logic in japan, not here!

Many houses in Dupont circle have lasted for over a century. Obviously they are townhouses and don't have gardens around there.

After the French Quarter burned down in 1788 the Spanish applied their rules of construction that's why many buildings from the 18th century and early 19th century remain in New Orleans.

I'm not saying some buildings can stop a fire like this but they can certainly face it in a better way and last longer preventing other constructions from being destroyed.

Agree 💯!  And those 18th and 19th century buildings were constructed before building codes!  The capitalist who fronts the money for construction just needs to be willing to pay for robust construction methods upfront, despite the potential to receive less financial payback in his lifetime.  Good quality constructed housing is expensive for a reason, and most often out of reach of the middle class just like those townhomes on DuPont Cir.  It will be interesting to see if these devastated Los Angeles neighborhoods will opt to  rebuild with more expensive robust quality instead of a desire to rebuild as quickly and as cheaply as possible in order to address immediate housing needs

[Peter Eater]

17 hours ago, Lotus-eater said:

Which, like all price controls, is precisely the problem. It's a short-term, feel-good policy that creates perverse incentives that end up making shortages worse (e.g., "greedy" landlords can refuse to rent until the "price-gouging" limitations expire before increasing rents, which means more people will be unable to find housing in the meantime). It then tends to stimulate more bad government interventions (more price controls, subsidies, etc.) to try to fix the supply problems that it itself has created. While good, the deregulation is limited to the affected areas and the price controls will make it more difficult to attract the labor and materials for faster rebuilding.

In simplest terms, this is called bullshit. Complaining that a short-term policy creates a terrible long-term problem because it’s only a short-term solution is absurd. That’s what the law was designed to be. And claiming it creates impediments to getting labor and materials for rebuilding is, frankly, beyond absurd. I mean, seriously? This is your policy argument? 

[+ ApexNomad]

49 minutes ago, Peter Eater said:

In simplest terms, this is called bullshit. Complaining that a short-term policy creates a terrible long-term problem because it’s only a short-term solution is absurd. That’s what the law was designed to be. And claiming it creates impediments to getting labor and materials for rebuilding is, frankly, beyond absurd. I mean, seriously? This is your policy argument? 

Calling it bullshit doesn’t refute the actual points raised. Short-term policies often do have long-term consequences, even when designed for temporary relief. For example, landlords refusing to rent during price controls isn’t an outlandish scenario—it’s an economic response to distorted market incentives. Similarly, limiting prices can deter the necessary influx of labor and materials if higher profits elsewhere become more attractive. Dismissing these arguments as “beyond absurd” without substantive counterpoints is not a policy argument—it’s a deflection, which seems to be a pattern with you.

Your tone is consistently condescending and dismissive, and any valid points you might have are lost in your delivery. No one will be receptive to that in any meaningful way.

[+ augustus]

23 hours ago, Peter Eater said:

This is not correct. The low rainfall since spring has nothing to do with water in fire hydrants.

Well of course, since there are not a sufficient number of reservoirs to store the excess water from the North which can be used in an emergency, even though billions were appropriated for that purpose years ago.  Your argument that this disaster is 100% caused by climate change is absurd. 

[Peter Eater]

1 minute ago, ApexNomad said:

Similarly, limiting prices can deter the necessary influx of labor and materials if higher profits elsewhere become more attractive. Dismissing these arguments as “beyond absurd” without substantive counterpoints is not a policy argument—it’s a deflection, which seems to be a pattern with you.

Your tone is consistently condescending and dismissive, and any valid points you might have are lost in your delivery. No one will be receptive to that in any meaningful way.

“Higher profits elsewhere”??? The tone is dismissive because crank claims being made while a disaster is currently underway should be dismissed. Anti-gouging restrictions into March, for example, will have zero impact on “the necessary influx of labor and materials,” which won’t in fact be necessary until months and months and months later. Zero. The obvious absurdity makes “substantive counterpoints” unnecessary, like spitting into the wind.

[+ augustus]

I read it in the LA Times and Newsweek.  It's all over the news!  Fire hydrants with no water can't put out fires, whether you are living in a dry climate or a wet climate.  

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

53 minutes ago, Peter Eater said:

...the fire wouldn’t have happened if the forests were raked.

Good point.  When I used to work in Kern County, California, at the turn of the century, owners had to clear away brush and dead leaves for at least 200 feet surrounding structures.  Then, codes changed and clearing brush and dead leaves became prohibited to preserve the quality of the watershed.

Edited January 17 by Vegas_Millennial

[Peter Eater]

50 minutes ago, augustus said:

I read it in the LA Times and Newsweek.  It's all over the news!  Fire hydrants with no water can't put out fires, whether you are living in a dry climate or a wet climate.  

