“Deleted for the good of the cause???” Ahhh . . . your post, pre-deletion, affirmed most of what I said, spoke of how nice a community 4S was, stated that you enjoyed reading my posts and encouraged me to continue. You also commented on how shelter in place worked for you in the 2003 fires in which you did not evactuate. What exactly is the “cause” . . . which compels you to take back and delete your true feelings and thoughts???? That wouldn’t be a cause, shared by many PIGS, to bash and talk down (with half truths and outright falsehoods) at every opportunity areas like 4S would it???? Let me follow this. “Gee I want to live in a place like 4S” but, I can’t afford it (even at these reduced prices), so I will bash and bad mouth it either with a) the wistful hope that such bad mouthing will plummet the market to lows where I can afford to buy in the place I have bad mouthed and trashed up to date OR b). . . its just sour grapes. Which one 4 you?? “Good of the cause” . . . so shallow.
My original response to your original post (before you deleted it).
Well said. No structure on earth is immune to fire. My only point is that it is a complete misnomer that 4S and other modern well designed (in light of known fire risks) communities are “risky places to live” in terms of wildfire danger vis a vis other places in San Diego. 4S is better protected than most. No place is completely fireproof. The fires in Laguna Beach . . . (“live on the coast there is no fire danger there . . . .”) not exactly http://www.light-headed.com/asite/laguna/laguna_history/laguna_beach_fire.phpand Oakland (“live in established suburban/urban interior areas far from boundry between suburbia and wildland there is no fire danger there . . . .) not exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Hills_firestorm . . . attest to that. My point is 4S is safer than most and not at elevated risk from wildfires.
