[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]

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 . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Fact: The entire San Diego area was affected by smoke. Last time I checked smoke is blown by wind to areas not affected by the fire from which the smoke came. This concept is so basic and simplistic that even a child gets it but yet I need to explain it to you.

Fact: “Wild Fire Expert” . . . no I am not. But these people are . . .

Local fire officials say the unscathed homes speak for themselves.

“I believe shelter in place made the difference in this case,” Santa Fe Fire Marshal Cliff Hunter said (uh . . . that would be a loca “Fire” official that knows) “The bottom line is if you build appropriately and place the houses appropriately, and the landscaping and vegetation are appropriate, the homes should still be there.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Another expert . . .

“People do not die in sprinkled homes,” said Samuel Oates, San Diego’s fire marshal.

“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

Fact: The “fire maps” are outdated and simplistic. The community within this area, 4S, is safe. The surrounding areas outside of 4S are not as safe. You refer to a map of an entire area. I am referring to a specific community in that area. Stare at the map till you blue in the face if you want. But the experts declare it is safe stay put if you live in 4S. Another basic and simple concept (Map of large area vs. community within that area). I guess I need to state the obvious. Here it is.

The five communities, all within the Rancho Santa Fe fire district, are the only ones in the county where the plan has been adopted.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Sure lots of “areas” on a map in San Diego county are at high risk of fire. The point here is that the community of 4S is better protected than the surrounding area.

Insurance Business??? I don’t get your point here. You say “you are in the insurance business.” My agent has a rusty barely working stapler which has been in the “insurance business” business for 15 years sitting on my agents desk stapling paper . . . its still just a damn stapler despite 15 years in the insurance business.

Mandatory Evacuations are triggered via reverse 911 which in turn is triggered via entire “areas” served by a telephone exchange. The computer just loads the numbers in an area and calls. See my previous comment why the area is not the relevant term but the specific community built according to the fire safe standards.

Final Fact: How many homes in 4S Ranch burned in the last wild fire??? Anyone . . . Anyone . . . worst fire in So. Cal history . . . Anyone. Answear is ZERO. This fact more than any other speaks for itself.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Fact: The entire San Diego area was affected by smoke. Last time I checked smoke is blown by wind to areas not affected by the fire from which the smoke came. This concept is so basic and simplistic that even a child gets it but yet I need to explain it to you.

Fact: “Wild Fire Expert” . . . no I am not. But these people are . . .

Local fire officials say the unscathed homes speak for themselves.

“I believe shelter in place made the difference in this case,” Santa Fe Fire Marshal Cliff Hunter said (uh . . . that would be a loca “Fire” official that knows) “The bottom line is if you build appropriately and place the houses appropriately, and the landscaping and vegetation are appropriate, the homes should still be there.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Another expert . . .

“People do not die in sprinkled homes,” said Samuel Oates, San Diego’s fire marshal.

“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

Fact: The “fire maps” are outdated and simplistic. The community within this area, 4S, is safe. The surrounding areas outside of 4S are not as safe. You refer to a map of an entire area. I am referring to a specific community in that area. Stare at the map till you blue in the face if you want. But the experts declare it is safe stay put if you live in 4S. Another basic and simple concept (Map of large area vs. community within that area). I guess I need to state the obvious. Here it is.

The five communities, all within the Rancho Santa Fe fire district, are the only ones in the county where the plan has been adopted.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Sure lots of “areas” on a map in San Diego county are at high risk of fire. The point here is that the community of 4S is better protected than the surrounding area.

Insurance Business??? I don’t get your point here. You say “you are in the insurance business.” My agent has a rusty barely working stapler which has been in the “insurance business” business for 15 years sitting on my agents desk stapling paper . . . its still just a damn stapler despite 15 years in the insurance business.

Mandatory Evacuations are triggered via reverse 911 which in turn is triggered via entire “areas” served by a telephone exchange. The computer just loads the numbers in an area and calls. See my previous comment why the area is not the relevant term but the specific community built according to the fire safe standards.

Final Fact: How many homes in 4S Ranch burned in the last wild fire??? Anyone . . . Anyone . . . worst fire in So. Cal history . . . Anyone. Answear is ZERO. This fact more than any other speaks for itself.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Fact: The entire San Diego area was affected by smoke. Last time I checked smoke is blown by wind to areas not affected by the fire from which the smoke came. This concept is so basic and simplistic that even a child gets it but yet I need to explain it to you.

Fact: “Wild Fire Expert” . . . no I am not. But these people are . . .

Local fire officials say the unscathed homes speak for themselves.

“I believe shelter in place made the difference in this case,” Santa Fe Fire Marshal Cliff Hunter said (uh . . . that would be a loca “Fire” official that knows) “The bottom line is if you build appropriately and place the houses appropriately, and the landscaping and vegetation are appropriate, the homes should still be there.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Another expert . . .

“People do not die in sprinkled homes,” said Samuel Oates, San Diego’s fire marshal.

“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

Fact: The “fire maps” are outdated and simplistic. The community within this area, 4S, is safe. The surrounding areas outside of 4S are not as safe. You refer to a map of an entire area. I am referring to a specific community in that area. Stare at the map till you blue in the face if you want. But the experts declare it is safe stay put if you live in 4S. Another basic and simple concept (Map of large area vs. community within that area). I guess I need to state the obvious. Here it is.

