Absolute B.S. wrote on Apr 1, 2007 10:51 AM:No one should stay in their homes during a wildfire that is out of control. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about! Loss of life, permanent lung damage, heart damage...and that's just the beginning of what you would suffer from oxygen starved smokey air. This is absolutely crazy!

Floyd wrote on Apr 1, 2007 12:59 PM:It is crucial to understand that shelter-in-place is only valid for airborne problems like smog and accidental radiological releases. Since the fire can simply burn it's way through your door ... or your wall ... or your roof despite all government regulations requiring the fire to just saunter on by and ignore the structures and people along the way, you begin to realize that shelter-in-place can not work as a valid defense.

Math Whiz wrote on Apr 1, 2007 1:08 PM:"12 of the 16 private citizens killed during the Cedar and Paradise fires were overcome by flames while in the process of evacuating. The other three died in poorly designed homes". 12 plus 3 is 15. What about the other person?

You Should Know Better wrote on Apr 1, 2007 1:14 PM:Mr. Halsey has made grave errors in his assumptions...and I do mean GRAVE. Given that houses must be built to breathe and allow circulation of air (otherwise they would quickly become unlivable), enough air enters the average house to be the equivalent of a door BEING OPEN. ALL fire experts acknowledge that smoke getting inside the house is a MAJOR concern with sheltering-in-place. Now, just take one look at the billowing, thick black smoke coming from the Hollywood Hills fire this past week and you will realize the disaster for people remaining in their homes. In particular, BABIES, YOUNG CHILDREN, OLDER PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA, HEART DISEASE, ETC. ARE EASILY KILLED by smoke inhalation. IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH. But you're not a medical doctor, Mr. Halsey, so you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the health dangers of Shelter-In-Place. And that's not to mention anything about those houses (and there will be some) that will actually catch on fire. So those people are just toast, Mr. Halsey? REPEAT AFTER ME: DEVELOPMENTS SHOULDN'T BE BUILT IN HIGH-FIRE-HAZARD WILDLAND AREAS LACKING EVACUATION, PERIOD. That is plain common sense. Unfortunately, Mr. Halsey has lost his common sense and has become a pawn (witting or unwitting) for developers trying to build developments in unsafe, highly fire-hazardous areas.

Concerned Physician wrote on Apr 1, 2007 1:52 PM:Mr. Halsey is way over his head when it comes to medical facts. I am a physician and can attest to the fact that smoke inhalation will prove deadly to many segments of the population attempting to shelter-in-place, including those with pulmonary, respiratory and cardiac disease as well as those on both ends of the age spectrum (infants and children up to the age of 5, and the elderly). These at-risk groups are highly intolerant of smoke exposure. Since there is no way to prevent smoke from entering houses in a wildland fire, smoke will prove deadly for many people. That being the case, Shelter-in-Place becomes an unusable "fire protection" strategy for developments in general (unless you intend to exclude infants, young children, the elderly, the handicapped, pregnant women, people with a wide variety of medical conditions including asthma, emphysema, cardiac disease, etc.). It has always been the case that evacuation must be possible before a development can be built. That rule should not change. If it does and a major fire occurs, the mortality rate is certain to skyrocket. Never forget that shelter-in-place is UNTESTED, EXPERIMENTAL and HIGHLY FLAWED for fire protection. It is the height of irresponsibility to endorse its use, especially when lacking medical knowledge of its consequences.

Overview wrote on Apr 1, 2007 2:11 PM:The North County Times actually has some online images showing the effectiveness of "shelter-in-place" during a fire at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/18/slideshow/fire0107/slide/002.txt

CAT wrote on Apr 1, 2007 2:33 PM:Mr. Halsey - Judas received 30 pieces of silver for Jesus. How many pieces of gold do you receive for (possibly) 13,ooo people? Also - do better research on Australia's SIP. That's not even what it's called, and evacuation is the prescribed method of saving lives.

Bubba wrote on Apr 1, 2007 4:57 PM:I shudder to think of all of the pets that will burn alive, smoke inhalation, with Stonegate's 2700 homes. Perhaps they should not be allowed to own pets, as people who risk their lives, should not be allowed to risk lives of babies and pets, our other babies. American used to be such a nice place to live, but more and more people I talk to don't think it is that nice anymore. Our government has ruined it. How sad.

Nero wrote on Apr 1, 2007 6:07 PM:ANY house can burn, not only those with shake-shingle roofs. If 90% of houses built with so-called "fire-wise" construction and "fire-wise" landscaping survived the 2003 Cedar fires (a number often quoted), what about the 10% that did NOT? Next time around, whose house will be among the lucky ones...and whose will burn? In a shelter-in-place development that lacks roads for evacuation, that means ONLY 10% of the people will die? What a bargain! In a community of, say, 2,700 homes, that means only 270 homes burn. With an average of 4 people per household, only 1,080 people dead. NOW WE'RE COOKING! Are the advocates of shelter-in-place thinking at all when they say that SIP is valid for fire protection? DON'T THEY SEE THE HORRIFIC CONSEQUENCES WHEN SIP FAILS TO WORK? As one fire expert said about SIP: "If one thing is wrong, you are basically dead." Don't the advocates of SIP see the NECESSITY for providing adequate evacuation routes, particularly in highly fire-prone areas? If that can't be done, then JUST DON'T BUILD THERE. Shelter-in-place has become THE excuse for developers to build anywhere, no matter how unsafe. SIP is a BIG LIE. (Who was it who once said: "The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed." Maybe, if we're VERY lucky, not this time around).

Marie wrote on Apr 1, 2007 7:42 PM:It saddens me to see county officials who know the dangers of fire, putting people to death in this manner, all to stuff their pockets full of money. With baby boomers retiring, 72 million of them? global weather changes, heat, no rain, wind speeds increasing, this county is becoming less and less desirable. Traffic, smog, sub prime loans, health care system failing, WE ARE HEADING FOR A LONG RECESSION, AND NOTHING WILL BE BUILT IN THE MOUNTAINS, LIKE STONEGATE, AS THE ECONOMY IS HEADING FOR DISASTER.

A firefighter wrote on Apr 1, 2007 8:43 PM:Come folks, this is not about shelter in place, but trying to figure out a way to defeat a development. The lack of experience you folks (or the one guy who wrote all these comments) have with wildfire really shows in the things you're saying. Do you really think babies are going to be cooking in and smoke will be filling all these homes they way you claim? I think maybe you might want to consider that the campfire experiences you've had just don't qualify you as a wildfire behavior expert.

Hey Mr. Math Whiz wrote on Apr 1, 2007 9:07 PM:The other fatality (#16) you want to know about was Novato firefighter Steve Rucker who died while trying to defend the kind of home that is quite common in Hidden Meadows...a fire trap. When one discusses fire fatalities, we usually distinguish between public safety personel and private citizens. It is one of the many finer points of firefighting that you and apparently many of the other people who are commenting here are not able to grasp. As a North County resident, I am frankly disgusted with how some of the people in our region have accused CDF firefighters of being paid off by developers. It is my understanding that someone actually accused the CDF chief of being on the take! Get serious. So after all the insults I suppose you expect our firefighters to be at your door within minutes when you drop from a heart attack or when your house is being threatened by fire. Yes, they'll be there. Amazing, isn't it? There are enough screwy ideas about wildfire than to have you people add more.

A calmer head wrote on Apr 1, 2007 9:26 PM:Have any of you who have commented here ever been in a wildfire? I've experienced several close hand and have seen the survival difference between homes built with firewise designs and those that aren't. Radiant heat and dangerous levels of smoke entering homes are not issues in firewise communities. In fact the way homes are built now, we're more in danger of keeping toxic fumes from cooking, etc. inside because of the tight insulation around doors and windows than we'll ever be with smoke getting in from the outside. I agree with the "firefighter" above. I think all of you bashing Halsey should stick with roasting marshmallows.

