4S ranch–Pienza Jan release

[NewtoSanDiego]

When new wildfire maps are updated this summer, I guess we’ll see. I’ll make sure to provide an update to this site.

For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.

Overall, I’m not willing to go thru the aggravation, cost, uncertainty of living in an area of high wildfire risk. There are other areas of San Diego county that have much lower wildfire risk.

When I was out in 4S last year, there were vast swaths of burned areas right next to the community. Nearly 1000 homes were destroyed in Rancho Bernardo and only a few have been rebuilt. Rebuilding a home is not something I ever want to go thru.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE IS NOT A SOLUTION TO ELIMINATE WILDFIRE RISK IN HIGH WILDFIRE RISK AREAS.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/28/perspective/9_52_414_20_07.txt

“San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use calls SIP a “last resort” measure if adequate evacuation routes cannot be built. This is the antithesis of a planned Go Early policy, and imposes SIP on an at-risk population. SIP is apparently gaining traction in the U.S. wildland firefighting community. Stay and Defend or Go Early is a workable policy. However, the San Diego version of SIP as defined by the planning and land use department is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

There are established techniques for planning community evacuation strategies considering population size and distribution, roadway layout, trigger zones, etc. The fire protection codes in San Diego County ignore all of this, requiring only a perfunctory number of roads in and out, regardless the size of the community. The fallacy of this is obvious from a simple example. If 5,000 vehicles are to be evacuated from a community of 2,500 homes at 800 vehicles per hour for each lane of traffic, and there are four outbound lanes, then it would take 5,000/3,200, or a minimum of 1.5 hours to evacuate. A more realistic minimum evacuation time would be under 30 minutes, requiring increasing the number of outbound lanes to at least 12, or reducing the number of homes to at most 800, or something in between. Thus, evacuation planning may influence the very design of a community, and should be an integral part of the Department of Planning and Land Use process.”

[NewtoSanDiego]

When new wildfire maps are updated this summer, I guess we’ll see. I’ll make sure to provide an update to this site.

For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.

Overall, I’m not willing to go thru the aggravation, cost, uncertainty of living in an area of high wildfire risk. There are other areas of San Diego county that have much lower wildfire risk.

When I was out in 4S last year, there were vast swaths of burned areas right next to the community. Nearly 1000 homes were destroyed in Rancho Bernardo and only a few have been rebuilt. Rebuilding a home is not something I ever want to go thru.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE IS NOT A SOLUTION TO ELIMINATE WILDFIRE RISK IN HIGH WILDFIRE RISK AREAS.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/28/perspective/9_52_414_20_07.txt

“San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use calls SIP a “last resort” measure if adequate evacuation routes cannot be built. This is the antithesis of a planned Go Early policy, and imposes SIP on an at-risk population. SIP is apparently gaining traction in the U.S. wildland firefighting community. Stay and Defend or Go Early is a workable policy. However, the San Diego version of SIP as defined by the planning and land use department is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

There are established techniques for planning community evacuation strategies considering population size and distribution, roadway layout, trigger zones, etc. The fire protection codes in San Diego County ignore all of this, requiring only a perfunctory number of roads in and out, regardless the size of the community. The fallacy of this is obvious from a simple example. If 5,000 vehicles are to be evacuated from a community of 2,500 homes at 800 vehicles per hour for each lane of traffic, and there are four outbound lanes, then it would take 5,000/3,200, or a minimum of 1.5 hours to evacuate. A more realistic minimum evacuation time would be under 30 minutes, requiring increasing the number of outbound lanes to at least 12, or reducing the number of homes to at most 800, or something in between. Thus, evacuation planning may influence the very design of a community, and should be an integral part of the Department of Planning and Land Use process.”

[NewtoSanDiego]

When new wildfire maps are updated this summer, I guess we’ll see. I’ll make sure to provide an update to this site.

For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.

Overall, I’m not willing to go thru the aggravation, cost, uncertainty of living in an area of high wildfire risk. There are other areas of San Diego county that have much lower wildfire risk.

