Are subdivisions dangerous?
#1
I never thought about fires ripping through subdivisions from house to house faster than ANY fire dept could contain.
But isn't this what happened in Santa Rosa?

Is it a mistake to build houses so close together? Has this been brought up by anyone?
Reply
#2
(10-18-2017, 01:46 PM)tvguy Wrote: I never thought about fires ripping through subdivisions from house to house faster than ANY fire dept could contain.
But isn't this what happened in Santa Rosa?

Is it a mistake to build houses so close together? Has this been brought up by anyone?

Oh boy! I've been thinking about that...a lot! There are a couple of houses near me with shake roofs. flying embers and shake roofs are a PROBLEM. And I live in an "urban forest" so if the fire gets intense enough it's going to be a forest fire. Looking at photos of Santa Rosa, and it drives your point home. 

I need to move out to the Agate Desert near Denman Reserve someplace.  Wink

Or maybe a houseboat on a bay someplace. You know...someplace that floods and the wind tears the hell out of the place.  Laughing. Or on an earthquake fault. Or Iowa in a mobile home right in the path of a tornado (mobil homes are magnets for tornados  Wink )
Reply
#3
(10-18-2017, 02:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 01:46 PM)tvguy Wrote: I never thought about fires ripping through subdivisions from house to house faster than ANY fire dept could contain.
But isn't this what happened in Santa Rosa?

Is it a mistake to build houses so close together? Has this been brought up by anyone?

Oh boy! I've been thinking about that...a lot! There are a couple of houses near me with shake roofs. flying embers and shake roofs are a PROBLEM. And I live in an "urban forest" so if the fire gets intense enough it's going to be a forest fire. Looking at photos of Santa Rosa, and it drives your point home. 

I need to move out to the Agate Desert near Denman Reserve someplace.  Wink

Or maybe a houseboat on a bay someplace. You know...someplace that floods and the wind tears the hell out of the place.  Laughing. Or on an earthquake fault. Or Iowa in a mobile home right in the path of a tornado (mobil homes are magnets for tornados  Wink )

You don't have to get all silly Razz . Maybe just a certain amount of MORE distance between homes would suffice?

Or have parks or green areas every so often instead of solid houses?

BTW I can't believe people still have cedar roofs , Cedar burns like wood dipped in oil.
Because it is LOL. Using the most flammable wood known to man to cover your home has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.
Reply
#4
(10-18-2017, 02:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 01:46 PM)tvguy Wrote: I never thought about fires ripping through subdivisions from house to house faster than ANY fire dept could contain.
But isn't this what happened in Santa Rosa?

Is it a mistake to build houses so close together? Has this been brought up by anyone?

Oh boy! I've been thinking about that...a lot! There are a couple of houses near me with shake roofs. flying embers and shake roofs are a PROBLEM. And I live in an "urban forest" so if the fire gets intense enough it's going to be a forest fire. Looking at photos of Santa Rosa, and it drives your point home. 

I need to move out to the Agate Desert near Denman Reserve someplace.  Wink

Or maybe a houseboat on a bay someplace. You know...someplace that floods and the wind tears the hell out of the place.  Laughing. Or on an earthquake fault. Or Iowa in a mobile home right in the path of a tornado (mobil homes are magnets for tornados  Wink )

You don't have to get all silly Razz . Maybe just a certain amount of MORE distance between homes would suffice?

Or have parks or green areas every so often instead of solid houses?

BTW I can't believe people still have cedar roofs , Cedar burns like wood dipped in oil.
Because it is LOL. Using the most flammable wood known to man to cover your home has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

Isn't that the truth, might as well roof your house with strike anywhere matches
Reply
#5
(10-18-2017, 02:17 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 01:46 PM)tvguy Wrote: I never thought about fires ripping through subdivisions from house to house faster than ANY fire dept could contain.
But isn't this what happened in Santa Rosa?

Is it a mistake to build houses so close together? Has this been brought up by anyone?

Oh boy! I've been thinking about that...a lot! There are a couple of houses near me with shake roofs. flying embers and shake roofs are a PROBLEM. And I live in an "urban forest" so if the fire gets intense enough it's going to be a forest fire. Looking at photos of Santa Rosa, and it drives your point home. 