To Overview wrote on Apr 1, 2007 9:41 PM:Overview wrote that The North County Times actually has some online images showing the effectiveness of shelter-in-place during a fire. Not true. Another piece of purposeful misinformation from the wildfire liars. The images are titled "Escondido Condo Fire Slide Show" which was an urban fire, not a wildfire. "The fire consumed four condominium buildings under construction in downtown Escondido." The images have nothing to do with shelter-in-place.

tired wrote on Apr 1, 2007 10:01 PM:It is quite obvious that the majority of these comments are posted by people with no knowledge of fire behavior, or what it is like to fight it on the line. Developers will always build whether we like it or not and there will always be wildfire like it or not. Saying that SIP communities will not have roads for evacuation is rediculous and shows how little you actually know about the proposed.

Sarcasm? wrote on Apr 1, 2007 10:05 PM:I believe Overview was being sarcastic calling the pictures he linked to effectiveness of SIP. I you are going to be sarcastic it would be better to get your facts straight and not show an urban structure fire when the fires in question are wildland and a whole other kettle of fish

Overview wrote on Apr 2, 2007 2:47 AM:Since we are discussing structure fire, I provided a link to an image of a structure fire. Regardless of the cause, source, or philosophy of the fire, you don't want to be in the structure when it burns. The whole purpose of Shelter In Place is to ensure people remain in their structure to be willing victims of the conflagration. Follow that link to the images and imagine all the people in the center of the blaze and then say to yourself "those preventable deaths were due to Shelter In Place!"

Jay wrote on Apr 2, 2007 8:03 AM:The ignorance shown regarding wilfire behavior in the first few posts is shocking. Perhaps some of the first few peop[le who posted would care to look at the history of urban fires. The Oakland Hills fire would teach you that when the fires approached firefighters, the firefighters would go INSIDE the homes they were defending until the flames past. Shelter in place works. Just ask the Australians who have been doing it successfully for years. And no, they aren't cooking babies and pets, and no there aren't problems with hundreds of people dying of smoke inhalation. Educate yourself before you bash Mr. Halsey with your ignorance.

hello wrote on Apr 2, 2007 9:11 AM:Firefighters are trained to take refuge in structures as a last resort. Normally the flame front will pass quickly in southern california fuel types under santa ana conditions. The structure would likely not be consumed by fire until after the front passed, even in an area with little defensible space. The thing is that this is what fire fighters do in emergency situations it should not be the primary plan of residents and developers. Evacuation is the logical best bet.

justin wrote on Apr 2, 2007 9:29 AM:As a wildland firefighter who has seen a large variety of fire behavior, I would suggest that people have a little more of an open mind when approaching this subject. This approach is not as crazy as it sounds and in the right situation with the right preparation and "firewise" design of a house I personally would stay behind in the house no problem. I would stay outside doing what I could until conditions forced me inside. Flame front would pass (quickly in so-cal brush) I would exit my house and mop up the area. (Put of the last remaining burning material) . Let's stop "fighting" fires and learn how to live with them. That's the way it has to be.

To Mr. "Firefighter/Calm Head" wrote on Apr 2, 2007 10:26 AM:Rancho Santa Fe Fire Marshal Cliff Hunter, who is a spokesman for Shelter-in-Place and has spoken before many community groups, stated that smoke getting inside homes in a SIP development IS DEFINITELY A PROBLEM. There's no way to keep it out. For the very young and the old (as well as those with medical problems), that's deadly. For that reason alone, Shelter-in-Place is NOT a viable strategy. SIP is NOT accepted anywhere in the United States. Doesn't that tell you something? San Diego County is sticking its neck out in adopting such an untested and dangerous policy.

Overview wrote on Apr 2, 2007 10:34 AM:Since we are discussing structure fire, I provided a link to an image of a structure fire. Regardless of the cause, source, or philosophy of the fire, you don't want to be in the structure when it burns. The whole purpose of Shelter In Place is to ensure people remain in their structure to be willing victims of the conflagration. Follow that link to the images and imagine all the people in the center of the blaze and then say to yourself "those preventable deaths were due to Shelter In Place!"

Ross wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:28 PM:As a wildland firefighter with over 25 years experience in many differant fuel types I would like to have all of you wonder why we are required to carry Fire Shelters. They are our last line of defense in a burnover situation. They are the size of a pup tent, designed to reflect radiant heat and trap enough oxygen for us to survive an entrapment. I would gladly go into a firewise house in that situation than lay in a shelter built by the lowest bidder!

Ken wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:42 PM:The Australians and New Zealanders have been successfully using shelter in place for many decades. The fire agencies in California could learn a lot from them as to when it is best to evacuate or shelter in place, and where not to build in the first place. The key is proper community and development planning.

Vgirl wrote on Apr 2, 2007 3:40 PM:For all those reacting from the gut- maybe you should stop, breathe and start to think scientifically. Firefighters use structures during passing flame fronts to shelter in safety. Also there are different dangers during a wildland fire than during a traditional structure fires (started from the inside). While SIP may not be a solution for all communities everywhere we are talking about specially designed homes, with mitigation in place. It is a valid option. The people who are experts here are the wildland firefighters (not physicians, politicians, or the general public)- listen to them.

RJ wrote on Apr 2, 2007 4:48 PM:SIP MAY work in a perfectly mitigated community built with noncombustible building materials and occupied by very healthy younger adults and in some (rare) circumstances MAY be an option to being burnt over in you car on a short notice evacuation on a narrow, twisty road chocked with cars. However the REAL DANGER in promoting SIP is that there are way too many civilians living in unsuitable communities and homes and that are in poor health that would take this message to heart and this would result in a catostrophic situation. How many medical calls can a FD respond to when the majority of the crews are fighting the wildland fire? Not to mention all the people attempting to SIP and when they saw the fire approach, freak out and try to evacuate at the last minute causing a much worse traffic situation under possibly much worse conditions! (Contributing to firefighter entrapments?) Speading the SIP message to an uneducated and unprepared public is a very dangerous prospect!

Reardon wrote on Apr 2, 2007 4:55 PM:Different people...different perspectives. Firefighters, and people who live in the brush in Australia, are strong, trained and resilient. Those who oppose SIP on this net are probably old, have asthma, weak hearts, never served in the Marine Corps and are scared to death. People who sleep with a night light probably have a different perspective than policemen who hears “a bump in the night." I would rather evacuate if I can, and if I can't I'll stay and fight rather than curling into a fetal position...but I would obviously be happier if one of the firefighters stayed with me. Meanwhile, I am sick of the subject…life goes on…Everyone has made their point, time and time again, in meeting after meeting after meeting, and no one is bringing anything new to this dance. Points made, and they are valid on both sides…but Muslim/Christian, abortion/anti-abortion, Democrat/Republican, Greek/Turks, SIP/Anti-SIP, Ying and Yang are not going to get together in great celestial harmony. Most of us have a real life to live and are sick of common scolds. on any/all of those subjects. This has become a religious argument. Move on!