When I was out in 4S last year, there were vast swaths of burned areas right next to the community. Nearly 1000 homes were destroyed in Rancho Bernardo and only a few have been rebuilt. Rebuilding a home is not something I ever want to go thru.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE IS NOT A SOLUTION TO ELIMINATE WILDFIRE RISK IN HIGH WILDFIRE RISK AREAS.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/28/perspective/9_52_414_20_07.txt

“San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use calls SIP a “last resort” measure if adequate evacuation routes cannot be built. This is the antithesis of a planned Go Early policy, and imposes SIP on an at-risk population. SIP is apparently gaining traction in the U.S. wildland firefighting community. Stay and Defend or Go Early is a workable policy. However, the San Diego version of SIP as defined by the planning and land use department is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

There are established techniques for planning community evacuation strategies considering population size and distribution, roadway layout, trigger zones, etc. The fire protection codes in San Diego County ignore all of this, requiring only a perfunctory number of roads in and out, regardless the size of the community. The fallacy of this is obvious from a simple example. If 5,000 vehicles are to be evacuated from a community of 2,500 homes at 800 vehicles per hour for each lane of traffic, and there are four outbound lanes, then it would take 5,000/3,200, or a minimum of 1.5 hours to evacuate. A more realistic minimum evacuation time would be under 30 minutes, requiring increasing the number of outbound lanes to at least 12, or reducing the number of homes to at most 800, or something in between. Thus, evacuation planning may influence the very design of a community, and should be an integral part of the Department of Planning and Land Use process.”

[NewtoSanDiego]

When new wildfire maps are updated this summer, I guess we’ll see. I’ll make sure to provide an update to this site.

For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.

Overall, I’m not willing to go thru the aggravation, cost, uncertainty of living in an area of high wildfire risk. There are other areas of San Diego county that have much lower wildfire risk.

When I was out in 4S last year, there were vast swaths of burned areas right next to the community. Nearly 1000 homes were destroyed in Rancho Bernardo and only a few have been rebuilt. Rebuilding a home is not something I ever want to go thru.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE IS NOT A SOLUTION TO ELIMINATE WILDFIRE RISK IN HIGH WILDFIRE RISK AREAS.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/28/perspective/9_52_414_20_07.txt

“San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use calls SIP a “last resort” measure if adequate evacuation routes cannot be built. This is the antithesis of a planned Go Early policy, and imposes SIP on an at-risk population. SIP is apparently gaining traction in the U.S. wildland firefighting community. Stay and Defend or Go Early is a workable policy. However, the San Diego version of SIP as defined by the planning and land use department is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

There are established techniques for planning community evacuation strategies considering population size and distribution, roadway layout, trigger zones, etc. The fire protection codes in San Diego County ignore all of this, requiring only a perfunctory number of roads in and out, regardless the size of the community. The fallacy of this is obvious from a simple example. If 5,000 vehicles are to be evacuated from a community of 2,500 homes at 800 vehicles per hour for each lane of traffic, and there are four outbound lanes, then it would take 5,000/3,200, or a minimum of 1.5 hours to evacuate. A more realistic minimum evacuation time would be under 30 minutes, requiring increasing the number of outbound lanes to at least 12, or reducing the number of homes to at most 800, or something in between. Thus, evacuation planning may influence the very design of a community, and should be an integral part of the Department of Planning and Land Use process.”

[4Sbuyer2002]

Dumbing down of America. You are a testament to this. I take it you are also a liberal. All emotional chicken little “the sky is falling” mentality devoid of actual facts.

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says:

“For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.” Chicken Little is factually and completely wrong on both accounts.

First “high risk” area . . . 4S Ranch is not.

A True San Diego Wildfire Expert (Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District) says: 4S is safe

“Typically, when a wildfire threatens homes, evacuations are ordered. Evacuations will shelter residents away from danger during a catastrophic event. During evacuations though, panic and chaos ensue, causing traffic collisions, blocked roadways, injuries and deaths. In fact, most
wildfire-related deaths occur during evacution efforts.