I need to move out to the Agate Desert near Denman Reserve someplace.  Wink

Or maybe a houseboat on a bay someplace. You know...someplace that floods and the wind tears the hell out of the place.  Laughing. Or on an earthquake fault. Or Iowa in a mobile home right in the path of a tornado (mobil homes are magnets for tornados  Wink )

You don't have to get all silly Razz . Maybe just a certain amount of MORE distance between homes would suffice?

Or have parks or green areas every so often instead of solid houses?

BTW I can't believe people still have cedar roofs , Cedar burns like wood dipped in oil.
Because it is LOL. Using the most flammable wood known to man to cover your home has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

Isn't that the truth, might as well roof your house with strike anywhere matches

I wonder,  after this thing in California if "the government" will require folks to replace those roofs with something other than wood. You can bet they will get a subsidy and we will all pay. But, better than watching whole neighborhoods go up in flames.
Reply
#6
We've had some close calls around here. A few years ago a fire burned just south of Ashland and was heading into town. After all the fire fighting resources had been sent to fight it another fire started in east Medford around Cherry Street I think. It was driven north by the wind that day and burned pretty far along the ridge east of Medford.

The only resources they could send was one air tanker and two helicopters until they could detach some firefighting crews from the Ashland fire and move them. That took an hour or two. I was thoroughly impressed they were able to prevent any houses from being burned that day. But it was a close call.
Reply
#7
(10-18-2017, 03:48 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:17 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 01:46 PM)tvguy Wrote: I never thought about fires ripping through subdivisions from house to house faster than ANY fire dept could contain.
But isn't this what happened in Santa Rosa?

Is it a mistake to build houses so close together? Has this been brought up by anyone?

Oh boy! I've been thinking about that...a lot! There are a couple of houses near me with shake roofs. flying embers and shake roofs are a PROBLEM. And I live in an "urban forest" so if the fire gets intense enough it's going to be a forest fire. Looking at photos of Santa Rosa, and it drives your point home. 

I need to move out to the Agate Desert near Denman Reserve someplace.  Wink

Or maybe a houseboat on a bay someplace. You know...someplace that floods and the wind tears the hell out of the place.  Laughing. Or on an earthquake fault. Or Iowa in a mobile home right in the path of a tornado (mobil homes are magnets for tornados  Wink )

You don't have to get all silly Razz . Maybe just a certain amount of MORE distance between homes would suffice?

Or have parks or green areas every so often instead of solid houses?

BTW I can't believe people still have cedar roofs , Cedar burns like wood dipped in oil.
Because it is LOL. Using the most flammable wood known to man to cover your home has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

Isn't that the truth, might as well roof your house with strike anywhere matches

I wonder,  after this thing in California if "the government" will require folks to replace those roofs with something other than wood. You can bet they will get a subsidy and we will all pay. But, better than watching whole neighborhoods go up in flames.

Maybe solar panels
Reply
#8
Especially nowadays when houses are being built right in each others pockets.
Reply
#9
(10-18-2017, 05:16 PM)Juniper Wrote: Especially nowadays when houses are being built right in each others pockets.

After I posted this and mentioned "subdivisions" it occurred to me that even in Medford the older houses were also built very close together.
And to make matters worse for some reason the city planners have no problem allowing additional houses being built on very small lots that already had one house.
I know of this because I was the one who wired several of them.
Reply
#10
(10-18-2017, 03:48 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:17 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 02:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 01:46 PM)tvguy Wrote: I never thought about fires ripping through subdivisions from house to house faster than ANY fire dept could contain.
But isn't this what happened in Santa Rosa?

Is it a mistake to build houses so close together? Has this been brought up by anyone?

Oh boy! I've been thinking about that...a lot! There are a couple of houses near me with shake roofs. flying embers and shake roofs are a PROBLEM. And I live in an "urban forest" so if the fire gets intense enough it's going to be a forest fire. Looking at photos of Santa Rosa, and it drives your point home. 

I need to move out to the Agate Desert near Denman Reserve someplace.  Wink

Or maybe a houseboat on a bay someplace. You know...someplace that floods and the wind tears the hell out of the place.  Laughing. Or on an earthquake fault. Or Iowa in a mobile home right in the path of a tornado (mobil homes are magnets for tornados  Wink )

You don't have to get all silly Razz . Maybe just a certain amount of MORE distance between homes would suffice?

Or have parks or green areas every so often instead of solid houses?

