this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024

133 points (95.2% liked)

News

23402 readers

4064 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

133

‘What are the odds?’ California family lost one home to wildfire in 2018 — and a second in 2024 (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by bibliotectress to c/news

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It was frightening, and all too familiar. The family had previously been forced to flee as a wildfire bore down on another mountain town they called home: Paradise.

Now, with their path blocked and a horizon swallowed by flames, Kristy had an eerie feeling they were going to lose all they’d fought to build.

“I kind of knew then, like, we’re never coming home again — again, again,” she said.

The Camp fire, the deadliest in California history, devastated Paradise in 2018, consuming thousands of homes, including the Daneaus’.

They relocated to the town of Cohasset, putting them in the direct path of another wildfire, one that has since become the state’s fifth largest on record. Within just six years, the family again found themselves in jeopardy.

The trio eventually made it to safety, trekking seven hours down an unpaved loggers’ road to Chico. But their home in Cohasset was no match for an inferno’s fury.

“We’re starting completely over, again,” said Michael Daneau, 41. Every property they’ve ever owned has “burned to the ground with no value and nothing to our name.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] macarthur_park 82 points 3 months ago (2 children)

”What are the odds?”

Fairly high, apparently:

Overall, Cohasset has a extreme risk of wildfire over the next 30 years.

It sucks but people have to start taking wildfire risk into account when choosing where to live. It’s the same as considering flood risk, earthquake risk, mudslide risk, etc.

[–] meco03211 34 points 3 months ago

”What are the odds?”

Fairly high, apparently:

And getting higher thanks to climate change.

[–] Num10ck 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

or how to build. let's 3D print some concrete beauties and cover them with a foot of dirt.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Concrete production is one of the big culprits in climate change. But maybe this could be done with rammed earth, sustainably harvested timber, and dry-stone masonry.

[–] Num10ck 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

great point. too bad earthships aren't up to building code in california.

[–] BertramDitore 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Damn, they’re not? These seem like such a good solution to so many housing and environmental problems. I’ve wanted to build one for a while, but I’d want it to be in CA…shame.

[–] Num10ck 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

yea i think theres a few in palm springs anyway. you would need some exit windows for each bedroom, etc. don't expect any help from the fire department, as burning tires are toxic etc.

[–] BertramDitore 3 points 3 months ago

Ah yeah, I didn’t think about the burning tires thing…good point.

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 3 months ago

Carbon neutral concrete exists, but my guess is that it's way more expensive.

[–] stoly 30 points 3 months ago

Unspoken : they rebuilt in the same sort of area. Of course this was going to happen.

[–] venusaur 25 points 3 months ago

Cohasset and Paradise are about 10 miles away from each other.

[–] buzz86us 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It is almost like we should be doing something about climate change..

[–] QuarterSwede 1 points 3 months ago

More like, don’t build in fire prone areas and, if you do, proper fire mitigation is key (like a tree less barrier around your home). Forest fires are a natural occurrence which enriches soil and part of how pines seed themselves.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Perhaps the next house they won’t build in a fire-prone area. But I doubt it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

That's a lot easier said than done. There's a reason property in that area is relatively more affordable than in other parts of the state.

[–] stoly 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They are going for a lifestyle. This isn’t about affordability.

[–] Cryophilia 4 points 3 months ago

It's probably both.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That’s some great arm-chair criticism right there.

“You just suffered the second tragedy of your life? Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure the next one will be your fault too.”

Show a little empathy.

[–] stoly 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can be empathetic for their plight while recognizing that their decisions lead to a repeat of a disaster.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but you cannot pretend that is an easy decision, or even a feasible one for most folks.

Why would they move from Paradise to another town so close by? Is it because they’re idiots?

Doubt it. I’ll bet their livelihood is tied to that area, quite possibly generationally. How feasible do you think it is for members of the Paradise farming community to uproot and move to a new location?

Their entire lives are rooted in that community. Leaving it could be as disastrous as the fire. They’re recovery is likely tacked into that very community, all trying rebuild as best as possible.

That is quite likely a reality here & everyone in this thread wants to treat these poor folks like idiots.

But sure… blame their “decisions”. Blame the entire town for not getting out of the way of climate change.

[–] stoly 2 points 3 months ago (11 children)

I really hear you making a lot of excuses. People move across the world by the millions each day at much greater hardship. These people can find a home in some place safer without completely upending their lives--even the next town over might have been a better decision here.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (13 children)

It’s not like fires in California are a new phenomenon. The first one wasn’t their fault, sure. The second has shown them the risk and frequency of fires in the area they live. If they rebuild there again then yes, the consequences of any more fire damage or loss of property are completely their fault.

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah im sure they could just use their spare 2 million dollars they had sitting around after the Camp fire to buy a home in a safer area in northern California. Easy peasy.

[–] Cryophilia 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You say this like it's a joke but insurance is a thing.

[–] Madison420 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It won't be after repeat total losses, they'll call it a dangerous area and exempt wildfire from coverage then offer a wildfire addendum for an exorbitant amount. At which point people will eventually sell and investors will move in to make everything low cost shitty multi family homes. It'll be fun when they announce yet again that is PG&e not maintaining power lines.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If it gets people to move to more urban environments, that's a win for everyone

[–] Madison420 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not a fan of urbanization so I can't agree there, if we talk about medium density dispersed hub and spoke communities I'm with ya.

I like outside and while green walks and carless streets make it more bearable I'd still rather live on the edge with property to work.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nah, the more urban the better. For the planet, I mean. Personally I like either middle of the woods or middle of the city, no in between. But urban consolidation is best for the health of the planet.

[–] Madison420 1 points 3 months ago

Density is key urbanism isn't necessarily if public transit is fast and efficient and the industrial center high density.

[–] raynethackery 11 points 3 months ago

Apparently, 30%.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Pretty fucking good? Becoming better (read: worse) too!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

It's almost like catastrophic fire, flood, and earthquake risk is autocorrelated.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pretty likely considering the electric company refuses to properly insulate their wires and they’re constantly causing wildfires

[–] bibliotectress 3 points 3 months ago

That's what happened to us with the Camp Fire, but a guy started the Park Fire (currently at 401,199 acres and 27% contained).

https://sfstandard.com/2024/07/30/fire-started-by-man-pushing-flaming-car-is-californias-5th-largest-ever/

[–] Mediocre_Bard 4 points 3 months ago

About 100% for that family.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Maybe people should not be living in fire hazard zones and hurricane paths?

load more comments