Your community, however, is designed to shelter you inside your home, far away from these congested evacuation routes. By residing in one of the five communities listed below, your home is considered shelter-inplace (list includes 4S). This means you will not need to evacuate during a wildfire. Homes in these masterplanned communities are designed and constructed to withstand wildfire, so RESIDENTS ARE SAFE to shelter inside“.

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/education/preparedness/SIP_for_web.pdf

“The Fire District encourages the use of sprinklers and other preparedness measures as a means of promoting FIRE-SAFE COMMUNITIES.” (Their words not mine)

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says: “insurance costs are higher” . . . again factually incorrect.

First the expert on Insurance the VP of state’s largest insurer says:

“There is also the possibility of significant savings. Sprinklers could reduce the average cost of fire insurance by about $900 a year, from $1,500 to $600, said Chris Smith, a vice president of Fireman’s Fund, one of the state’s largest business-property insurers.

“We’re a strong supporter of sprinklers. It’s lifesaving,” Smith said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070408-9999-1n8sprinkle.html

Second and anecdotally I pay less insurance on my 3200 sq/ft home in 4S (built 2002 with state of the art fire protection features) than I did on my 1500 sq/ft condo built in 1984. My insurance agents attributed the savings to the fire safe features of the home. My insurance cost for the home in 4S is less.

Finally . . . .

Chicken little the Insurance guy and the “straw man” logical fallacy touting 1000 homes burned elsewhere in a separate community in San Diego and conflating that fact with 4S where ZERO homes burned. (not part of Rancho Bernardo which is part of San Diego city. 4S is unincorporated San Diego county)

Lets see if we can follow this fallacious reasoning. There is one fire and it passes near to two different communities. One community, older and no updated fire safe technologies, has 1000 homes burn. The same fire then passes buy 4S with state of the art fire safe features and 0 (Zero) homes burn. We then conflate the two and waiving our hands in the air (picture here Chicken Little . . . . “the sky is falling”) and assert its not safe in 4S, where no homes burned, because elsewhere 1000 homes burned????? Come on San Diego Newby you can’t be that much of a simpleton.

4S is as safe as you can get in San Diego from wildfires.

Take it from the experts quoted above. Not chicken little.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Dumbing down of America. You are a testament to this. I take it you are also a liberal. All emotional chicken little “the sky is falling” mentality devoid of actual facts.

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says:

“For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.” Chicken Little is factually and completely wrong on both accounts.

First “high risk” area . . . 4S Ranch is not.

A True San Diego Wildfire Expert (Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District) says: 4S is safe

“Typically, when a wildfire threatens homes, evacuations are ordered. Evacuations will shelter residents away from danger during a catastrophic event. During evacuations though, panic and chaos ensue, causing traffic collisions, blocked roadways, injuries and deaths. In fact, most
wildfire-related deaths occur during evacution efforts.

Your community, however, is designed to shelter you inside your home, far away from these congested evacuation routes. By residing in one of the five communities listed below, your home is considered shelter-inplace (list includes 4S). This means you will not need to evacuate during a wildfire. Homes in these masterplanned communities are designed and constructed to withstand wildfire, so RESIDENTS ARE SAFE to shelter inside“.

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/education/preparedness/SIP_for_web.pdf

“The Fire District encourages the use of sprinklers and other preparedness measures as a means of promoting FIRE-SAFE COMMUNITIES.” (Their words not mine)

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says: “insurance costs are higher” . . . again factually incorrect.

First the expert on Insurance the VP of state’s largest insurer says:

“There is also the possibility of significant savings. Sprinklers could reduce the average cost of fire insurance by about $900 a year, from $1,500 to $600, said Chris Smith, a vice president of Fireman’s Fund, one of the state’s largest business-property insurers.

“We’re a strong supporter of sprinklers. It’s lifesaving,” Smith said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070408-9999-1n8sprinkle.html

Second and anecdotally I pay less insurance on my 3200 sq/ft home in 4S (built 2002 with state of the art fire protection features) than I did on my 1500 sq/ft condo built in 1984. My insurance agents attributed the savings to the fire safe features of the home. My insurance cost for the home in 4S is less.