BTW I can't believe people still have cedar roofs , Cedar burns like wood dipped in oil.
Because it is LOL. Using the most flammable wood known to man to cover your home has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

Isn't that the truth, might as well roof your house with strike anywhere matches

I wonder,  after this thing in California if "the government" will require folks to replace those roofs with something other than wood. You can bet they will get a subsidy and we will all pay. But, better than watching whole neighborhoods go up in flames.
 
Why would there be a subsidy with what you call an "other than wood" roof. Because other than wood would normally means asphalt shingles which would be a lot less expensive.
Unless you meant a metal roof or tile roof and I doubt that will ever be enforced.

BTW I did not know this but you can buy fire resistant cedar shake roofing that has the best ( class A) fire resistant rating. And most asphalt shingles are class A.

But I have hauled cedar shakes home that were torn off roofs to use for kindling and they sure as hell were not fire resistant.

The truth is I don't know what could have stopped the fires from spreading or may have saved certain homes.
Seems to be if you had a stucco home with a tile roof and not a lot of flammable things around it.
I might have not burned when other homes did.
Reply
#11
I seem to remember a tragedy in Anaheim, Cal. that involved a bunch of neighboring homes.. all with cedar shake roofs. I think that they ended up outlawing certain types of roofing on new construction after that.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-06/l...-retardant
Reply
#12
(10-19-2017, 05:32 PM)GCG Wrote: I seem to remember a tragedy in Anaheim, Cal. that involved a bunch of neighboring homes.. all with cedar shake roofs. I think that they ended up outlawing certain types of roofing on new construction after that.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-06/l...-retardant

Yeah that was the old untreated cedar shakes before they had or required fire retardant shingles.
Reply
#13
Recently some of us have been at logger-heads, arguing unnecessarily about the wording of opinions and our understanding of facts. 
To a point, that is the value of this space. 
Past that point, it gets tedious and eventually personal and offensive. I may have contributed to it. 
The words we choose do matter. The langue is important. I suspect we all would agree. 
To a point.
I post the following to offer an example.

This Topic title is: "RE: Are subdivisions dangerous?". Posted by TVGuy, someone we know to be bright, alert, and has "all his marbles". Recently HUGO replied to a conversation about guns saying gun owners were not violent. Of course he did not mean that literally...he is fully aware that SOME gun owners have been violent. Maybe he could have been more clear, but IN CONTEXT we knew the point he wanted to make. Because there are some anti-gun nut jobs out there who are proving to be violent. (Hugo's point) 

So, in that light I point to this Topic title: RE: Are subdivisions dangerous? Of course we know subdivisions are not dangerous. There has never been a subdivision that in the dark of the night ate small children or started a national war. 
We know that TVGuy was pointing out that LIVING in a subdivision might be dangerous. He pointed to recent examples of it and it was clear why living in a subdivision could be dangerous . 

So, let's not argue about it. Context is all important.
Reply
#14
[Image: hn1uu.jpg]
Reply
#15
(10-20-2017, 11:42 AM)GPnative Wrote: [Image: hn1uu.jpg]

You are not required to read, comment, or even think about this. 
Just find a Topic that entertains you and enjoy it.
Reply
#16
(10-20-2017, 11:22 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Recently some of us have been at logger-heads, arguing unnecessarily about the wording of opinions and our understanding of facts. 
To a point, that is the value of this space. 
Past that point, it gets tedious and eventually personal and offensive. I may have contributed to it. 
The words we choose do matter. The langue is important. I suspect we all would agree. 
To a point.
I post the following to offer an example.

This Topic title is: "RE: Are subdivisions dangerous?". Posted by TVGuy, someone we know to be bright, alert, and has "all his marbles". Recently HUGO replied to a conversation about guns saying gun owners were not violent. Of course he did not mean that literally...he is fully aware that SOME gun owners have been violent. Maybe he could have been more clear, but IN CONTEXT we knew the point he wanted to make. Because there are some anti-gun nut jobs out there who are proving to be violent. (Hugo's point) 

So, in that light I point to this Topic title: RE: Are subdivisions dangerous? Of course we know subdivisions are not dangerous. There has never been a subdivision that in the dark of the night ate small children or started a national war. 
We know that TVGuy was pointing out that LIVING in a subdivision might be dangerous. He pointed to recent examples of it and it was clear why living in a subdivision could be dangerous . 

So, let's not argue about it. Context is all important.

Seriously? There something wrong with you Wonky.  You bring an argument HERE from another thread and on that thread where you wanted to end it.
Now on this thread you don't want to talk about subdivisions being a fire hazard instead you want to do your usual control freak thing and bitch about the title to the thread.

