By Scanner Andrew
Report of two brush fires starting. One near Hwy 101 SB at Arrellaga, second fire is near Castillo & Carrillo
Two Brush Fires off Highway 101
ScannerAndrew
May 23, 2021, 10:05 am
6.1k Views
19 Comments
Written by ScannerAndrew
Comments
0 Comments deleted by Administrator
Leave a Review or Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Edney – Maybe I misunderstood that CMKR implied that homeless camps start “massive wildfires”. The LA news says a homeless person started the paradise fire by arson with multiple sets, but the person “does not live in an encampment in the fire zone”. Just wanted clarity on the ignition situation.
Look up Gould Park and Parma park and let me know who is going to hold the city and county liable for fuel during the Tea Fire and all the fuel in Rattlesnake, Mission Canyon and Jesusita area that burned in the Jesusita fire.
Oh. So in the Tea Fire and the Jesusita Fire they went after the people who started the fires. They even sued the maker of the Jesusita weed wackers for not putting big enough fire warnings on the labels.
Fuel owned by City, County, State and Feds? Nope.
By the way, if you look at hills grazed by goats, they usually stick to grasses and low soft shrubs. They will eat chapparral sprayed by molasses but that is hard to do on a hill as steep as TV hill. At Parma park they stuck to the grasses and left so big patched of stuff they don’t like.
The slope behind SB Tennis club from intersection of Tremonto and W. Mountain down to the back of the club was done a few months ago and the goats just ate grasses and bypassed most everything else.
I suppose now that the TV hill is burned it could be maintained by goats going forward, but the science say goats are not good for the native environment because endangered species look like lunch to them and they poop out the seeds of nonnatives… we believe in science right?
Only YOU can prevent mentally ill drug addicts from driving the property values down.
So that’s three fires reported last night, including the one in the Rose Garden (reported in a separate post here on Edhat this morning). Previously, it was a few fires a week, and now it’s a few every day. What on Earth is going on here that the city has allowed this situation to develop and worsen markedly in this way, with no definitive action whatsoever? Their inaction speaks volumes…they obviously don’t care anything about the city or its residents, or something would have been done years ago. Furthermore, this never would have been allowed to occur decades ago, and I can’t imagine why it is happening now. We have sundowner winds in the forecast as well, so I want to thank the City again for leaving all of us to live in fear of another major fire for no good reason. Personally, after the devastating personal losses I have suffered recently, this is just an unbelievable, incredibly stressful, totally unnecessary burden that I and others are constantly forced to carry. I have been forced to evacuate three times during the three major fires in the past fifteen years and forced to live in fear of dozens of minor blazes that had the potential to quickly become significant threats, in addition to the myriad of smaller fires daily. And all of this after being traumatized in a wildfire as a child as well. I would like to warn the city that the magnitude of my personal lawsuit and the no doubt enormous class-action suit that will occur if my home and other homes are destroyed as part of another massive wildfire caused by the homeless will be unprecedented, and I will see to it that we are victorious in this lawsuit, no matter how long it may take. I was one of the first plaintiffs to recover from the Thomas Fire, and I am absolutely prepared to do it again.
Is this crap getting old yet? Asking for OUR community.
CMKR, as rioters in the 1960’s would chant: “BURN BABY, BURN!” My chant going forward for you: “SUE BABY, SUE!”
Suing the city just displaces the cost to tax-payers including those who agree with you entirely. The suits should be aimed at policy makers. Take away their indemity. If they had “skin in the game” they’d make and enforce laws that safe-guard public interests not undermine them.
I agree with idea of using litigation to help address this problem. Any land that looks like the burned portion of tv hill did prior to the fire, severely overgrown, is going to burn. It’s a matter of when, not if. The west side of the hill did not burn because goats are used on a regular basis to clear the weeds and brush. Property maintenance prevents these types of fires, and property neglect makes these fires possible. If your home is located near land that is neglected and overgrown, write a letter to the owner of the land demanding they clear it for fire safety. Whether the land is privately or publicly owned, find out who is responsible for it and put them on notice that they will be liable if they fail to clear the hazardous fuel from their property and the resulting fire causes damage to your property. I think this approach would motivate a lot of much needed property maintenance that would make our community a lot safer.
CMKR – on what legal theory/cause of action, will your lawsuit against the City of SB be based if a homeless person starts a fire? This should be interesting….
Better question is why over the past 60 years since Reagan was forced by ACLU to shut down state care institutions, the Democrats who have been in power and even super-majority power for the past 20 years have done absolutely nothing to remedy what went wrong after the failed ACLU mandated mental health institution shutdowns. They in fact grew the problem with their failed “progressive” agenda.
The state care insitution shutdown 60 years ago came about due to bleeding heart liberals who thought One Flew Over the CooCoo’s Nest was a documentary and BigPharm who promised they had cured mental illness – Reagan in fact played no role in this ensuing debacle.
Who has prevented Democrats, who now have long had total power in all state matters, from brining an end to this misguided nonsense?
Just when you think the peanut gallery here at Edhat cant get any more questionable, this morning I log in to see Pit, Sac, Chip and VOR push that level down a few notches… LOL. You people are incredible. One might even say that you’re “exceptional”.
Sac, I don’t think it’s relevant who or what starts the fire. Leaving property covered in overgrown brush and weeds is extremely dangerous. The energy stored in a cord of firewood is equivalent to over 100 gallons of diesel fuel. Just imagine the energy stored in the brush that burned on tv hill. It was the equivalent of thousands of gallons of diesel, and the flames we saw that night are testament to that fact. If the person or legal entity that owns a property decides to accumulate vegetative fuel, we must recognize the liability is comparable to maintaining an open pool of fuel oil.
You’re right. Let’s outlaw grasses, plants, brush and trees. Also let’s make sure to outlaw wood and every petroleum based product on the market and anything that is flammable. We should all live in glass, steel and concrete houses with plastic fake fireproof plants and only use low voltage lighting and appliances which cannot produce a spark or any ignition… Because the problem isnt the negligent source of fire, its the fact that fire burns stuff.
SBOBSERVER – yet here you are……
What’s a “negligent source of fire?”
It’s ok – the city will create a committee that some day will meet and talk about the issue for a few minutes.
Lots of downvotes but no answers. How do you sue the city if a homeless person (not in the City’s employ) starts a fire? People keep saying they’re going to do it, but how?
SACJON, at some point when a problem is persistent and pervasive and known to the city and they are derelict in their duties to minimize risk to others they become negligent and liable. Sort of like, if an intersection is known to be bad and they don’t install lights [like the did at Arrellaga and DLV intersection finally, and the 4 way stop at Arrellaga and Bath – b/c of all the accidents. One or 2 more and they would be liable for a known nuisance or dangerous condition. At this point they may have crossed the dividing line into knowing the risk and doing little if anything about it. If they could install lights/signs at dangerous intersections they can do something about this, too.
ANDREA – a dangerous intersection is within the direct control amd responsibility of the City. Individual people are not.
Goats don’t eat chapparral unless it is sprayed with molasses and will only eat the soft material as high as they can reach.
The topography on the west side is gentler and grassier.
Climate activists are a bit inconsistent on this issues. Huge amounts of smoke released into the air by homeless fires-no big deal- Someone burning 4 sticks of wood in the fireplace? Poisoner of the atmosphere.
Plants provide oxygen and on steep slopes erosion control. But lets cut down the plants because certain groups of people need supervision. Arsonists and the high homeless. (some homeless are arsonists who like to burn out people they don’t want around) Someone is going to die in a homeless camp fire
LA City FD handles an average of 24 homeless camp fires a day