Floyd wrote on Apr 22, 2007 2:32 AM:Doctor Orner does a good job presenting a non-hysterical look at the Stonegate controversy. Well done! However, I am uncomfortable with the distinction between "wildfire" and "structure fire" because the fire itself doesn't make that distinction. Whatever fuel it discovers, it devours. In previous fires, we've seen news footage showing burning trees shooting hot embers into the air that can float quite a ways to start accessory fires which means there's more than just radiant heat at work. A look at the Australian implementation of Shelter-In-Place shows it applies to low- and no-density areas, which is not applicable to the high-density Stonegate development. It has been previously estimated that Stonegate residents would have about 15 minutes advance warning to evacuate (not "less than 30", which is probably 29), which doubles the number of lanes needed for an orderly evacuation from 12 to 24. What's needed is to reject the existing fire protection plan for Stonegate, fix the plan by lowering the density and increasing the number and size of evacuation routes, and resubmitting for approval.

john wrote on Apr 22, 2007 4:50 PM:Well, what about those in the at risk population. THEY WILL DIE OF SMOKE INHALATION AND RUIN ALL YOUR STATISTICS. SORRY ORNER, BUT YOU CAN'T SAY SMOKE INHALATION IS OK IF INFANTS AND ASTHMATICS ARE HANGING AROUND. THERE ARE NO INFANTS THAT DIE IN WILDLAND FIRE BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN EVACUATED. KEEP REPEATING THE WORD -EVACUATE, EVACUATE, AND EVACUATE. THAT IS WHY IT IS MURDER TO BUILD A DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL NOT ALLOW INFANTS TO EVACUATE!!!! By the way, I wonder if the mother should accompany her child. Stonegate is pure insanity. Also, radiant heat can also be reflected. Go back to school. You need more training. I wonder how many of those fire fighters that don't die of smoke inhalation are infants. What a stupid argument you make. Are you an expert in making stupid arguments?

Reardon wrote on Apr 22, 2007 6:07 PM:An island of rationality in an absolute sea of hysteria. The Jihadists had been attacking the professional firefighters and staff for approving a concept that was the currently accepted orthodoxy, when it was the orthodoxy that was flawed. Perhaps mis-applied is a better word than flawed. If this analysis can bring together some rational discussion as to how to square this circle, there is some hope. Yes, the density is too high to be evacuated by the proposed road system in a timely manner, Yes, SIP needs to be examined for more realism in an urban setting of Southern California homeowners (who are entirely different from those who elect to live in the Outback), and yes, name-calling in inappropriate -- and worse yet, counterproductive and we have already had more than enough of that. At long last, an adult voice.

To John wrote on Apr 22, 2007 6:25 PM:What are you smoking while you write such inaccurate statements, equivalent to 3 plus 4 equals 9; rants, garbage, junk. Nothing scientific. You are writing like a NIMBY Fanatics, Jihardists, Wildfire Liars (see NCT articles by Halsey and by Francl which I am certain you already read). You wrote QUOTE ...the at risk population. They will die of smoke inhalation END QUOTE. If you are capable of reading, Dr. Orner wrote QUOTE The young, old, ill, unwilling and all others at-risk must be evacuated in a planned fashion. END QUOTE. The population at risk is not YOUR QUOTE hanging around END QUOTE. Is that too difficult for you to understand. Regarding radiant heat – prove it (scientifically) or stop ranting. Reflection of radiant heat is a non-issue in a SIP situation. And what are your qualifications.

Floyd wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:39 AM:For those who wish to review the Halsey and Francl articles (along with the spirited blog comments), the URLs are: 'Shelter In Place: Watching The Flames Go By' (Halsey) http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/01/perspective/22_54_493_30_07.txt and 'NIMBY Fanatics Hurt Firefighters Morale' (Francl) http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/13/opinion/commentary/18_14_504_12_07.txt

johnI wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:26 AM:In answer "to john": Ask the fire chief (or anybody else) how you can successfuly evacuate people of all different risks in as short of time as 10-15 minutes in a fast moving fire. The Fire Chief dismisses this entirely and then says that Stonegate has a good fire protection plan - but, with a little thought and insightfulness it becomes a terrible, poorly conceived and murderous plan. It does not address at-risk populations and panic. Rational questions remain unanswered and name calling continues. The Fire Chief should have said " This plan is too dangerous because it can't evacuate those at risk and we cannot avert panic". Now we can have a dialogue for discussion. Finally, you now admit the Fire Chief has a different agenda than the safety of the people whom he is supposed to protect. Reardon, Orner, and everyone else seems to agree with this when they use the phrase "healthy occupants". This is not what is occurring at Stonegate.