There is nothing whatsoever out of context in my HEADLINE. There was no need to fully explain why a subdivision might be dangerous because It was explained clearly as soon as anyone clicked on the thread.

And you STILL want to argue about Larry's comment saying I should not have taken it literally??

That's a cop out because you never said that even once. There never would have been an argument had you simply said...'don't take it literally'
But you didn't.
Reply
#17
(10-20-2017, 02:35 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 11:22 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Recently some of us have been at logger-heads, arguing unnecessarily about the wording of opinions and our understanding of facts. 
To a point, that is the value of this space. 
Past that point, it gets tedious and eventually personal and offensive. I may have contributed to it. 
The words we choose do matter. The langue is important. I suspect we all would agree. 
To a point.
I post the following to offer an example.

This Topic title is: "RE: Are subdivisions dangerous?". Posted by TVGuy, someone we know to be bright, alert, and has "all his marbles". Recently HUGO replied to a conversation about guns saying gun owners were not violent. Of course he did not mean that literally...he is fully aware that SOME gun owners have been violent. Maybe he could have been more clear, but IN CONTEXT we knew the point he wanted to make. Because there are some anti-gun nut jobs out there who are proving to be violent. (Hugo's point) 

So, in that light I point to this Topic title: RE: Are subdivisions dangerous? Of course we know subdivisions are not dangerous. There has never been a subdivision that in the dark of the night ate small children or started a national war. 
We know that TVGuy was pointing out that LIVING in a subdivision might be dangerous. He pointed to recent examples of it and it was clear why living in a subdivision could be dangerous . 

So, let's not argue about it. Context is all important.

Seriously? There something wrong with you Wonky.  You bring an argument HERE from another thread and on that thread where you wanted to end it.
Now on this thread you don't want to talk about subdivisions being a fire hazard instead you want to do your usual control freak thing and bitch about the title to the thread.

There is nothing whatsoever out of context in my HEADLINE. There was no need to fully explain why a subdivision might be dangerous because It was explained clearly as soon as anyone clicked on the thread.

And you STILL want to argue about Larry's comment saying I should not have taken it literally??

That's a cop out because you never said that even once. There never would have been an argument had you simply said...'don't take it literally'
But you didn't.
I did.

You don't want to be part of this discussion? Skip it. No harm. No foul.
Reply
#18
(10-20-2017, 02:37 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 02:35 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 11:22 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Recently some of us have been at logger-heads, arguing unnecessarily about the wording of opinions and our understanding of facts. 
To a point, that is the value of this space. 
Past that point, it gets tedious and eventually personal and offensive. I may have contributed to it. 
The words we choose do matter. The langue is important. I suspect we all would agree. 
To a point.
I post the following to offer an example.

This Topic title is: "RE: Are subdivisions dangerous?". Posted by TVGuy, someone we know to be bright, alert, and has "all his marbles". Recently HUGO replied to a conversation about guns saying gun owners were not violent. Of course he did not mean that literally...he is fully aware that SOME gun owners have been violent. Maybe he could have been more clear, but IN CONTEXT we knew the point he wanted to make. Because there are some anti-gun nut jobs out there who are proving to be violent. (Hugo's point) 

So, in that light I point to this Topic title: RE: Are subdivisions dangerous? Of course we know subdivisions are not dangerous. There has never been a subdivision that in the dark of the night ate small children or started a national war. 
We know that TVGuy was pointing out that LIVING in a subdivision might be dangerous. He pointed to recent examples of it and it was clear why living in a subdivision could be dangerous . 

So, let's not argue about it. Context is all important.

Seriously? There something wrong with you Wonky.  You bring an argument HERE from another thread and on that thread where you wanted to end it.
Now on this thread you don't want to talk about subdivisions being a fire hazard instead you want to do your usual control freak thing and bitch about the title to the thread.

There is nothing whatsoever out of context in my HEADLINE. There was no need to fully explain why a subdivision might be dangerous because It was explained clearly as soon as anyone clicked on the thread.

And you STILL want to argue about Larry's comment saying I should not have taken it literally??

That's a cop out because you never said that even once. There never would have been an argument had you simply said...'don't take it literally'
But you didn't.
I did.

You don't want to be part of this discussion? Skip it. No harm. No foul.

Part of this discussion? You are the one who jumped off the tracks and brought up YOUR bullshit form OTHER threads.