30 year firefighter wrote on Apr 2, 2007 7:34 PM:Having 30 years wildland and structure fire experience, and having done an internship with the New South Wales Aus. fire service, I believe that SIP principles are both realistic and a preferred option to last minute evacuation. US citizens are viewed (and often act) as a liability that must be evacuated from danger. Aus. citizens are viewed as an asset and taught how to effectively and safely "Stay and defend, or leave early". The symbiotic relationship of house saves the homeowner-homeowner saves the house provides solutions to the high death rate and fire loss this country experiences to wildfire. The key is for persons living in the interface to gain appropriate knowledge. Check out Country Fire Authority, Australia web page for excellent information on the subject.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:16 AM:Hey Absolute B.S:. the “smokey” hot air blown in your face by that Santa Ana wind during in a wildfire is not “oxygen starved.” It has lots of O2. BTW, Smokey is that nice bear, air with smoke is smoky. Hey Floyd: fire won’t “burn through your door…or wall…or roof if you have cleared a fuel treatment zone that keeps the flames far enough away. Hey You Should Know Better: you don’t have to prove that ALL experts say it, just give us the name and address of ONE or TWO credentialed experts who say that “smoke getting inside a house” is a MAJOR issue in a wildfire. Hey Concerned Physician: show us the actual data that smoke is “deadly” to the old, young, ailing, etc. Prove with actual references the actual numbers of deaths from smoke during a wildfire. Contrary to your beliefs, SIP has been TESTED, USED FOR YEARS, and WORKS in Australia. Hey Nero: The houses that burned in the 2003 Cedar fire were not in a planned community with adequate individual fuel treatment zones. Your arithmetic is scary, but doesn’t jibe with real-life experience, as in Australia. Lots of baloney out there. Real facts would be a pleasant change.

Floyd wrote on Apr 3, 2007 2:11 AM:Okay, here are some real facts about Shelter In Place from the website of the American Red Cross http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/beprepared/shelterinplace.html : "Shelter-in-place means selecting a small, interior room, with no or few windows, and taking refuge there. It does not mean sealing off your entire home or office building. Why You Might Need to Shelter-in-Place: Chemical, biological, or radiological contaminants may be released accidentally or intentionally into the environment. Should this occur, information will be provided by local authorities on television and radio stations on how to protect you and your family." See anything about using Shelter-In-Place as an appropriate response to a structure fire? Me, neither. See anything about using Shelter-In-Place to keep smoke completely outside the house? Me, neither. There is no guarantee that hot embers won't float (or shoot) over the proposed "fuel treatment zone" and cause a structure fire, making Shelter-In-Place a risky technique that provides a false sense of safety at best. Instead of implementing Stonegate as a high-density "smart growth" community, complete with it's "smart disasters", build it at the rate of 4 dwellings per acre & 10,000 square feet per lot. Low density makes for a safer neighborhood and easier evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Floyd wrote on Apr 3, 2007 2:24 AM:More facts, this time from "Surveillance of Mortality During the Texas Panhandle Wildfires (March 2006)" by various individuals from the Texas Department of State Health Services and the Texas Forest Service: "The manner of death for all (12) decedents was classified as “accidental”. The immediate cause of death for eight (67%) of the decedents was smoke inhalation."

Aussie wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:09 AM:In Australia, ALL fire authorities UNEQUIVOCALLY state that that the very young, the elderly, and the infirmed must NOT be present if shelter-in-place is used. PERIOD.

To VGirl wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:49 AM:Girl, do you have it backwards. You say the real experts are the firefighters and you say don't listen to the physicians. You urge us to think "scientifically" but who do you think the scientists are anyway? The firefighters or the physicians who have extensive understanding of human physiology and biochemistry as part of decades of rigorous medical training? Physicians deal with all of the medical consequences of fire and smoke to human beings (the very young and the old being the most vulnerable groups). Physicians are the ones who treat the victims. Scientific input by PHYSICIANS and MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS is exactly what is crucial to evaluating the dangers of SIP. The American Lung Association has written a position paper calling SIP a disaster from a medical standpoint. This national organization vehemently opposes it. Make no mistake about it, SIP is going to produce a lot of injury, trauma and death. It is amazing it is even being debated.

G'Day wrote on Apr 3, 2007 10:19 AM:I lived in New South Wales for 27 years. The bloggers who compare the Australian use of shelter-in-place to what San Diego County has in mind don't know what they're talking about. In Australia shelter-in-place is NOT used in densely populated areas where the houses are close together. It is used in sparse settlements where people themselves must become active firefighters. It is a grueling ordeal. The homesteaders have time to prepare and those not up to fighting the fire (anyone with medical issues or children or older people) are evacuated well ahead of the fire front's arrival. To my understanding, San Diego County is planning to use shelter-in-place in densely populated developments that are built near wildland fire hazards. SIP is not used that way in Australia. In San Diego County there won't be enough time to evacuate all of those people who cannot remain in their houses.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 3, 2007 11:14 AM:Hey Floyd: The Red Cross FACT SHEET ON SHELTER-IN-PLACE talks about sheltering from "contaminants" released into the air. I think these would include smoke and CO. Please give us the link to a single official Red Cross statement which says that shelter-in-place is NEVER TO BE USED in wildfires. Just pointing out that the RC FACT SHEET (dated Feb 2003) doesn't mention wildfire doesn't mean anything. BTW, many aspects of the proposed Stonegate project stink. Especially their "Fire Protection Plan". I totally agreee with you that the density should be dramatically reduced.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 3, 2007 11:55 AM:Hey Aussie: Exactly. Australian authorities now call it "Stay and Defend or Go Early" to emphasize that in their fire protection planning, SIP and early evacuation are to deployed simultaneously. The young, elderly, chronically ill, special needs, and any others who do not want to, or simply cannot Stay and Defend MUST Go Early. That is the point - SIP and Early Evacuation are not mutualy exclusive, and at least in Australia, apparently one cannot be used without the other.

Texas Fire wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:20 PM:Floyd: I worked at the ICP during the Panhandle fires (East Amarillo Complex). You left out a couple of important things: 4 of the 12 who died were oil workers who were driving in a remote location who tried to outrun the fire in their car, were trapped and then tried to out run the fire. Another 4 were killed in a 9 car pile up on I-40 when a slight wind shift sent smoke across the highway, reducing visibility. 1 of the 12 was a VFD who sustained multiple injuries and died nearly a month later. None of these people were sheltering in place, so in this case I do not believe they are a good example. If I remember rightly two people died in a house when an evac order was put in place. One refused to leave and the other went back in to get them before fire over ran them. The last death I believe was an elderly woman who was attempting to wet down her roof with a hose and became entangled in it after realising she had stayed too long and the fire was on her. Add to that the fact that the Panhandle fires acted differently to CA fires. We had Guys from CA working in Texas who were quoted as saying they had never seen fire behave in that way.

Floyd wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:24 PM:Since you're going to use Australia as an example, why not provide an informative link? A site such as the New South Wales Fire Brigades -- a government website -- has a section on brushfires and a page entitled "How do I make the decision to stay or go?" Reasons for evacuating include: "Unwell, Elderly, Caring for children or other dependents, Unsure about staying" (http://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/community/bushfire/staygo_decision.php). Elsewhere, the site says "We recommend that the elderly, young children and the infirm should go." (http://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/community/bushfire/staygo_going.php) It would appear that Concerned Physician knows the facts pretty well.

Concerned wrote on Apr 3, 2007 1:35 PM:Australia’s shelter-in-place (sip) is known as STAY AND DEFEND OR GO EARLY. Hence, Australia’s sip offers a choice. Australia’s sip means cooperation, communication, and education between firefighters, elected officials, and home owners. San Diego County sip is different from Australia. Homes already built and occupied in SD County should not use sip except as a last resort unless the building and grounds have been updated (modified, made fire-resistant) and the homeowners are mentally and physically ready. All current SD County homes can improve their fire protection situation using plant hygiene (weed and deadwood control, trimming, thinning, planting fire-resistant plants, etc.), house updates (class A roofs, etc.), and space to accommodate the firefighters, equipment, etc. The SD County house building code continues to evolve with new fire-resistant improvements. Unfortunately, new SD County homes and new developments are inappropriately using sip compared to Australia, judging from the 2007 DPLU guidelines. SD County residents would not have a choice (stay and defend or go early). New developments must have adequate ingress and egress for evacuation, paramedics, ambulances, firefighters, fire equipment. Two functional evacuation routes are minimal. Review of development size, terrain, etc. may mean more then 2 functional evacuation routes. The evacuation plan for fire would also help in other public emergencies such as earthquake and terrorism. SD County entities must work to earn the trust of the public and with mutual respect engage the public based on STAY AND DEFEND OR GO EARLY. There must be cooperation, communication, information, education, etc. directly from the firefighters, paramedics, scientists, physicians, and others to an informed public. Elected State Officials and County Supervisors must update building codes, fire codes, ordinances, etc. and include evacuation plans and other plans for public health and safety.

