4S ranch–Pienza Jan release

[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.”

[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.”

[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.”

[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.”

[4Sbuyer2002]

Aecetia,

Your completely wrong. See article here in which “experts” discuss Shelter In Place success of 4S and other communities. The very article you posted is titled “Shelter-In-Place in San Diego, CA Passes First Challenge”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/news_1n2shelter.html#

Shelter in Place not tested in Witch Creek fire???? Again completely wrong. This fire is universally regarded as the worst in history of San Diego. Two of the shelter in place communities (Crosby and Cielo) were in the direct path of the fire and both emerged totally unscathed. See for yourself on this map. Notice the unbured bulges represented by Cielo and Crosby. The image speaks for itself. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/images/shelter.html

Most of the people who decry shelter in place are environmental whackos with an ulterior agenda. Not all, but most. They criticize “shelter in place” not because the concept is flawed but because it provides a rational to build homes.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Aecetia,

Your completely wrong. See article here in which “experts” discuss Shelter In Place success of 4S and other communities. The very article you posted is titled “Shelter-In-Place in San Diego, CA Passes First Challenge”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/news_1n2shelter.html#

Shelter in Place not tested in Witch Creek fire???? Again completely wrong. This fire is universally regarded as the worst in history of San Diego. Two of the shelter in place communities (Crosby and Cielo) were in the direct path of the fire and both emerged totally unscathed. See for yourself on this map. Notice the unbured bulges represented by Cielo and Crosby. The image speaks for itself. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/images/shelter.html

Most of the people who decry shelter in place are environmental whackos with an ulterior agenda. Not all, but most. They criticize “shelter in place” not because the concept is flawed but because it provides a rational to build homes.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Aecetia,

Your completely wrong. See article here in which “experts” discuss Shelter In Place success of 4S and other communities. The very article you posted is titled “Shelter-In-Place in San Diego, CA Passes First Challenge”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/news_1n2shelter.html#

Shelter in Place not tested in Witch Creek fire???? Again completely wrong. This fire is universally regarded as the worst in history of San Diego. Two of the shelter in place communities (Crosby and Cielo) were in the direct path of the fire and both emerged totally unscathed. See for yourself on this map. Notice the unbured bulges represented by Cielo and Crosby. The image speaks for itself. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/images/shelter.html

Most of the people who decry shelter in place are environmental whackos with an ulterior agenda. Not all, but most. They criticize “shelter in place” not because the concept is flawed but because it provides a rational to build homes.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Aecetia,

Your completely wrong. See article here in which “experts” discuss Shelter In Place success of 4S and other communities. The very article you posted is titled “Shelter-In-Place in San Diego, CA Passes First Challenge”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/news_1n2shelter.html#

Shelter in Place not tested in Witch Creek fire???? Again completely wrong. This fire is universally regarded as the worst in history of San Diego. Two of the shelter in place communities (Crosby and Cielo) were in the direct path of the fire and both emerged totally unscathed. See for yourself on this map. Notice the unbured bulges represented by Cielo and Crosby. The image speaks for itself. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/images/shelter.html

Most of the people who decry shelter in place are environmental whackos with an ulterior agenda. Not all, but most. They criticize “shelter in place” not because the concept is flawed but because it provides a rational to build homes.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Aecetia,

Your completely wrong. See article here in which “experts” discuss Shelter In Place success of 4S and other communities. The very article you posted is titled “Shelter-In-Place in San Diego, CA Passes First Challenge”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/news_1n2shelter.html#

Shelter in Place not tested in Witch Creek fire???? Again completely wrong. This fire is universally regarded as the worst in history of San Diego. Two of the shelter in place communities (Crosby and Cielo) were in the direct path of the fire and both emerged totally unscathed. See for yourself on this map. Notice the unbured bulges represented by Cielo and Crosby. The image speaks for itself. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071202/images/shelter.html

Most of the people who decry shelter in place are environmental whackos with an ulterior agenda. Not all, but most. They criticize “shelter in place” not because the concept is flawed but because it provides a rational to build homes.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

“You still have failed to convince me”

Thats my point. You have, as the definition of “chicken little” goes, “a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is” coming from a wildfire if a person lives in a home in 4S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Thats priceless . . . “convince me.” Yes it is hard to reason with those with “hysterical mistaken beliefs.” Dumbing down of America by a different name.

