The houses built/ rebuilt in fire-prone areas like wooded hills and valleys should have strict fire building codes like metal siding and fire-proof roofs. This will only happen again someday and we have to spend billions in fire-fighting costs and insurance increases because of these foolish people. Fire is a necessary part of the forest cycle in this part of the US. Hopefully we'll learn a lesson from this.

Maybe the solution is really to create a stock of community-owned housing where these people can live. The subsidy granted to victims of the fire could be standardized, so it's not like you get a little money if your house was worth 100k, and a lot if it was 400k. You should get a flat amount, and a right to live in free or subsidized housing in the meantime.

...houses, johnk?

Why not just build dormitories?

You can force people to live in identical little boxes. Wouldn't you like that, since you're deciding what's best for these people?

I've got the best solution of all...people can live where they damn well want to live, restricted only by zoning laws. They can build as big a house as they can afford, and they can build it out of whatever materials they want. They can further pay the required insurance premiums.

What is it with you people, having to tell people how they have to live all the time?

What makes you think you're qualified to run other people's lives?

how i dont mind if the Federal government wants to run our life.

Patriot act....?

who cares.

Search our mail?

So what...

national ID card to keep track of us

I AM JUST A FUCKING HYPOCRITE

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

That was a stupid suggestion. Nobody wants to live in "community housing". People want to live where they want and how they want.

The suggestion of fire-proofing houses is not objectionable.

nonanarchist - what's with that eruption of rage? I was talking about the fire victims, as a temporary measure. And dorms do sound nice. Kibbutz style until the houses are built.

As it is, there's this attitude, at least when dealing with property losses, that the government should divvy up resources based not on what people need, but on the value of the property before it was destroyed.

If I had my druthers, and I were some kind of powerful government type person, I'd just issue people big tents, lumber, and tools, and tell them how to build sheds to live in.