No choice? wrote on Apr 3, 2007 1:56 PM:Concerned, while you make good points, the article is talking about future projects which will be built firewise. BTW I really don't think SD residents will have no choice. Think about what you said for a second because you are making it sound as if there will be cop cars on every street preventing people from leaving. I do not believe that ANYONE here who is in favour of SIP has said that those who are not physically able to stay should stay.

No Way Out wrote on Apr 3, 2007 3:09 PM:San Diego County has stated that SIP will be considered acceptable fire protection strategy by the County if "secondary access is unattainable due to topographical or geographical constraints." That means that developments with ONLY ONE WAY in and out will be approved for building. How then are the at-risk people going to get out? It is make-believe to pretend that they will. The whole point in San Diego County's approving SIP is to skip the requirement of providing evacuation routes. The problem with using SIP is that it will be THE ONLY OPTION available if the egress roads just aren't there. People needing to get out WON'T BE ABLE TO. This is really quite simple to understand. Why are certain people having such trouble seeing the obvious? Can money have anything to do with clouding their vision???

To No Choice? wrote on Apr 3, 2007 4:14 PM:It won't be cop cars preventing people from leaving. It will be the lack of roads. The whole idea behind adopting SIP is to eliminate the requirement for evacuation routes. The County plans to grant approval to developments having only ONE road in. In the event of a wildfire, how many residents of a development of thousands of people will manage to get out in time? A pitiful few. SIP becomes mandatory policy for all residents as a practical matter. Those people who want to leave and need to leave WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEAVE.

Concerned wrote on Apr 3, 2007 4:16 PM:Hey "To VGirl": You wrote "Scientific input by PHYSICIANS and MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS is exactly what is crucial to evaluating the dangers of SIP. The American Lung Association has written a position paper calling SIP a disaster from a medical standpoint. This national organization vehemently opposes it." BTW, the American Lung Association is NOT a MEDICAL organization. It is a VOLUNTEER CIVILIAN organization. From the American Lung Association website: "The mission of the American Lung Association is to prevent lung disease and promote lung health. The American Lung Association is the oldest voluntary health organization in the United States, with a National Office and constituent and affiliate associations around the country. Founded in 1904 to fight tuberculosis, the American Lung Association today fights lung disease in all its forms, with special emphasis on asthma, tobacco control and environmental health. The American Lung Association is funded by contributions from the public, along with gifts and grants from corporations, foundations and government agencies. The American Lung Association achieves its many successes through the work of thousands of committed volunteers and staff." The Association's letter to the County says: "It is our understanding that due to the location of the project, evacuation is not an option." SIP as the ONLY option is obviously not for the young, etc, etc. You are beating a dead horse. The element of pre-planned choice MUST always be present together with SIP. If a proposed Stonegate offers ONLY SIP, that is unacceptable. The letter concludes with: "The American Lung Association asked you to consider our concerns for those with lung disease, children and seniors that would reside in the development and choose another option." Doesn't sound very "vehement" to me. EVERYBODY agrees that the young, etc, etc MUST NOT SIP. You are beating the dead horse again.

To Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 3, 2007 4:49 PM:Anti-Baloney, your logic is quite appalling when you demand a link to a Red Cross site that states that shelter-in-place should never be used in a wildfire. Huh??? Do you also require a reference to a site stating that one should never dive into a vat of boiling oil? Geesh. If the Red Cross omitted wildfire from its list of applications for shelter-in-place, that's because it doesn't belong there. SIP during a wildfire is NOT official policy for residents of a commmunity ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. Doesn't that make you wonder just a little bit? How can the entire country be so out of step and only you know better?

To Concerned wrote on Apr 3, 2007 5:17 PM:Back to your dead horse analogy again! You seem to be hung up on dead horses. As many times as it takes to state the obvious OVER and OVER and OVER (and OVER), the message will keep going forward that SIP as defined by San Diego County is a dangerous, untested, reckless and callous EXPERIMENT on human lives that will lead to countless injuries and deaths. You can choose to quibble over minutiae (e.g., whether a medical organization is classified as volunteer, civilian, academic, or whatever) and rail on about dead horses all you like. You are MISSING THE CRUCIAL POINT that San Diego County decision-makers are oblivious to the catastrophic consequences of the SIP policy they have just adopted. Direct just a small fraction of your energies to waking them up and you will have at least done something constructive.

SIP DOA? wrote on Apr 3, 2007 5:47 PM:I think I've boiled this SIP thing down once and for all. S.D. County intends to allow SIP to be used in developments lacking adequate access. Lacking adequate access means that evacuation is a problem. Those residents who MUST be evacuated (and everyone seems to agree on this...babies, young children, the elderly, asthmatics, heart patients, etc.) won't be able to get out! That means the very developments in which the County is permitting SIP to be used will become deathtraps for at-risk people. Sounds like it ought to be checkmate for SIP, doesn't it?

To To Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 3, 2007 6:32 PM:The "entire country" certainly does not agree with you. Just read some of the other comments in this blog. Please just for once try to answer the question, instead of deprecating the questioner. Show us where the Red Cross says the SIP is BAD for everyone in a wildfire. The County is wrong in trying to force THE COUNTY VERSION OF SIP as a land use tool. The County version of SIP is WRONG and should be condemned. SIP in and of itself CAN work for able-bodied willing people. We all seem to agree on these points. What are you ranting about?

To x 3 Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 3, 2007 8:08 PM:When I refer to the "entire country" agreeing with me about the unacceptability of SIP, I am of course referring to official local and county government policy NATIONWIDE. Clearly I am not referring to every single person in the world (is it REALLY necessary that I have to explain this to you?). Then you want me to show you where the Red Cross says that SIP is BAD for everyone in a wildfire? Why should the Red Cross say ANYTHING about SIP as it relates to wildfire when SIP is not a recognized methodology for fire protection in this country? Then, when you go on to say that SIP can work for able-bodied willing people, that is like saying competing in the Iron-Man Triathlon can work for able-bodied, willing people. SO WHAT??! What relevance does that have for everyone else who might be too young or too old or too medically compromised to confront a wildfire head-on? SO WHAT that SIP "can" work for some? Why are YOU ranting about things that are SO UTTERLY IRRELEVANT and BESIDE THE POINT? Look, the County is proposing using SIP when access is "unattainable" and evacuation is not possible, instead of declaring such a development unsafe to build in the first place. Keep your eye on THAT ball and try to avoid getting so continually distracted!

Floyd wrote on Apr 4, 2007 1:49 AM:Anti-Baloney said "Prove with actual references the actual numbers of deaths from smoke during a wildfire" so I responded with statistics from a recent Texas wildfire. The definition of "Shelter In Place" from the Red Cross website ("Shelter-in-place means selecting a small, interior room, with no or few windows, and taking refuge there") says nothing about "stay and defend". The fact that fire is excluded from the Red Cross definition of "Shelter In Place" means it isn't effective as a defense against fire. The best response to a fire is to "R.U.N. A.W.A.Y." (that's technical talk for those who want to be impressed by jargon and acronyms). Low-density development coupled with expanded roads will make that possible.