As far as brining emotion to the debate . . . review all of my posts. Nowhere do I base what I say or the positions I posit on my emotional beliefs, unlike you. I simply point to the reasoned words of experts on the topic. In other words I stick to the facts.

I guess thats the difference in logical reasonling between one who was on a high school debate team and failed to make it to law school and one who graduated cum laude from a top 15 law school and was runner up in the said law school’s Moot Court competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_court

The idiocy of the following “straw man” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument argument you make defies credulity . . . “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.” These sort of sophomoric comments reveal your level of thought and logic. Nowhere have I suggested such a stupid scenario.

But . . . . if you want a good anecdote on a related topic where a brainless 4S homeowner, stored gas soaked rags in his garage, which subsequently caught on fire, which triggered the sprinkler system, which immediately called the fire department, which when they arrived the sprinkler had already doused the fire and (per fire department) saved the house and resulted only in minor damage . . . . see here:
rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf;

here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Million%20Dollar%20Home.9-18-03.pdf;

and here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Single%20Family%20Home.12-15-03.pdf

I never posited the idoitic act of sitting in your home as the sprinkler goes off but if you want to discuss such foolishness, above is a nearly analagous real event which at least illustrates the effectiveness of the 4S fire safe technologies overcaming even the stupidest and careless of homeowners when it comes to fire safety.

No “raw nerves” here. I am simply amused by the exercise of deconstructing fallacious logic such as yours.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

“You still have failed to convince me”

Thats my point. You have, as the definition of “chicken little” goes, “a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is” coming from a wildfire if a person lives in a home in 4S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Thats priceless . . . “convince me.” Yes it is hard to reason with those with “hysterical mistaken beliefs.” Dumbing down of America by a different name.

As far as brining emotion to the debate . . . review all of my posts. Nowhere do I base what I say or the positions I posit on my emotional beliefs, unlike you. I simply point to the reasoned words of experts on the topic. In other words I stick to the facts.

I guess thats the difference in logical reasonling between one who was on a high school debate team and failed to make it to law school and one who graduated cum laude from a top 15 law school and was runner up in the said law school’s Moot Court competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_court

The idiocy of the following “straw man” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument argument you make defies credulity . . . “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.” These sort of sophomoric comments reveal your level of thought and logic. Nowhere have I suggested such a stupid scenario.

But . . . . if you want a good anecdote on a related topic where a brainless 4S homeowner, stored gas soaked rags in his garage, which subsequently caught on fire, which triggered the sprinkler system, which immediately called the fire department, which when they arrived the sprinkler had already doused the fire and (per fire department) saved the house and resulted only in minor damage . . . . see here:
rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf;

here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Million%20Dollar%20Home.9-18-03.pdf;

and here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Single%20Family%20Home.12-15-03.pdf

I never posited the idoitic act of sitting in your home as the sprinkler goes off but if you want to discuss such foolishness, above is a nearly analagous real event which at least illustrates the effectiveness of the 4S fire safe technologies overcaming even the stupidest and careless of homeowners when it comes to fire safety.

No “raw nerves” here. I am simply amused by the exercise of deconstructing fallacious logic such as yours.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

“You still have failed to convince me”

Thats my point. You have, as the definition of “chicken little” goes, “a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is” coming from a wildfire if a person lives in a home in 4S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Thats priceless . . . “convince me.” Yes it is hard to reason with those with “hysterical mistaken beliefs.” Dumbing down of America by a different name.

As far as brining emotion to the debate . . . review all of my posts. Nowhere do I base what I say or the positions I posit on my emotional beliefs, unlike you. I simply point to the reasoned words of experts on the topic. In other words I stick to the facts.

I guess thats the difference in logical reasonling between one who was on a high school debate team and failed to make it to law school and one who graduated cum laude from a top 15 law school and was runner up in the said law school’s Moot Court competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_court

The idiocy of the following “straw man” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument argument you make defies credulity . . . “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.” These sort of sophomoric comments reveal your level of thought and logic. Nowhere have I suggested such a stupid scenario.