Finally . . . .

Chicken little the Insurance guy and the “straw man” logical fallacy touting 1000 homes burned elsewhere in a separate community in San Diego and conflating that fact with 4S where ZERO homes burned. (not part of Rancho Bernardo which is part of San Diego city. 4S is unincorporated San Diego county)

Lets see if we can follow this fallacious reasoning. There is one fire and it passes near to two different communities. One community, older and no updated fire safe technologies, has 1000 homes burn. The same fire then passes buy 4S with state of the art fire safe features and 0 (Zero) homes burn. We then conflate the two and waiving our hands in the air (picture here Chicken Little . . . . “the sky is falling”) and assert its not safe in 4S, where no homes burned, because elsewhere 1000 homes burned????? Come on San Diego Newby you can’t be that much of a simpleton.

4S is as safe as you can get in San Diego from wildfires.

Take it from the experts quoted above. Not chicken little.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Dumbing down of America. You are a testament to this. I take it you are also a liberal. All emotional chicken little “the sky is falling” mentality devoid of actual facts.

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says:

“For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.” Chicken Little is factually and completely wrong on both accounts.

First “high risk” area . . . 4S Ranch is not.

A True San Diego Wildfire Expert (Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District) says: 4S is safe

“Typically, when a wildfire threatens homes, evacuations are ordered. Evacuations will shelter residents away from danger during a catastrophic event. During evacuations though, panic and chaos ensue, causing traffic collisions, blocked roadways, injuries and deaths. In fact, most
wildfire-related deaths occur during evacution efforts.

Your community, however, is designed to shelter you inside your home, far away from these congested evacuation routes. By residing in one of the five communities listed below, your home is considered shelter-inplace (list includes 4S). This means you will not need to evacuate during a wildfire. Homes in these masterplanned communities are designed and constructed to withstand wildfire, so RESIDENTS ARE SAFE to shelter inside“.

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/education/preparedness/SIP_for_web.pdf

“The Fire District encourages the use of sprinklers and other preparedness measures as a means of promoting FIRE-SAFE COMMUNITIES.” (Their words not mine)

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says: “insurance costs are higher” . . . again factually incorrect.

First the expert on Insurance the VP of state’s largest insurer says:

“There is also the possibility of significant savings. Sprinklers could reduce the average cost of fire insurance by about $900 a year, from $1,500 to $600, said Chris Smith, a vice president of Fireman’s Fund, one of the state’s largest business-property insurers.

“We’re a strong supporter of sprinklers. It’s lifesaving,” Smith said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070408-9999-1n8sprinkle.html

Second and anecdotally I pay less insurance on my 3200 sq/ft home in 4S (built 2002 with state of the art fire protection features) than I did on my 1500 sq/ft condo built in 1984. My insurance agents attributed the savings to the fire safe features of the home. My insurance cost for the home in 4S is less.

Finally . . . .

Chicken little the Insurance guy and the “straw man” logical fallacy touting 1000 homes burned elsewhere in a separate community in San Diego and conflating that fact with 4S where ZERO homes burned. (not part of Rancho Bernardo which is part of San Diego city. 4S is unincorporated San Diego county)

Lets see if we can follow this fallacious reasoning. There is one fire and it passes near to two different communities. One community, older and no updated fire safe technologies, has 1000 homes burn. The same fire then passes buy 4S with state of the art fire safe features and 0 (Zero) homes burn. We then conflate the two and waiving our hands in the air (picture here Chicken Little . . . . “the sky is falling”) and assert its not safe in 4S, where no homes burned, because elsewhere 1000 homes burned????? Come on San Diego Newby you can’t be that much of a simpleton.

4S is as safe as you can get in San Diego from wildfires.

Take it from the experts quoted above. Not chicken little.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Dumbing down of America. You are a testament to this. I take it you are also a liberal. All emotional chicken little “the sky is falling” mentality devoid of actual facts.

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says:

“For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.” Chicken Little is factually and completely wrong on both accounts.