You are the one who can't let shit go and should have skipped it instead of posting on this thread.
Reply
#19
(10-20-2017, 02:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 02:37 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 02:35 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 11:22 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Recently some of us have been at logger-heads, arguing unnecessarily about the wording of opinions and our understanding of facts. 
To a point, that is the value of this space. 
Past that point, it gets tedious and eventually personal and offensive. I may have contributed to it. 
The words we choose do matter. The langue is important. I suspect we all would agree. 
To a point.
I post the following to offer an example.

This Topic title is: "RE: Are subdivisions dangerous?". Posted by TVGuy, someone we know to be bright, alert, and has "all his marbles". Recently HUGO replied to a conversation about guns saying gun owners were not violent. Of course he did not mean that literally...he is fully aware that SOME gun owners have been violent. Maybe he could have been more clear, but IN CONTEXT we knew the point he wanted to make. Because there are some anti-gun nut jobs out there who are proving to be violent. (Hugo's point) 

So, in that light I point to this Topic title: RE: Are subdivisions dangerous? Of course we know subdivisions are not dangerous. There has never been a subdivision that in the dark of the night ate small children or started a national war. 
We know that TVGuy was pointing out that LIVING in a subdivision might be dangerous. He pointed to recent examples of it and it was clear why living in a subdivision could be dangerous . 

So, let's not argue about it. Context is all important.

Seriously? There something wrong with you Wonky.  You bring an argument HERE from another thread and on that thread where you wanted to end it.
Now on this thread you don't want to talk about subdivisions being a fire hazard instead you want to do your usual control freak thing and bitch about the title to the thread.

There is nothing whatsoever out of context in my HEADLINE. There was no need to fully explain why a subdivision might be dangerous because It was explained clearly as soon as anyone clicked on the thread.

And you STILL want to argue about Larry's comment saying I should not have taken it literally??

That's a cop out because you never said that even once. There never would have been an argument had you simply said...'don't take it literally'
But you didn't.
I did.

You don't want to be part of this discussion? Skip it. No harm. No foul.

Part of this discussion? You are the one who jumped off the tracks and brought up YOUR bullshit form OTHER threads.


You are the one who can't let shit go and should have skipped it instead of posting on this thread.

You still here?  Laughing
Reply
#20
(10-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 02:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 02:37 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 02:35 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-20-2017, 11:22 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Recently some of us have been at logger-heads, arguing unnecessarily about the wording of opinions and our understanding of facts. 
To a point, that is the value of this space. 
Past that point, it gets tedious and eventually personal and offensive. I may have contributed to it. 
The words we choose do matter. The langue is important. I suspect we all would agree. 
To a point.
I post the following to offer an example.

This Topic title is: "RE: Are subdivisions dangerous?". Posted by TVGuy, someone we know to be bright, alert, and has "all his marbles". Recently HUGO replied to a conversation about guns saying gun owners were not violent. Of course he did not mean that literally...he is fully aware that SOME gun owners have been violent. Maybe he could have been more clear, but IN CONTEXT we knew the point he wanted to make. Because there are some anti-gun nut jobs out there who are proving to be violent. (Hugo's point) 

So, in that light I point to this Topic title: RE: Are subdivisions dangerous? Of course we know subdivisions are not dangerous. There has never been a subdivision that in the dark of the night ate small children or started a national war. 
We know that TVGuy was pointing out that LIVING in a subdivision might be dangerous. He pointed to recent examples of it and it was clear why living in a subdivision could be dangerous . 

So, let's not argue about it. Context is all important.

Seriously? There something wrong with you Wonky.  You bring an argument HERE from another thread and on that thread where you wanted to end it.
Now on this thread you don't want to talk about subdivisions being a fire hazard instead you want to do your usual control freak thing and bitch about the title to the thread.

There is nothing whatsoever out of context in my HEADLINE. There was no need to fully explain why a subdivision might be dangerous because It was explained clearly as soon as anyone clicked on the thread.

And you STILL want to argue about Larry's comment saying I should not have taken it literally??

That's a cop out because you never said that even once. There never would have been an argument had you simply said...'don't take it literally'
But you didn't.
I did.

You don't want to be part of this discussion? Skip it. No harm. No foul.

Part of this discussion? You are the one who jumped off the tracks and brought up YOUR bullshit form OTHER threads.


You are the one who can't let shit go and should have skipped it instead of posting on this thread.

You still here?  Laughing

Juniper called it. You are a troll.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)