But . . . . if you want a good anecdote on a related topic where a brainless 4S homeowner, stored gas soaked rags in his garage, which subsequently caught on fire, which triggered the sprinkler system, which immediately called the fire department, which when they arrived the sprinkler had already doused the fire and (per fire department) saved the house and resulted only in minor damage . . . . see here:
rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf;

here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Million%20Dollar%20Home.9-18-03.pdf;

and here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Single%20Family%20Home.12-15-03.pdf

I never posited the idoitic act of sitting in your home as the sprinkler goes off but if you want to discuss such foolishness, above is a nearly analagous real event which at least illustrates the effectiveness of the 4S fire safe technologies overcaming even the stupidest and careless of homeowners when it comes to fire safety.

No “raw nerves” here. I am simply amused by the exercise of deconstructing fallacious logic such as yours.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

“You still have failed to convince me”

Thats my point. You have, as the definition of “chicken little” goes, “a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is” coming from a wildfire if a person lives in a home in 4S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Thats priceless . . . “convince me.” Yes it is hard to reason with those with “hysterical mistaken beliefs.” Dumbing down of America by a different name.

As far as brining emotion to the debate . . . review all of my posts. Nowhere do I base what I say or the positions I posit on my emotional beliefs, unlike you. I simply point to the reasoned words of experts on the topic. In other words I stick to the facts.

I guess thats the difference in logical reasonling between one who was on a high school debate team and failed to make it to law school and one who graduated cum laude from a top 15 law school and was runner up in the said law school’s Moot Court competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_court

The idiocy of the following “straw man” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument argument you make defies credulity . . . “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.” These sort of sophomoric comments reveal your level of thought and logic. Nowhere have I suggested such a stupid scenario.

But . . . . if you want a good anecdote on a related topic where a brainless 4S homeowner, stored gas soaked rags in his garage, which subsequently caught on fire, which triggered the sprinkler system, which immediately called the fire department, which when they arrived the sprinkler had already doused the fire and (per fire department) saved the house and resulted only in minor damage . . . . see here:
rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf;

here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Million%20Dollar%20Home.9-18-03.pdf;

and here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Single%20Family%20Home.12-15-03.pdf

I never posited the idoitic act of sitting in your home as the sprinkler goes off but if you want to discuss such foolishness, above is a nearly analagous real event which at least illustrates the effectiveness of the 4S fire safe technologies overcaming even the stupidest and careless of homeowners when it comes to fire safety.

No “raw nerves” here. I am simply amused by the exercise of deconstructing fallacious logic such as yours.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

“You still have failed to convince me”

Thats my point. You have, as the definition of “chicken little” goes, “a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is” coming from a wildfire if a person lives in a home in 4S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_%28fable%29

Thats priceless . . . “convince me.” Yes it is hard to reason with those with “hysterical mistaken beliefs.” Dumbing down of America by a different name.

As far as brining emotion to the debate . . . review all of my posts. Nowhere do I base what I say or the positions I posit on my emotional beliefs, unlike you. I simply point to the reasoned words of experts on the topic. In other words I stick to the facts.

I guess thats the difference in logical reasonling between one who was on a high school debate team and failed to make it to law school and one who graduated cum laude from a top 15 law school and was runner up in the said law school’s Moot Court competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_court

The idiocy of the following “straw man” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument argument you make defies credulity . . . “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.” These sort of sophomoric comments reveal your level of thought and logic. Nowhere have I suggested such a stupid scenario.

But . . . . if you want a good anecdote on a related topic where a brainless 4S homeowner, stored gas soaked rags in his garage, which subsequently caught on fire, which triggered the sprinkler system, which immediately called the fire department, which when they arrived the sprinkler had already doused the fire and (per fire department) saved the house and resulted only in minor damage . . . . see here:
rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2005/100605%20Cayenne%20Creek%20Fire.pdf;

here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Million%20Dollar%20Home.9-18-03.pdf;

and here . . . rsf-fire.org/assets/documents/news/news_releases/2003/Fire%20Sprinkler%20Saves%20Single%20Family%20Home.12-15-03.pdf

I never posited the idoitic act of sitting in your home as the sprinkler goes off but if you want to discuss such foolishness, above is a nearly analagous real event which at least illustrates the effectiveness of the 4S fire safe technologies overcaming even the stupidest and careless of homeowners when it comes to fire safety.

No “raw nerves” here. I am simply amused by the exercise of deconstructing fallacious logic such as yours.

grateful owner . . . .

[Aecetia]

Deleted by the author for the good of the cause.

[Author]

Posts