First “high risk” area . . . 4S Ranch is not.

A True San Diego Wildfire Expert (Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District) says: 4S is safe

“Typically, when a wildfire threatens homes, evacuations are ordered. Evacuations will shelter residents away from danger during a catastrophic event. During evacuations though, panic and chaos ensue, causing traffic collisions, blocked roadways, injuries and deaths. In fact, most
wildfire-related deaths occur during evacution efforts.

Your community, however, is designed to shelter you inside your home, far away from these congested evacuation routes. By residing in one of the five communities listed below, your home is considered shelter-inplace (list includes 4S). This means you will not need to evacuate during a wildfire. Homes in these masterplanned communities are designed and constructed to withstand wildfire, so RESIDENTS ARE SAFE to shelter inside“.

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/education/preparedness/SIP_for_web.pdf

“The Fire District encourages the use of sprinklers and other preparedness measures as a means of promoting FIRE-SAFE COMMUNITIES.” (Their words not mine)

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says: “insurance costs are higher” . . . again factually incorrect.

First the expert on Insurance the VP of state’s largest insurer says:

“There is also the possibility of significant savings. Sprinklers could reduce the average cost of fire insurance by about $900 a year, from $1,500 to $600, said Chris Smith, a vice president of Fireman’s Fund, one of the state’s largest business-property insurers.

“We’re a strong supporter of sprinklers. It’s lifesaving,” Smith said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070408-9999-1n8sprinkle.html

Second and anecdotally I pay less insurance on my 3200 sq/ft home in 4S (built 2002 with state of the art fire protection features) than I did on my 1500 sq/ft condo built in 1984. My insurance agents attributed the savings to the fire safe features of the home. My insurance cost for the home in 4S is less.

Finally . . . .

Chicken little the Insurance guy and the “straw man” logical fallacy touting 1000 homes burned elsewhere in a separate community in San Diego and conflating that fact with 4S where ZERO homes burned. (not part of Rancho Bernardo which is part of San Diego city. 4S is unincorporated San Diego county)

Lets see if we can follow this fallacious reasoning. There is one fire and it passes near to two different communities. One community, older and no updated fire safe technologies, has 1000 homes burn. The same fire then passes buy 4S with state of the art fire safe features and 0 (Zero) homes burn. We then conflate the two and waiving our hands in the air (picture here Chicken Little . . . . “the sky is falling”) and assert its not safe in 4S, where no homes burned, because elsewhere 1000 homes burned????? Come on San Diego Newby you can’t be that much of a simpleton.

4S is as safe as you can get in San Diego from wildfires.

Take it from the experts quoted above. Not chicken little.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Dumbing down of America. You are a testament to this. I take it you are also a liberal. All emotional chicken little “the sky is falling” mentality devoid of actual facts.

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says:

“For those looking into buying property areas of high wildfire risk, please take insurance costs and overall higher risk under consideration.” Chicken Little is factually and completely wrong on both accounts.

First “high risk” area . . . 4S Ranch is not.

A True San Diego Wildfire Expert (Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District) says: 4S is safe

“Typically, when a wildfire threatens homes, evacuations are ordered. Evacuations will shelter residents away from danger during a catastrophic event. During evacuations though, panic and chaos ensue, causing traffic collisions, blocked roadways, injuries and deaths. In fact, most
wildfire-related deaths occur during evacution efforts.

Your community, however, is designed to shelter you inside your home, far away from these congested evacuation routes. By residing in one of the five communities listed below, your home is considered shelter-inplace (list includes 4S). This means you will not need to evacuate during a wildfire. Homes in these masterplanned communities are designed and constructed to withstand wildfire, so RESIDENTS ARE SAFE to shelter inside“.

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/education/preparedness/SIP_for_web.pdf

“The Fire District encourages the use of sprinklers and other preparedness measures as a means of promoting FIRE-SAFE COMMUNITIES.” (Their words not mine)

http://www.rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf

Chicken Little the Insurance guy says: “insurance costs are higher” . . . again factually incorrect.