Urban Fire Anyone? wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:35 AM:There's another point that has not yet been been mentioned. In a SIP development of thousands of homes (for example, the proposed 2,700-home Stonegate development), there will be close-packing of houses resulting in urban density. If ANY of the units catch on fire, it will readily spread to ADJOINING units (especially in the 1,500+ units of multi-family housing composed of attached condos and apartments). You will wind up with an URBAN FIRE where the fire spreads quickly from unit to unit. SIP is NEVER used in URBAN fires for obvious reasons. It will be impossible to prevent a certain number of units from catching on fire because not everyone will be at home when a wildfire strikes. The unattended homes will be especially vulnerable because "SIP precautions" will not have been taken (i.e., embers can come inside through windows left open, or curtains or furniture can ignite if left near the window instead of being moved away). Fire will spread so fast in attached housing that the very idea of SIP becomes useless. People will flee for their lives but will have nowhere to go because evacuation routes have not been adequately provided for. To approve a development that is BASED on SIP is reckless and crazy. San Diego County is the ONLY county in the nation to take this step.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:47 AM:Hey To x 3 Anti Baloney: Thank you for clarifying that “How can the “entire country” be so out of step?” means “How can the “official local and county government policy NATIONWIDE” be so out of step?” Now that you have enlightened me, I have a simple yes or no question. This regards your statement that “SIP during a wildfire is NOT official policy for residents of a commmunity ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.” Would you agree that Los Alamos County, New Mexico is in the United States? Quoting from the official Los Alamos County website: "A common myth is that most residents think evacuation would be the most likely course of action should the County face another wildfire or other major emergency. Evacuation, shelter-in-place and relocation to a protected area are all options used by personnel charged with providing protective actions for the citizens of their communities. There are risks and benefits associated with each type of action. Evacuation is the option of last resort, especially since the mesa/canyon geography of Los Alamos only gives us two paved egress routes. Deciding which protective actions to use is based on many dynamic factors. The Los Alamos County OEM wants residents and commuters to be prepared to "shelter-in-place" as one way to safely ride out wildland fires, which -- if they occur -- are anticipated to be range rather than crown fires (crown fires are much harder to fight). Due to aggressive fuels mitigation on County and Lab lands, and residential participation in the defensible space program, the potential need to evacuate for a wildland fire has been greatly reduced.” This seems to contradict your "ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES" statement. Do you really believe that your misstatement of fact is "IRRELEVANT and BESIDE THE POINT?" As I said before, the San Diego County version of SIP is WRONG and should be condemned. We totally agree that any development built with the San Diego County version of SIP should be declared "unsafe to build in the first place." We seem to have the same goal. Why are you ranting?

Reardon wrote on Apr 4, 2007 10:28 AM:Great points -- all! Please make them to the County Board of Supervisors, who are the ONLY people with a vote that actually counts! In the military this sort of discussion was called, "... in the chowline" -- complaining to your buddies who can't change things. If you have a complaint, take your complaint to those who have a vote, and quit hectoring your friends and neighbors because they only agree with you 100% and not the 150% that your religious fervor requires. Yes, SIP has already been relegated to the position it justly requires...A LAST OPTION! That is what it is...only if the fire gets to you BEFORE you have a chance to evacuate. Now that SIP is virtually dead, concentrate on decreasing density and increasing evacuation routes until the development makes safety sense, and if that does not meet the developers need for profit...too bad, He can develop somewhere else...and a new developer can provide a plan that more closely meets the requirements for safety. Just don't think you can stop development. You can't -- development, the fees it pays and the taxes the new Buyers pay, provide the salaries of ALL government employees...from teachers to County Supervisors. The game is rigged...get what you can within your emotional ability to maintain your sanity and keep your friends.

Floyd wrote on Apr 4, 2007 10:33 AM:It would appear that Anti Baloney has demonstrated x3's point since there is only ONE county throughout the entire United States that has adoped Shelter In Place, and then only because there are insufficient evacuation routes. Requiring effective evacuation routes and a low development density for the Stonegate project would eliminate the need for Shelter In Place and make it possible to actually fight the fire.

Floyd wrote on Apr 4, 2007 10:45 AM:More on the Los Alamos, New Mexico "Shelter In Place" policy from the Los Alamos National Laboratory: "The fires are expected to be significantly smaller than the thousands of acres that are usually affected-as small as 200-300 acres-and much shorter in duration, prompting the call for a shelter-in-place which would typically last for only a few hours. 'What we mean by shelter in place,' said Gene Darling of Emergency Management and Response, 'is that most people would be asked to simply stay home or in their offices during the fire situation. The Laboratory or the Los Alamos Fire Department would only move people directly affected by a localized fire, and would typically move those folks to a location nearby, but out of harm's way. This fire season we do not foresee the need for a mass evacuation with the volatile fire conditions being somewhat restricted to the canyon areas.' In other words, Shelter In Place is used when the fire is small and distant and not a threat, but as it gets larger and closer, evacuation occurs. Source URL: http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1435

RIP SIP? Too bad, not yet wrote on Apr 4, 2007 12:15 PM:Reardon, you are totally wrong when you write that "Now that "SIP is virtually dead..." Unfortunately, it is NOT dead at all. Quite the contrary. On MARCH 19, 2007, IT BECAME ACCEPTED COUNTY POLICY!! How is that the equivalent of being dead?? San Diego County's Department of Planning now officially recognizes SIP as acceptable policy and will approve developments based on SIP alone if "topographical or geographical constraints" preclude secondary access. Just because you or I (or countless other citizens) have made a powerful case indicting SIP does NOT mean the County has seen the light. If SIP were dead, all these blogs would be unnecessary. As far as your comment about the futility of complaining "in the chowline..." Yes, by all means, DO complain IN the chowline, OFF the chowline and EVERYWHERE ELSE YOU CAN to bring attention to what S.D. County is trying to get away with. Don't you know that these complaints have also gone to all the County Supervisors? Not to worry, they have, by the hundreds. The Supervisors are WELL aware. Now let's see what they choose to do about it.

Reardon wrote on Apr 4, 2007 3:59 PM:RIP SIP: Almost everyone on this blog agrees that SIP is a flawed policy for urban dense development. Not one of us has a vote, so we are all preaching to the choir until the Board of Supervisors takes up the case. There is hardly a place where "two or three shall gather together" that there is not the public harangue on this subject, and there is almost no support for urban dense SIP in any of those meetings. Those who are fixated on the subject may enjoy their mental masturbation, but many who absolutely agree have heard it too many times, too loudly, too much in depth, too angrily, too..., too..., too... Same song, 348th verse. At some point (long past) the preaching has become counterproductive, but the jihad goes on with increasing fury looking for an enemy among its friends.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 4, 2007 6:49 PM:Hey Floyd: Ref S-I-P is being used in the U.S.A. (1) "x3" clearly said there were NONE. I showed you that there is AT LEAST one. One is more than none. Two is more than none (BTW, there are more). I know, “x3” said such facts are "IRRELEVANT and BESIDE THE POINT." Some of us feel that truth in our arguments is not irrelevant. (2) You cite a Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) news release dated May 16, 2003. The Los Alamos County fire department (not LANL) is NOW using SIP as a one of their fire protection methodologies for fires large and small. But, the present San Diego County version of SIP is fundamentally flawed, dangerous, and unacceptable for land use planning. Many (if not most) fire protection professionals support the wise deployment of SIP and early evacuation for wildfires, and will reject an unprofessional attack on SIP itself. These same fire protection professionals are the consultants and advisors to the government officials who accept or reject developments. Many of us have been working and will continue to work hard to convince these fire professionals that not SIP per se, but the present San Diego County version of SIP should be rejected. Good luck to RIP SIP and the “hundreds” of people who complained to the Board of Supervisors. Have a nice day.

