Should there be limits on fire protection? - Page 2

thomez · 07-18-2006, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by illavbill

I'm sure tons of its wasted. Stupid friggin politicians. IMO the government should just rebuild infastructure. Not individuals homes or businesses. Give basic human needs and temporary shelter after they hit.

The government is the worst waster of money on the fact of the planet

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2006, 11:13 PM

If you donate to the red cross for hurricane relief, the money goes to buy supplies they need to get there, distrubute what the people need, get to other locations for blood drives to compensate for the increased need, etc.... You'll see good effeciency when you donate private. Opting for additional taxes to be taken for relief is just like throwing your money away.

thomez · 07-18-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If you donate to the red cross for hurricane relief, the money goes to buy supplies they need to get there, distrubute what the people need, get to other locations for blood drives to compensate for the increased need, etc.... You'll see good effeciency when you donate private. Opting for additional taxes to be taken for relief is just like throwing your money away.

don't get me started on the Red Cross - I have mixed feelings about them

Ardentfrost · 07-18-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

don't get me started on the Red Cross - I have mixed feelings about them

Mixed feelings or not, I've seen local chapters use their money well.

But if you're going to donate private, there's this list (the name escapes me atm) that outlines which charities are the best, rated by what % of the money goes to what they're trying to fix compared to other costs (administrative and whatever else).

What cracks me up is that PETA is consistantly at the bottom of the list, lol

DosEquis · 07-19-2006, 01:04 AM

I think it has probably been mentioned but if there is insurance companies that won't cover people in a place, say new orleans, they won't build there.

thomez · 07-19-2006, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I think it has probably been mentioned but if there is insurance companies that won't cover people in a place, say new orleans, they won't build there.

Hay guys... how about we don't rebuild this under-sea-level city after this hurricane and find somewhere else to live... this doesn't seem safe or economically intelligent anymore. And insurance is rediculous here!

What a novel idea!!!

Comrade Ramius · 07-19-2006, 01:35 AM

As far as I'm concerned, if these fires are burning so out of control, it doesn't really matter where it was started by a human or by nature, because it was bound to happen anyways.

And I think they should evacuate people from their homes, but unless the fire is approaching a large civilian area or an otherwise important area, then cest la vie if you built your home in a forest that burns up every year.

thewise1 · 07-19-2006, 01:51 AM

Natural disasters occur everywhere... Hurricanes in Florida, Tornados in Oklahoma, Earthquakes in California, Volcanos in Washington, Blizzards in New England, Fires pretty much everywhere.

thomez · 07-19-2006, 01:54 AM

natural annual fires do not occur everywhere

IminWonderland · 07-19-2006, 03:56 AM

OK I can touch on this...

First about the Earthquakes....California has such tight zoning and building codes now, that along with costing more to build here because of it, when the next good size one comes, it won't be as traumatic like the epic SanFran or Northridge. And anyone living in California, knows not to be suprised, and if you are a homeowner, you get the insurance.

Now, about the Fires....they are "supposed" to have control burns so that way when we get a lightening fire, it's not as bad...I don't know why the heck this fire is getting so out of control, except that we have had light rain seasons for the past 3 or 4 years. And the areas that these fires happen, for the most part, aside from the Malibu fire a couple of years ago, are seriously the stix of California. Most of us coastal people just

when there is a fire...because like it was mentioned, there aren't that many houses out there. But, in the past, I know in my own county, they have passed ballot measures raising taxes to pay for disaster relief. For the inland Cali it's fires, for the coast it's land slides, for the North it's flooding. Each area takes it's turn getting shit on by nature on and off every year...so this year it might be a big fire season, but, next year, the OC might be hit with flooding, so, we don't complain really (On a whole) about our tax money being spent on this because one year it'll be our turn...

But, I can tell you first hand, since my Inlaws parents had their house burnt down in San Diego last year that they'll only do so much, and alot of the "protection" they make you do. The Fire Department will tell you to clear brush as far as you can around your house, and then you hose it the best you can to deter the fire....then you just hope the wind turns. But they will give up on your house, firefighters out here don't risk their lives for property.

But we all get pissed when those hicks in the inland won't leave their property, and then get stuck on their roof with a garden hose trying to douse flames.

thomez · 07-19-2006, 12:58 PM

Sounds to me like California should be cut off from massive federal disaster relief since the whole state is a natural disaster waiting to happen

IminWonderland · 07-19-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

Sounds to me like California should be cut off from massive federal disaster relief since the whole state is a natural disaster waiting to happen

Won't bother me a bit! I rent, and I live in the ghetto city. No real flood issues, no property loss in earthquakes, and the only fire would be set by a person, not lightening....

Although considering the return California gets on our Federal Tax dollars, we kinda deserve the disaster relief when we actually ask for it. And most of the time, we don't.