First the expert on Insurance the VP of state’s largest insurer says:

“There is also the possibility of significant savings. Sprinklers could reduce the average cost of fire insurance by about $900 a year, from $1,500 to $600, said Chris Smith, a vice president of Fireman’s Fund, one of the state’s largest business-property insurers.

“We’re a strong supporter of sprinklers. It’s lifesaving,” Smith said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070408-9999-1n8sprinkle.html

Second and anecdotally I pay less insurance on my 3200 sq/ft home in 4S (built 2002 with state of the art fire protection features) than I did on my 1500 sq/ft condo built in 1984. My insurance agents attributed the savings to the fire safe features of the home. My insurance cost for the home in 4S is less.

Finally . . . .

Chicken little the Insurance guy and the “straw man” logical fallacy touting 1000 homes burned elsewhere in a separate community in San Diego and conflating that fact with 4S where ZERO homes burned. (not part of Rancho Bernardo which is part of San Diego city. 4S is unincorporated San Diego county)

Lets see if we can follow this fallacious reasoning. There is one fire and it passes near to two different communities. One community, older and no updated fire safe technologies, has 1000 homes burn. The same fire then passes buy 4S with state of the art fire safe features and 0 (Zero) homes burn. We then conflate the two and waiving our hands in the air (picture here Chicken Little . . . . “the sky is falling”) and assert its not safe in 4S, where no homes burned, because elsewhere 1000 homes burned????? Come on San Diego Newby you can’t be that much of a simpleton.

4S is as safe as you can get in San Diego from wildfires.

Take it from the experts quoted above. Not chicken little.

grateful owner . . . .

[NewtoSanDiego]

Looks like a touched a raw nerve. Not sure why you brought politics into this, I happen to be a lifelong Republican.

You still have failed to convince me of the relative wildfire safety of 4S.

Agreed, sprinklers are great way to save a house from fire. So, let me think. While the house the house is catching fire, you expect the homeover to be sitting in their living room drenched with water….saying over and over again…..”Shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place”. I find that a bit odd.

Personally, I would only go with sprinkler installed homes if I absolutely had to live anywhere near high risk fire zones. Problem with these sprinkler systems is potential water pressure problems. During any large fire event, there is always potential problems with water availabilty, e.g. all the water is being used to put out fires elsewhere, pressure drops, etc.

I suppose there probabably are some interesting fire suppression systems utilize your pool along with a backup pump. These are probably not cheap. In addition, any backup pumping system would probably have to be on battery. Anybody out there know know of good systems?

Try to keep the emotion out of it and keep it to the facts.
I can debate all day long, I was captain of my high school debate team and even seriously considered law school at one time, a long time ago.

[NewtoSanDiego]

Looks like a touched a raw nerve. Not sure why you brought politics into this, I happen to be a lifelong Republican.

You still have failed to convince me of the relative wildfire safety of 4S.

Agreed, sprinklers are great way to save a house from fire. So, let me think. While the house the house is catching fire, you expect the homeover to be sitting in their living room drenched with water….saying over and over again…..”Shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place”. I find that a bit odd.

Personally, I would only go with sprinkler installed homes if I absolutely had to live anywhere near high risk fire zones. Problem with these sprinkler systems is potential water pressure problems. During any large fire event, there is always potential problems with water availabilty, e.g. all the water is being used to put out fires elsewhere, pressure drops, etc.

I suppose there probabably are some interesting fire suppression systems utilize your pool along with a backup pump. These are probably not cheap. In addition, any backup pumping system would probably have to be on battery. Anybody out there know know of good systems?

Try to keep the emotion out of it and keep it to the facts.
I can debate all day long, I was captain of my high school debate team and even seriously considered law school at one time, a long time ago.

[NewtoSanDiego]

Looks like a touched a raw nerve. Not sure why you brought politics into this, I happen to be a lifelong Republican.

You still have failed to convince me of the relative wildfire safety of 4S.

