[quote=HenryPP]
“4S Ranch is one of only five communities in San Diego designed and built according to strict “fire safe” construction standards. These standards resulted in not a single home being lost or even damaged in any of these communities during the October 2007 fires which affected much of Southern California and burned over 2000 homes…”[/quote]

I notice you left off the next sentences from Wikipedia:

“The “Shelter in Place” construction concept of these communities was tested and passed through the fires without any damage. Although adjacent to other popular communities (Poway, Rancho Bernardo, Carmel Valley, Rancho Penasquitos, Rancho Santa Fe) in suburban San Diego, 4S Ranch is the only community among these that has been built to be sufficiently protected from wild fires such that it has been deemed a “Shelter in Place” community”

I don’t know about you, but staying put in a fire is not my idea of a good time. And it misleads the public into thinking that the homes won’t burn.

From other sources:

Shelter in place “doesn’t mean you always stay at home,” Bacon said. “It means you can stay at home because you have done advance preparation. You need to know when to evacuate and when evacuation is too late.”

“To give people a false sense of security is imprudent, and to represent to them that they’d be safe from a natural disaster is something I’m not
comfortable with,” Maas said.

[quote=svelte][quote=HenryPP]
“4S Ranch is one of only five communities in San Diego designed and built according to strict “fire safe” construction standards. These standards resulted in not a single home being lost or even damaged in any of these communities during the October 2007 fires which affected much of Southern California and burned over 2000 homes…”[/quote]

I notice you left off the next sentences from Wikipedia:

“The “Shelter in Place” construction concept of these communities was tested and passed through the fires without any damage. Although adjacent to other popular communities (Poway, Rancho Bernardo, Carmel Valley, Rancho Penasquitos, Rancho Santa Fe) in suburban San Diego, 4S Ranch is the only community among these that has been built to be sufficiently protected from wild fires such that it has been deemed a “Shelter in Place” community”

I don’t know about you, but staying put in a fire is not my idea of a good time. And it misleads the public into thinking that the homes won’t burn.

From other sources:

Shelter in place “doesn’t mean you always stay at home,” Bacon said. “It means you can stay at home because you have done advance preparation. You need to know when to evacuate and when evacuation is too late.”

“To give people a false sense of security is imprudent, and to represent to them that they’d be safe from a natural disaster is something I’m not
comfortable with,” Maas said.[/quote]
Shelter In Place is a viable policy depending on:
1. The trees and brush near your house
2. The age and construction (esp. roofing and eaves) of your house
3. Your exit route possibilities.
We live in this area and during the last major fires happily stayed put. All the above factors were favorable, so we were in no real danger. Especially important is that the vegetation is 6-inch tall grass, green ground cover, and a few small ornamental trees.
Gov’t urged evacuation and 90% of my neighbors panicked and fled to gridlocked, dangerous highways and full motels. Most regretted leaving.
Americans are lousy at evaluating risk, weighing probabilities, and taking reasonable chances. Parents scare their kids about abductions, and then don’t buckle them up as they tailgate when driving late to school. We fear spectactular and well-publicized but rare events, and ignor the less dramatic, common risks.
Government’s reflexive action is to tell everyone to get out, rather than explain a checklist of factors to consider. Can’t blame the bureaucrats for taking the easy way out, but C’mon folks, we have to think for ourselves.