Floyd wrote on Apr 4, 2007 7:46 PM:If the Los Alamos County fire department is using SIP, state your proof. All we have is your word, Anti Baloney, and you seem to be obsessing on details in an effort to avoid the points being made. Don't be surprised if we don't take you seriously unless you can show some verifiable, authoritative quotes.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:00 PM:Hey Floyd: (1) Google "Los Alamos County shelter in place" (2) Read screen (3) Click on first entry "Los Alamos County - Shelter-in-place, or Evacuate?" (4) Read screen (5) Knock yourself out (6) See SIP. Duh.

Tempest in a Teapot wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:35 PM:Concerning the "hundreds of people" who complained to the Board of Supervisors in emails and the excessive number of look-a-like anti SIP comments here (especially those like the one that supposedly came from Australia). Looks to me like we have a couple of intense individuals who are stuffing the ballot box and posting multiple comments as if they are from different people. Australia? Come on! Lining up dead soliders to fool the enemy into thinking you still have a full battalion is an old trick.

Where were you? wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:41 PM:For all your bluster, those of you against SIP really missed the boat. The County's wildfire guidelines came before the Board of Supervisors March 21. None of you were there. The guidelines were discussed with no opposition. Being an administrative issue, the Board sent them along with their support. Done deal. You might want to focus on other issues.

Floyd wrote on Apr 4, 2007 11:13 PM:I followed your instructions, Anti Baloney, and here's what I found: "Evacuation, shelter-in-place and relocation to a protected area are all options used by personnel charged with providing protective actions for the citizens of their communities. There are risks and benefits associated with each type of action. Evacuation is the option of last resort, especially since the mesa/canyon geography of Los Alamos only gives us two paved egress routes." As I've said previously, Shelter In Place is recommended when there are insufficient escape routes and that is what your reference says, too. Intentionally planning a high-density urban development with insufficient escape routes so you can then implement Shelter In Place as the only possible solution to fire danger is misguided and dangerous. It is better to stop the project and fix the problems! And just because the County has okayed the concept doesn't mean it will remain okayed. That's why we're actively opposing the decision!

Ken (Former Sierra Club and American Lung Association member) wrote on Apr 4, 2007 11:16 PM:I'd bet that this is one of the most controversial editorials of the recent times. I would also bet that it had the most uneducated folks replying to things they don't understand and giving their replies as experts. The Sierra Club lobby and the American Lung Association lobby groups should talk to the folks who are experts in the SIP concept. I'd bet they would find some middle ground if they would spend the time. Hopefully, if you are a Sierra Club person, a Lung Association person, or a person who just hates everyone in the fire program, you will see the "light" and actually understand how your actions are making communities more at risk and risking the lives of wildland firefghters.

To Ken wrote on Apr 5, 2007 11:07 AM:Ken, why do you bother mentioning that you are a FORMER member of both the Sierra Club and the American Lung Association? Does that mean you've dropped out of both? Curious. Anyway, you've made a number of BAD bets in your comment. First, there's your bet that there are "uneducated folks replying to things they don't understand" (SIP). Check out the County's website in which the objections to SIP were posted. You will find NUMEROUS physicians, physicists, engineers, public health professionals, retired fire experts, and others with more knowledge, depth and experience than you can imagine. A very impressive group of citizens, many of whom who took their time to write extensively, articulately and in great detail to the County about a proposed POLICY GUIDELINE. That is highly unusual in itself. Second, the Sierra Club and the ALA have both talked to SIP experts. These organizations do NOT support an experimental, untested and highly flawed method of "fire protection," especially as San Diego County plans to use it. Third, your bet about finding a "middle ground" is way off. There's no middle ground when it comes to protecting human life. Either you protect human life...or you don't. When it comes to endangering the lives of people for the sake of building developments, it just isn't okay to "kill a few people." That is what SIP will do (and it won't be just a few either). Ken, you give yourself away when you say "if you are a person who just hates everyone in the fire program." WHERE IN THE WORLD DOES THIS BIZARRE COMMENT COME FROM? The people opposing SIP do NOT "hate everyone in the fire program." Quite the contrary, they feel that adopting SIP will result in the building of developments in unsafe areas in which firemen will be MORE likely to lose their lives. Providing for adequate evacuation and enabling residents to get out of harm's way will make the firefighters' job EASIER AND SAFER. That way wildland firefighters can concentrate on fighting the fires instead of having to deal with thousands of people trapped within a wildland fire with no way out, many needing to be rescued. Ken, your hostility is badly misplaced. It should be directed towards developers who are trying to justify the building of developments in places where they SHOULDN'T be built (by slapping SIP on and saying it's A-OK). THEY are the ones who don't care about the lives of the firefighters (or the residents). It's only about the $$$. Get to learn who your real friends...and enemies...are (if you dare).

To Where Were You wrote on Apr 5, 2007 11:37 AM:I'll just BET you'd like the people against SIP to focus on other issues. Anything but SIP. Anything!!! The glare of publicity is deadly to such a scandalous policy as SIP. Crimes like this thrive in darkness and in the absence of public awareness. Don't you know that thousands of people are already onto this one and they're angry? Imagine, allowing developments to be built without providing for evacuation! In the event of a firestorm, let's have everyone stay inside their houses and see what happens! Pure insanity fueled by pure greed! Unfortunately for the bureaucrat accomplices, when the next major wildfire strikes and SIP developments are involved, there will be NO STOPPING the headlines all over the country and the world when the casualty numbers mount. If you think the glare of publicity is unpleasant now...

WHO Missed the Boat? wrote on Apr 5, 2007 12:43 PM:A previous blogger triumphantly boasted that SIP opponents "missed the boat" because SIP "came before the Board of Supervisors on March 21" and "none of you were there" and "the guidelines were discussed with no opposition" and that "the Board sent them along with their support." "Done deal." WOW. THAT'S QUITE A TWISTING OF THE TRUTH. Would you like to be enlightened? On page 2 of his March 19, 2007 "Response to Comments" posted on the County website, DPLU Director Gary L. Pryor wrote: "The Guidelines are department policies only and not binding on the decision-making body (the Guidelines themselves are NOT adopted by the Board of Supervisors)." Later, concluding the same paragraph, Pryor reiterates: "The Guidelines will NOT be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. As stated above, they are department policies only and do not require formal adoption by the Board of Supervisors." The blogger who claims the Board of Supervisors played a role in accepting, approving or supporting the guidelines (i.e., "done deal") is directly CONTRADICTING what was stated by the DPLU Director. Why are we not surprised? What a tangled web you weave...

Floyd wrote on Apr 5, 2007 2:18 PM:Ah, yes, when faced with opposition you decide to summarize and conclude in an effort to eliminate further discussion. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're ignoring the key issue -- Shelter In Place works with wildfires in low- and no-density areas. A structure fire in a high-density smart-growth project is dangerous and deadly, making evacuation the only viable response. Force-fitting an unworkable no-density solution on a high-density problem is the source of the controversy and it must be corrected. Stop the Stonegate project, fix the design problems by lowering the density and beefing up the infrastructure, and then you can proceed.

To Floyd wrote on Apr 5, 2007 3:54 PM:Floyd is correct. SIP for high-density projects is deadly. In Australia's version of SIP, it is applied in extremely low-density areas ONLY. The ability to evacuate--for as many people that may need to--is KEY. The OPTION to evacuate must always exist as a practical matter. If there is no practical choice but to stay put, a project should NOT be approved for building. If the Stonegate developers would respect and adhere to the current zoning law (as the rest of us must do), evacuation would be feasible and SIP would not have to be imposed.