Agreed, sprinklers are great way to save a house from fire. So, let me think. While the house the house is catching fire, you expect the homeover to be sitting in their living room drenched with water….saying over and over again…..”Shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place”. I find that a bit odd.

Personally, I would only go with sprinkler installed homes if I absolutely had to live anywhere near high risk fire zones. Problem with these sprinkler systems is potential water pressure problems. During any large fire event, there is always potential problems with water availabilty, e.g. all the water is being used to put out fires elsewhere, pressure drops, etc.

I suppose there probabably are some interesting fire suppression systems utilize your pool along with a backup pump. These are probably not cheap. In addition, any backup pumping system would probably have to be on battery. Anybody out there know know of good systems?

Try to keep the emotion out of it and keep it to the facts.
I can debate all day long, I was captain of my high school debate team and even seriously considered law school at one time, a long time ago.

[NewtoSanDiego]

Looks like a touched a raw nerve. Not sure why you brought politics into this, I happen to be a lifelong Republican.

You still have failed to convince me of the relative wildfire safety of 4S.

Agreed, sprinklers are great way to save a house from fire. So, let me think. While the house the house is catching fire, you expect the homeover to be sitting in their living room drenched with water….saying over and over again…..”Shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place”. I find that a bit odd.

Personally, I would only go with sprinkler installed homes if I absolutely had to live anywhere near high risk fire zones. Problem with these sprinkler systems is potential water pressure problems. During any large fire event, there is always potential problems with water availabilty, e.g. all the water is being used to put out fires elsewhere, pressure drops, etc.

I suppose there probabably are some interesting fire suppression systems utilize your pool along with a backup pump. These are probably not cheap. In addition, any backup pumping system would probably have to be on battery. Anybody out there know know of good systems?

Try to keep the emotion out of it and keep it to the facts.
I can debate all day long, I was captain of my high school debate team and even seriously considered law school at one time, a long time ago.

[NewtoSanDiego]

Looks like a touched a raw nerve. Not sure why you brought politics into this, I happen to be a lifelong Republican.

You still have failed to convince me of the relative wildfire safety of 4S.

Agreed, sprinklers are great way to save a house from fire. So, let me think. While the house the house is catching fire, you expect the homeover to be sitting in their living room drenched with water….saying over and over again…..”Shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place, shelter-in-place”. I find that a bit odd.

Personally, I would only go with sprinkler installed homes if I absolutely had to live anywhere near high risk fire zones. Problem with these sprinkler systems is potential water pressure problems. During any large fire event, there is always potential problems with water availabilty, e.g. all the water is being used to put out fires elsewhere, pressure drops, etc.

I suppose there probabably are some interesting fire suppression systems utilize your pool along with a backup pump. These are probably not cheap. In addition, any backup pumping system would probably have to be on battery. Anybody out there know know of good systems?

Try to keep the emotion out of it and keep it to the facts.
I can debate all day long, I was captain of my high school debate team and even seriously considered law school at one time, a long time ago.

[Aecetia]

NTSD,

From the previous 4$ranch discussion: “Shelter-In-Place in San Diego, CA Passes First Challenge (Wildfire News & Notes – December 2007)

http://216.70.126.67/library/?p=336

The county policy defines shelter in place as “a last-resort design concept with relocation (evacuation) of residents to a safe location being the preferred action.” No projects incorporating the new guidelines have been submitted since the standards went into effect, county planning officials said. Paul Marks, chairman of the San Dieguito Community Planning Group that reviewed the existing shelter-in place projects, said he remains skeptical that the idea worked in this week’s firestorms.

The Witch Creek fire was not a valid test because the threat to those particular communities was not significant enough, he said. Richard Montague, whose Firesafe 2000 company of retired fire chiefs prepared some of the shelter-in-place plans, said the guidelines only work if homeowners and their communities maintain the strict standards for landscaping, construction and other improvements. Joel Hirschhorn, author of “Sprawl Kills – Better Living in Healthy Places,” says shelter-in-place developments might provide “a second line of defense” but they can’t overcome the problem of building homes in suburbs subject to wildfires.”

[Author]

Posts