The five communities, all within the Rancho Santa Fe fire district, are the only ones in the county where the plan has been adopted.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Sure lots of “areas” on a map in San Diego county are at high risk of fire. The point here is that the community of 4S is better protected than the surrounding area.

Insurance Business??? I don’t get your point here. You say “you are in the insurance business.” My agent has a rusty barely working stapler which has been in the “insurance business” business for 15 years sitting on my agents desk stapling paper . . . its still just a damn stapler despite 15 years in the insurance business.

Mandatory Evacuations are triggered via reverse 911 which in turn is triggered via entire “areas” served by a telephone exchange. The computer just loads the numbers in an area and calls. See my previous comment why the area is not the relevant term but the specific community built according to the fire safe standards.

Final Fact: How many homes in 4S Ranch burned in the last wild fire??? Anyone . . . Anyone . . . worst fire in So. Cal history . . . Anyone. Answear is ZERO. This fact more than any other speaks for itself.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Fact: The entire San Diego area was affected by smoke. Last time I checked smoke is blown by wind to areas not affected by the fire from which the smoke came. This concept is so basic and simplistic that even a child gets it but yet I need to explain it to you.

Fact: “Wild Fire Expert” . . . no I am not. But these people are . . .

Local fire officials say the unscathed homes speak for themselves.

“I believe shelter in place made the difference in this case,” Santa Fe Fire Marshal Cliff Hunter said (uh . . . that would be a loca “Fire” official that knows) “The bottom line is if you build appropriately and place the houses appropriately, and the landscaping and vegetation are appropriate, the homes should still be there.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Another expert . . .

“People do not die in sprinkled homes,” said Samuel Oates, San Diego’s fire marshal.

“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

Fact: The “fire maps” are outdated and simplistic. The community within this area, 4S, is safe. The surrounding areas outside of 4S are not as safe. You refer to a map of an entire area. I am referring to a specific community in that area. Stare at the map till you blue in the face if you want. But the experts declare it is safe stay put if you live in 4S. Another basic and simple concept (Map of large area vs. community within that area). I guess I need to state the obvious. Here it is.

The five communities, all within the Rancho Santa Fe fire district, are the only ones in the county where the plan has been adopted.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Sure lots of “areas” on a map in San Diego county are at high risk of fire. The point here is that the community of 4S is better protected than the surrounding area.

Insurance Business??? I don’t get your point here. You say “you are in the insurance business.” My agent has a rusty barely working stapler which has been in the “insurance business” business for 15 years sitting on my agents desk stapling paper . . . its still just a damn stapler despite 15 years in the insurance business.

Mandatory Evacuations are triggered via reverse 911 which in turn is triggered via entire “areas” served by a telephone exchange. The computer just loads the numbers in an area and calls. See my previous comment why the area is not the relevant term but the specific community built according to the fire safe standards.

Final Fact: How many homes in 4S Ranch burned in the last wild fire??? Anyone . . . Anyone . . . worst fire in So. Cal history . . . Anyone. Answear is ZERO. This fact more than any other speaks for itself.

grateful owner . . . .

[4Sbuyer2002]

Fact: The entire San Diego area was affected by smoke. Last time I checked smoke is blown by wind to areas not affected by the fire from which the smoke came. This concept is so basic and simplistic that even a child gets it but yet I need to explain it to you.

Fact: “Wild Fire Expert” . . . no I am not. But these people are . . .

Local fire officials say the unscathed homes speak for themselves.

“I believe shelter in place made the difference in this case,” Santa Fe Fire Marshal Cliff Hunter said (uh . . . that would be a loca “Fire” official that knows) “The bottom line is if you build appropriately and place the houses appropriately, and the landscaping and vegetation are appropriate, the homes should still be there.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Another expert . . .

“People do not die in sprinkled homes,” said Samuel Oates, San Diego’s fire marshal.

“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

Fact: The “fire maps” are outdated and simplistic. The community within this area, 4S, is safe. The surrounding areas outside of 4S are not as safe. You refer to a map of an entire area. I am referring to a specific community in that area. Stare at the map till you blue in the face if you want. But the experts declare it is safe stay put if you live in 4S. Another basic and simple concept (Map of large area vs. community within that area). I guess I need to state the obvious. Here it is.

The five communities, all within the Rancho Santa Fe fire district, are the only ones in the county where the plan has been adopted.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#

Sure lots of “areas” on a map in San Diego county are at high risk of fire. The point here is that the community of 4S is better protected than the surrounding area.

Insurance Business??? I don’t get your point here. You say “you are in the insurance business.” My agent has a rusty barely working stapler which has been in the “insurance business” business for 15 years sitting on my agents desk stapling paper . . . its still just a damn stapler despite 15 years in the insurance business.

Mandatory Evacuations are triggered via reverse 911 which in turn is triggered via entire “areas” served by a telephone exchange. The computer just loads the numbers in an area and calls. See my previous comment why the area is not the relevant term but the specific community built according to the fire safe standards.

Final Fact: How many homes in 4S Ranch burned in the last wild fire??? Anyone . . . Anyone . . . worst fire in So. Cal history . . . Anyone. Answear is ZERO. This fact more than any other speaks for itself.

grateful owner . . . .

[Author]

Posts