You need to learn how to read. They did not report the ignorant claim you are making. Try reading today’s LA Times, which has a long, explanatory fire hydrant story on the front page. 

[marylander1940]

16 minutes ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

Good point.  When I used to work in Kern County, California, at the turn of the century, owners had to clear away brush and dead leaves for at least 200 feet surrounding structures.  Then, codes changed and clearing brush and dead leaves became prohibited to preserve the quality of the watershed.

Maybe they ran out of illegal aliens to do the job for them for a reasonable price, because teenagers were at home watching TV and eating pizza first and ice cream later.

That regulation should be back in place and people who don't comply should be fined.

 

[+ augustus]

14 minutes ago, Peter Eater said:

You need to learn how to read. They did not report the ignorant claim you are making. Try reading today’s LA Times, which has a long, explanatory fire hydrant story on the front page. 

What???  LA has 114 water "tanks" which ran out of water in no time!  Large reservoirs should have been built by now with money appropriated years ago.  That, and larger water pipes, would have supplied the water and pressure needed to combat these fires.  It's all over the news!

[MikeBiDude]

Moderator Note: while it’s easy to veer into politics here, let’s not. There’s plenty of good discussion to be had on the topic, without pointing out political subject.

Please stay on topic.

[Lotus-eater]

6 hours ago, Peter Eater said:

In simplest terms, this is called bullshit. Complaining that a short-term policy creates a terrible long-term problem because it’s only a short-term solution is absurd. That’s what the law was designed to be. And claiming it creates impediments to getting labor and materials for rebuilding is, frankly, beyond absurd. I mean, seriously? This is your policy argument? 

Calling something BS is not an argument. You are clearly not reasoning on the margin, which is what basic microeconomics is all about. It will not take months and months to begin reconstruction of the areas at the edges with the least damage. And I guess the people who would otherwise have been able to rent more quickly from the landlords who will hold out for higher rents will just have to shelter in cardboard boxes for a few months so that your ilk can feel good about themselves. On the demand side, people who do not face as pressing a need and would be discouraged from renting with much higher rental prices will be able to lock in the lower price for at least a year with a standard lease, which in the city of LA is further subject to rent stabilization limits. That is in fact a longer-term consequence. But if price controls are so wonderful, why not extend them indefinitely?

Edited January 17 by Lotus-eater

[BSR]

On 1/16/2025 at 6:11 AM, Vegas_Millennial said:

Thank you for your concern.  Las Vegas is the model for water efficiency in the desert.  Las Vegas recycles 100% of its water used indoors, and has banned all existing non-functional turf and septic systems effective 2028 as well as mandated new evaporative cooling technology to eliminate water lost to evaporation in the air conditioning process.  Las Vegas uses a fraction of the water per person that Los Angeles uses.   The Southern Nevada Water Authority has reached out extensively to California to encourage them to be as efficient with water as Las Vegas has been.  If Los Angeles used as little water per person as Las Vegas uses, water availability wouldn't be an issue in Los Angeles at the moment.

Grass (as in lawns, not legal marijuana) is one of the biggest culprits in water consumption.  Natural lawns are becoming rarer and rarer in Las Vegas because the SNWA restricts planting new grass and charges a steep price for watering whatever lawn you do have.  That’s how you can tell most CSI scenes were shot in Los Angeles despite being set in Las Vegas, because the houses seen on the show have grass front yards.

Edited January 17 by BSR
added “watering”

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

25 minutes ago, BSR said:

 That’s how you can tell most CSI scenes were shot in Los Angeles despite being set in Las Vegas, because the houses seen on the show have grass front yards.

I like looking at infrastructure to tell when scenes are filmed at locations other than what is portrayed.   It is common for scenes of Las Vegas to show painted lane markings on the road, when Las Vegas uses primarily "buttons" known as raised pavement markers, not paint.  Or scenes take place in New York City but the traffic signals have a black background plate instead of yellow, because New York uses yellow but Los Angeles uses black.

Or the most basic giveaway of Los Angeles infrastructure.... Fire hydrants that are allegedly not connected to tanks/reservoir that supply water pressure to the homes in the community, as some have amusingly insisted upthread had no impacts on the availability of water in hydrants!  Only in LaLa land do the fire hydrants magically have their own water source not reliant on the water tanks and reservoirs supplying pressure for the rest of the community!!! 😆

For those interested in knowing how things operate in the real world:   Las Vegas requires new developments to be connected to the municipal water pipes in two locations, with the pipes in a loop.  This way when a pipe breaks, the water can still flow the other direction in the loop to feed the development.  New developments' water pipes and reservoirs must be sized so that if a fire breaks out anywhere, there must be adequate pressure to operate 2 adjacent fire hydrants simultaneously with 1 assumed break in the pipe network between the 2 fire hydrants and assumed to be happening during peak water using periods when the surrounding community is also drawing down the water supply.   Would that have been enough to combat a wildfire that needed dozens or hundreds of fire hydrants running simultaneously?  Probably not.  Perhaps additional criteria should be used when development is rebuilt in these burned areas, such as a water infrastructure design robust enough to handle multiple pipe breaks and dozens of fire hydrants operating simultaneously.  It'll cost hundreds of millions of dollars more, but pay now or pay later.

