In my research for my senior project regarding the California Wildfires, I found an article detailing how Santa Rosa intentionally waived many building code regulations because they wanted to speed up the rebuilding process. That's concerning, because many of the regulations that Santa Rosa waived are crucial to survivability when a wildfire hits.
For example, the 2008 building code mandated that houses use fire resistant roofs and siding led to a 51% survival rate from the Camp Fire among houses built after 2008; compared to 18% of houses built before. If we use all safeguards available to use right now, homes could turn into bunkers and survive for 3-4 hours in the middle of a raging wildfire-more than enough time for all available fuel to burn out. The houses built following the wildfires in Santa Rosa are so poorly built that according to Brandon Jorgensen, an architect from Napa, "the entire town wouldn't last an hour" in the face of a wildfire.
How does this relate to economic? Well, Santa Rosa is thinking too heavily in the short-term rather than the long term. They want to build housing faster so the tax revenue starts to flow in, but when the entire town burns down, they will have to pay more.
Santa Rosa still believes that they are taking the right course of action due to the "emotional distress" from the recovery of the wildfires. Do you agree?
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article227665284.html
It's ironic to me that in response to lost houses due to wildfires, they are lacking in building in a way that would protect from future fires. I understand the desire to rebuild quickly, but overlooking safety features for an event that has happened and could happen again, seems highly unreasonable. I wonder who has the power in this situation, who is rushing the process and overlooking these details.
ReplyDelete