ToToWho wrote on Apr 5, 2007 4:14 PM:“To Ken”=”To Where Were You”=”WHO Missed the Boat?:” “WOW. THAT'S QUITE A TWISTING OF THE TRUTH” in your 783 words of “BIZARRE COMMENTS.” “Don't you know that thousands of people are already onto this one and they're angry?” "I'll just BET” “you are a person who just hates everyone in the fire program.” "Your hostility is badly misplaced.” “Get to learn who your real friends...and enemies...are (if you dare).” Same old rant, just rearranged.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 5, 2007 5:29 PM:Hey Floyd: I believe you've got it. Of course, SIP in a no-density area is an oxymoron, since there'd be no one to SIP. A simplified version of the key question is What is the maximum allowable density for SIP? I believe there is an intelligent consensus answer out there. Stonegate is something else. It should be stopped, as you say, until the density is lowered and the infrastructure is beefed up. Well put, my friend.

Ryan wrote on Apr 5, 2007 5:43 PM:Ryan Ken (former S.C. and A.L.A. member), Thank You for your insight. There is too much mis-information from the wildfire liars. They don’t want a middle ground. They are incapable of listening and learning from people that don’t agree 100% with them. They are in a dangerous fire jihad. They cannot talk to people with an open mind, i.e., let’s agree to disagree, let’s engage in conversations with ideas and accurate information (complete dated reports, not just the line that fits their needs). To relate to others on a middle ground, they would need to raise their bar and omit their shouting, insults, name calling, and unproven personal attacks. Their actions and words are harming the people who they are pretending to help, especially the firefighters. They do not represent the community with their disgusting tactics.

Rick wrote on Apr 5, 2007 10:05 PM:Being the guy who wrote the much discussed article on SIP I thought I'd add a few thoughts to this remarkable display of intensity. First, after reading the comments from the anti-SIP posters it becomes pretty clear they have no understanding of wildfire behavior. Neither smoke nor fire behaves in the manner they have suggested. Some of the predictions border on the absurd. Second, the common flavor, vocabulary, and tone of many of these anti-SIP posts seem to support "Tempest in a Teapot's" opinion that many of these are written by the same individual. Nothing wrong in that I guess, but it does seem to make this more of a personal blog than an honest public discussion. Somebody sure seems to have a lot of time on their hands. Those comments from posters who supposedly either lived or live in Australia really pushed the envelope. Third, the tactics of the/those poster(s) against SIP are really self-defeating. Whatever allies you may have hoped to attract, you should know that the vitriolic accusations against local firefighters and doomsday exaggerations have lost you a lot of potential support. In fact, they have inspired others who would not have normally been involved to support the County and help educate the public about the viability of the shelter in place concept. Time to take a deep breath and focus on a more rational, collaborative approach.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 6, 2007 12:58 AM:Hey Rick: Agreed. The multiply pseudonymous anti-SIP rantings of a few are indeed counterproductive.

Smother in Place wrote on Apr 6, 2007 2:24 AM:The Heat and lack of oxygen will kill these people. Are we so desperate to make developer profits that we are willing to put people in harms way to make a buck? What about all the kids home alone after school while their parents are at work? What about the kids n the elementary school in Chokegate? Who are these guys kidding.

Floyd wrote on Apr 6, 2007 7:06 AM:Accusing those of us opposed to inadequate fire planning of being "closed minded", "shockingly ignorant" and having "never served in the Marine Corps" doesn't exactly invite support for those who prefer unwise fire planning in the form of Shelter In Place, either. If you want to participate in the public discussion by tossing out some inflammatory accusations, don't be surprised if you need to shelter in place until the controversy dies down (unless, of course, you'd prefer the safety of evacuation from the discussion entirely).

Floyd wrote on Apr 6, 2007 7:09 AM:Accusing those of us opposed to inadequate fire planning of being "closed minded", "shockingly ignorant" and having "never served in the Marine Corps" doesn't exactly invite support for those who prefer unwise fire planning in the form of Shelter In Place, either. If you want to participate in the public discussion by tossing out some inflammatory accusations, don't be surprised if you need to shelter in place until the controversy dies down (unless, of course, you'd prefer the safety of evacuation from the discussion entirely). And please don't confuse "collaboration" with "cooperation" -- two very different concepts.

Montana Griz wrote on Apr 6, 2007 8:19 PM:I'm pleased to read that most of the respondents are ready to die in an ill-conceived evacuation rather than survive using tested shelter-in-place techniques: it will mean a few less Californians that try to move to "the Last Best Place" after the next Santa Ana wind event destroys multiple properties and kills off some non-believers!

To Montana Griz wrote on Apr 6, 2007 9:02 PM:Most of the respondents (that won't consider sip techniques) were the same people, writing the same thing over and over, again and again.

Reardon wrote on Apr 6, 2007 10:04 PM:What we see on this forum is a repeat of the early 70s making of the environmental movement...which was successful then… but is no longer viable. Then, 12 people would meet in a La Jolla home as the Audubon Society, and pass a resolution against something. The same people met the next night in Balboa Park as Citizens Coordinate for Century Three, and pass a similar resolution. The next night, they were the Sierra Club Steering Committee...eventually the media thought there was a ground swell of support or opposition for something and dutifully reported the groundswell, but there was no groundswell...just media manipulation. There was a top-of-the-list (NYT) book (Megatrends) written to itemize the "megatrends" but detailing the methodology used for the book – counting column inches in written media and seconds in electronic media. People, including media, are much more in tune with this ploy today, and stuffed public opinion boxes are frowned upon when they are so absolutely transparent. BTW, Reardon is always Reardon, and only Reardon.

To Reardon wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:17 AM:A species related to the Green Jihadist life form from Oregon (sierra clubby) has infiltrated San Diego County. It is known as the Orange Jihadist (wildfired nimby). The Orange Jihadist is intolerant of all other species, devours its mates, and destroys its own community.

Floyd wrote on Apr 7, 2007 1:21 PM:At least we know that when those who favor Shelter In Place are faced with facts exposing the unnecessary danger of their plan, they abandon any pretense of informative discourse and concentrate on discrediting the source of the information. That tells us a lot more than Math Whiz's revelation that 12 + 3 is "15", which is not the claimed "16" private citizens claimed in the original article.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 7, 2007 5:00 PM:Hey Floyd: Some of us want to have informative discourse with others with whom we may disagree. Hopefully, we can hear each other over the din created by the extremists on either side.

Anti Baloney wrote on Apr 7, 2007 5:21 PM:Wow! 10,716 words of comments (as of Floyd April 07, 2007 1:21 PM)on Mr. Halsey's 731 word article. Rather than writing more, maybe we should just read what we already wrote, since we probably already said it.

Reardon wrote on Apr 8, 2007 10:32 AM:This has got to be the longest debate between people who are pretty much in agreement that the Stonegate plan is fatally flawed insofar as SIP and evacuation is concerned -- since the Medieval debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! This is really a style disagreement, between rationalists and ideologues. The rationalists want to discuss and the ideologues want to pick fights and call names with those who already agree with them in principle that SIP may well be a valid last chance, but that in an urban setting with steep slopes it is inappropriate, The ideologues, finding no one to fight with on this net, pick fights with the less intense opponents of SIP in Stonegate. There does not appear to be a Stonegate representative here, or a member of the DPLU, or of the Board of Supervisors. Just rationalists, and if the term is not too divisive (but it is accurate), irrationalists. Could someone propose a number of dwelling units that might be reasonable for this project to evacuate when the “big one” hits? My guess is that a few would say “zero” and none would say “2,700” but there is a number – and considering all of the mental masturbation that has gone on between people who are in general agreement, finding that number or a process to arrive at that number, would be time better spent.