To john 1 wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:55 PM:The Fire Chief is not mentioned in Dr. Orner?s Perspective. The Fire Chief is mentioned 4 times in your comment. What does this have to do with SIP, safety, evacuation, and other issues in Dr. Orner?s Perspective. This is typical of the NIMBY Fanatics, Jihadists, Wildfire Liars writings; twist and spin. And attack the person, the Fire Chief, and avoid meaningful discourse on anything. What the Chief said or did not say is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not sip or evacuation or both are applicable to any community. Those are scientifically answerable questions. Your ranting as usual, does nothing to promote a dialogue for discussion. You don?t really want a dialogue, you only care to prove that the Fire Chief has a different agenda. Again, berating the Fire Chief appeals to you NIMBY Fanatics, ...Wildfire Liars. You do nothing to enhance the safety of the people. Your continued attacks on the Fire Chief are despicable.

john wrote on Apr 24, 2007 1:22 AM:The Chief said that the Fire Protection Plan for Stonegate specifically passed by the the DPLU was a good plan even though all those at risk (including healthy infants) could die of smoke inhalation. This is what is called relevant to the argument of SIP. No one agrees rhat SIP should be applied when at risk people can't evacuate. The Chief applied SIP to Stonegate and thought it was OK whe it obviously isn't OK. Why would he do that? When you take a job and make a statement then you must defend that statement. Not personal - except to those who might die because of your poor decision. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Concerned wrote on Apr 24, 2007 2:25 AM:John I: Sounds like the ranting fanatics. You seem to feel that only you have a vision of the truth. Others may be strongly against Stonegate, but if they do not wish to join your ranting fanatics, they must be enemies. Any other rationale to stop Stonegate is unacceptable to you, because it would erode the power you exert over your fanatic disciples. Your attacks on the Chief of the Deer Springs Fire Protection District are disgusting. He is not an enemy. You have a lot of nerve telling him what he should have said. Your bombastic language: "terrible, poorly conceived and murderous plan" serves only to inflame your fellow fanatics. It does nothing to promote your hypocritical "dialogue for discussion." You don't want a discussion, you want victory over whoever. It is not even clear to most of us who all you are fighting anymore. You are very clearly fighting anti-Stonegate individuals. Therefore, by using your own perverted hysterical logic, you must be pro-Stonegate. You claim that we "now admit the Fire Chief has a different agenda than the safety of the people whom he is supposed to protect." What arrogant, self-serving horse manure! No where in the Perspective above is it written that the Fire Chief has a different agenda than safety. Your logic is irresponsible, faulty, perverted, hysterical. Implying that the Fire Chief, an honorable man, indeed the man who is charged with the responsibility of saving your sorry life, is dishonorable, on the basis of his responses to your attempts to publicly humiliate him is an extreme rant. You and your fellow fanatics continually set up the false issues of babies, elderly, chronic lung disease patients, etc., etc., being roasted/smoked to death on the mountain because others say that they will not be evacuated. What a distortion of the truth! Dr. Orner writes in the Perspective above: "Before deployment, SIP must be integrated with a preplanned evacuation strategy for at least the subpopulation at risk." What is there about the word "must" that you do not understand. Your attack on the Fire Chief, and your distortion of the truth, and your perverted logic continues to read like NIMBY Fanatics, Jihardists, Wildfire Liars (see Reardon above and see NCTimes articles by Halsey and by Francl which I am certain you already read). Your continued ranting, spinning, and twisting has not improved public safety.

BUBBA wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:26 AM:RADIANT ENERGY COMES THROUGH WINDOWS, SO DO THESE HOMES HAVE NO WINDOWS? I WAS AT A MEETING WHERE THE CHIEF SAID "SMOKE RISES" WHEN ASKED HOW TO AVOID SUFFOCATION. ANY CHIEF WHO ENDORSES STONEGATE IS TO BE QUESTIONED! MAKE HIM LIVE THERE? RADIANT ENERGY BURNS YOUR DRAPERY, YOUR FURNITURE, COMING THRU THE WINDOWS, AND IT BOUNCES OFF REFLECTIVE SURFACES UNTIL IT FINDS SOMETHING TO ATTACK. 2700 HOMES WITH LITERALLY ONE ROAD OUT, THAT DUMPS INTO DEER SPRINGS ROAD, IS PURE FOLLY. I SAY, LET'S LEAVE CALIFORNIA!

Name Game wrote on Apr 24, 2007 9:01 AM:Shelter in Place, Stay and Defend whatever you want to call it essentially it means die at home. Worked real well in the Katrina disaster. Fires are disasters, too, and just as unpredictable as floods.

Floyd wrote on Apr 24, 2007 9:15 AM:The only fanatics are the ones acting offended by the discussion and tossing out accusations of "NIMBY fanatics, Jihadists, Wildfire Liars". This problem can be solved by revoking the existing fire protection plan, revising it with safety in mind (lower density homes, improved road capacity and quantity), and resubmitting for approval.

More Popcorn wrote on Apr 24, 2007 9:34 AM:The rambling diatribes of 'Concerned' are an entertaining look at the feverish mind of a Stonegate supporter critically short on 'facts'. His alternate version of reality ('perverted hysterical logic' I think he says, several times in fact) is breathtaking as it breaks new ground in illogical thought processes! We've needed someone to provide comic relief since Kelly Patrick Hennessey left, and I think 'Concerned' might just that person if he can adopt Hennessey's unique language skills.

To Bubba wrote on Apr 24, 2007 9:51 AM:you write "... LET'S LEAVE CALIFORNIA!" Please leave with all your fanatic extremist friends. Again, you rant. Read the Perspective again.

john wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:23 AM:the dialogue is worthwhile. Read the fire protection plan and you will find no provision for evacuation of infants. This is the same Fire Protection Plan the Chief approves of.This is where you falter. No logic. Enough reason to reject the plan. Why approve it?????