Edited January 17 by Vegas_Millennial

[mike carey]

An interesting article to read (or listen to) from the Atlantic on the risk of mud and debris flows in the event of a rain event in steeper burned areas.

L.A. Isn’t Ready for What’s Next - The Atlantic

WWW.THEATLANTIC.COM

---

Sooner or later, a winter storm will hit, and deadly mudslides and debris flows that will likely follow.

 

[Peter Eater]

21 hours ago, augustus said:

What???  LA has 114 water "tanks" which ran out of water in no time!  Large reservoirs should have been built by now with money appropriated years ago.  That, and larger water pipes, would have supplied the water and pressure needed to combat these fires.  It's all over the news!

Nope, you obviously didn’t read the front page LA Times story on the subject. Your post is wrong, false and irrelevant. 

[Peter Eater]

9 hours ago, mike carey said:

An interesting article to read (or listen to) from the Atlantic on the risk of mud and debris flows in the event of a rain event in steeper burned areas.

L.A. Isn’t Ready for What’s Next - The Atlantic

WWW.THEATLANTIC.COM

---

Sooner or later, a winter storm will hit, and deadly mudslides and debris flows that will likely follow.

 

Yes. It will be awful when rains come. 

[Peter Eater]

21 hours ago, marylander1940 said:

Maybe they ran out of illegal aliens to do the job for them for a reasonable price, because teenagers were at home watching TV and eating pizza first and ice cream later.

That regulation should be back in place and people who don't comply should be fined.

 

Yes, he’s pushing more irrelevant blather. Someone needs to tell him that Kern County, which is primarily Central Valley farmland, didn’t burn, and that Vegas, unlike LA, is in the desert, so apples/oranges. LA has had those brush clearance laws in place for years. Residents in high risk areas get annual notices, from both the local government and insurance companies. Ditto LA County. They mean nothing during a fire hurricane.

https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/acwm/216383_Clearance.pdf

Brush Clearance Requirements | Los Angeles Fire Department

LAFD.ORG

---

*Please watch the following videos for Brush Clearance Information* Brush Inspection Training- Target Hazards       Brush Clearance Training- On...

 

Edited January 18 by Peter Eater

[Peter Eater]

A bit of LA wildfire bullshit-mitigation from 1962 — it’s the climate change, stupid:

 

[nate_sf]

18 hours ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

For those interested in knowing how things operate in the real world:   Las Vegas requires new developments to be connected to the municipal water pipes in two locations, with the pipes in a loop.  This way when a pipe breaks, the water can still flow the other direction in the loop to feed the development.  New developments' water pipes and reservoirs must be sized so that if a fire breaks out anywhere, there must be adequate pressure to operate 2 adjacent fire hydrants simultaneously with 1 assumed break in the pipe network between the 2 fire hydrants and assumed to be happening during peak water using periods when the surrounding community is also drawing down the water supply.   Would that have been enough to combat a wildfire that needed dozens or hundreds of fire hydrants running simultaneously?  Probably not.  Perhaps additional criteria should be used when development is rebuilt in these burned areas, such as a water infrastructure design robust enough to handle multiple pipe breaks and dozens of fire hydrants operating simultaneously.  It'll cost hundreds of millions of dollars more, but pay now or pay later.

This shows how far things have evolved since these older communities in LA were developed. Pacific Palisades was first developed nearly a century ago, and Altadena in the late 1800s. They have not been built to current engineering standards in terms of water systems, road widths, land grading, etc. Compare these neighborhoods to more recently built hillside neighborhoods in places like Santa Clarita - they look very different.

The challenge is the need to retrofit and upgrade these older communities. Rationally, it would make sense not to rebuild at all, but that's not realistic.

[Peter Eater]

55 minutes ago, nate_sf said:

This shows how far things have evolved since these older communities in LA were developed.

Yup. Urban fires often start in wilderness and head toward residential neighborhoods, then spread fast-and-furious because buildings fuel each other. Add 80 mile an hour winds, and it’s over. The fuel for these two urban fires, Pacific Palisades and Altadena, comes from houses that were constructed long before California enacted strict building codes aimed at preventing fires and were not retrofitted. That means that future risks could be controlled, in part, with improved building codes and safety practices. If homes are less vulnerable to catching fire, the blazes cannot sustain themselves with fuel from other homes once they leave the wilderness.