Rick wrote on Apr 9, 2007 1:57 PM:Sorry Reardon, there are a number of us in the local community and the firefighting community who do not agree with you that the Stonegate plan is "fatally flawed" rearding SIP. It is a viable option for the planned project. Considering increased population levels in the future, SIP within a fire-safe community is one of the best ways to reduce fire risk. Depending almost exclusively on evacuation and firefighters to save us as we have in the past will only lead to more fatalities. I would rather not see the area developed, but I don't own the property. Increased traffic and preserving the rural character of the area would be better issues to address if folks would like to try and defeat the project.

BUBBA wrote on Apr 10, 2007 11:21 PM:FIREMEN MAY SHELTER IN PLACE, IN THEIR FIREPROOF CLOTHING, BOOTS, GLOVES, HELMETS, MASKS, BUT THE HOMEOWNER MAY NOT HAVE THIS GEAR???? MANY FIREMEN ARE KILLED IN FIRES EVERY YEAR, SO THEIR PUP TENTS MUST NOT BE SHELTER IN PLACE SAFE? BUILDING DENSELY, A CITY ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN, WITH DEER SPRINGS THE EXIT, IS STUPID, DANGEROUS. NO EVACUATION, SO STAY AND BURN? WHY NOT JUST MOVE AWAY TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS, AND READ THE PAPERS LATER, ABOUT THE FIRES? GOOD THOUGHT?

To Bubba wrote on Apr 14, 2007 1:08 PM:" ... WHY NOT JUST MOVE AWAY TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS, ... " Looking forward to Bubba and Mr and Mrs Wildfire Liars and all other extremist friends leaving San Diego County.

To unhinged name-callers wrote on Apr 15, 2007 9:29 AM:The term "Wildfire Liar" should be defined PROPERLY: Anyone who supports the Stonegate project and is DYING to see it built. If these wildfire liars get their wish by seeing Stonegate approved, then by all means these people should move there! One day they will literally have their wish come true since they were just DYING to see Stonegate built. Rest in peace.

To Bubba Friend wrote on Apr 19, 2007 12:14 PM:Your definition of Wildfire Liar is incorrect. (See Rick -author of this article- wrote on April 05, 2007 10:05 PM.) QUOTE from Rick comment: First, after reading the comments from the anti-SIP posters it becomes pretty clear they have no understanding of wildfire behavior. Neither smoke nor fire behaves in the manner they have suggested. Some of the predictions border on the absurd. UNQUOTE. The extremists have now been labeled as NIMBY Fanatics, Jihadists, Wildfire Liars because they cannot stop their inaccurate rantings. see Francl article, which I know you already read

Bill wrote on Sep 5, 2007 4:35 PM:Thank you Richard for your thoughts and for bringing this to discussion. This issue is especially timely with the worst drought and fire season ahead of us, with more and more homes being built in fire prone or difficult to defend areas, with developers pushing to maximize the number of homes per parcel, and with fire department's resources stretched thin. I think the idea is sound; but proven models in various real world fire conditions, strict builder implementation to those models, and necessary occupant post-build maintenance is not. For example, I think a structure like the Anza-Borrego Visitor Center is a good shelter-in-place design. It optimizes visual harmony with the land while allowing fires to burn harmlessly over occupants who may be inside. If I lived in the mountains I certainly would build my home like this rather then building it out of kindling which risks firefighter's lives, expends valuable resources, and costs taxpayer's dollars everytime there is a fire. I think the problem is that such structures do not fit in the current builder and consumer desired model. Instead, it seems unproven structures are now permitted and marketed as "shelter in place" -- when they may not be when they are built (or only to minimum levels), or when occupants later attach the inevitable wooden shade structures and decks, plant close trees and brush, and do the many other things which will add to the structures flamability and undermine or destroy it's shelter-in-place abilities. I think the reality is that currently allowed shelter-in-place is an experiment with people's lives and property. I don't think anyone knows what and how to build a shelter-in-place structure which will protect people inside (including young children and elderly) during what types of fires and to what extent. I think there will be initial failures, with news choppers streaming video on the local and national news of people being burned alive inside or running in flames from their flame-engulfed homes. Notwithstanding this loss of lives, lawyers will have a field day suing builders and cities and fire districts, and insurances premiums will skyrocket or insurance will be unavailable for those with shelter-in-place homes in areas where it's not feasible to evacuate or defend. And this will continue until this experiment provides solid proven models which are strictly followed. I don't know any of this certain and I don't think anyone else does either. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but no one is willing to, nor can they, guarantee otherwise.

Wayne wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:19 PM:I don't have enough experience and knowledge to provide the ideal solution to fire survival either, even though I’ve fought prairie fires and forest fires and participated in “prescribed” burns, chaired the multi-agency fire-hazard reduction task force after the largest fire prior to the Cedar fire, the “Kitchen Creek” or “Laguna Mountain” fire in 1970, and sponsored a sold-out seminar for professionals in the early 1990’s. Seems to me that overheated discussions, carried on in the safety of one’s armchair, can be perilous to the victims of The Next Big One, and don’t really move the ball, only kick it around. All discussion about fire safety should be about the issue, not the personalities. Shelter-in-Place should be an option, not a requirement. Considering the billions spent on fires, wildland and urban, I still wonder about “optimal allocation of scarce resources” and whatever happened to that concept of management. There needs to be shared responsibility, of course, but smoke hoods cost less than a hundred bucks for each family member and guest, a 5-10 thousand-gallon water tank, about a thousand, about the same for a 300 gpm pump, and a few thousand more for roof, attic, ceiling, and exterior wall and glass water spouts (not necessarily sprinklers in all cases) might be a better and more effective and safer expenditure of tax dollars than performing for the TV cameras, which is about all firefighters can really do in the case of the big killer fires. Having a bathtub full of water, a few buckets, wet towels, and a few fire extinguishers, not to mention a hose that will reach anyplace in the house or attic and a place (like a laundry tub) attach it to the domestic water supply, also might make sense when the fire goes by, as it did for one retired firefighter and his wife, who, seeing the fire was coming too fast for safe evacuation, turned their car around, took shelter in their house, and as the embers blew through the weatherstripped door, went through the house dousing them, saving themselves and their house by staying inside for the couple of minutes the fire took to burn past it. When it was cool enough, (still very hot), they went outside and checked for spot ignitions on the structure, ignoring the relatively minor fires still burning after flame-front passage. Now THAT’S experience! Isn’t it strange that they were not a statistic considered worth counting?

jumpoffjoe wrote on Oct 26, 2007 12:16 PM:regardless of your feelings, and that is what a lot of these messages are: feelings, don't you folks who think people will die from smoke inhalation at least support educating people in the best practices for "shelter in place" JUST IN CASE THEY ARE UNABLE TO EVACUATE? Personally, thanks to a helpful fire agency in my area, I'm getting some advice on the subject early next week. I am hopeful I will never need this advice, but am looking forward to getting it. As far as smoke goes, I'm open to suggestion from the representative of the fire agencies; howerver, I've been around lots of fires, and have never been worried about the smoke being a serious risk, as hte fires pass by quickly, although I'm not fond of breathing it. I guess we all need to decide if we're willing to breath some smoke in order to save our homes. Another point I can make is that each house that does catch fire tends to ignite other homes in the neighborhood, since home fires burn for a much, MUCH longer period of time than the shrubs, brush, and trees around the house. I suspect we're going to learn a whole lot about sheltering in place from the recent SoCal fires, where several shelter in place communities did, apparently, survive unscathed.