Opinion: A combustible mix: Homeowners and wildfires
- Share via
To the editor: Ray Rasker’s article is well researched and well presented. However, this issue is an old burger patty that’s been flipped way too many times. It was belabored in 1961 after the Bel Air fire, and has been hashed over every time homes have been lost since.
(“Make cities pay for wild fires,” Opinion, Sept. 1)
As I see it, the issue is a combination of the pressure to build where it’s patently dangerous, and buyers who mostly are new to the area and don’t understand that the hills are flammable. All the well-meaning articles from authoritative sources aren’t going to change a thing.
Lincoln Gable Riley, Culver City
::
To the editor: This is one of the most intelligent approaches to keep fires and the increased devastation to a minimum. As the population increases, we need to take alternatives to building so close to or in wooded areas. This will also be a positive for the wildlife we humans keep encroaching upon. I would urge every city council and every board of supervisors in the West to read this and put it into play.
Maureen McFadden, Santa Barbara
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
