My turn for a rant. Or maybe two.
As some of you may have heard, there were a number of homes in my area that were damaged or destroyed this past weekend in the LA area due to mudslides caused by the latest storm. Here's a video showing some of the damage:
Now the rant(s)...
In the video, Mrs. Sclafani (the blonde resident who lost her home) seems to feel the city (or someone) is responsible for the damage to her house. She's downright indignant about the fact that her house was not protected any better than it was. Well, I hate to break the news to her, but when you live in a house on a hill at the edge of the National Forest, stuff happens. Fires. Floods. Mudslides. It comes with the territory. Yes, there are lots of men and women working to keep your house from harm, but there's no guarantee they can prevent it. Deal with it. Get over it. Move on.
I also live in a house on a hill at the edge of the National Forest. But I accept the fact that stuff happens, and if it happens to me, I'll deal with it, get over it, and move on. And when I bought this house, I tried to make sure it wasn't in an obviously high-risk location. In the video, you'll notice houses that are built below the street level. That's seldom an ideal location, but it's especially risky on a hill at the edge of a National Forest.
I get frustrated by the "entitled" people who insist on living in homes built on risky sites, but then they whine like a seized bearing whenever something bad happens to their house. I've heard that some of the residents near the fire zones are looking into suing someone (the state? the Forest Service?) because they feel the responsible parties didn't fight the fire as aggressively as the should have when it first started. Gimme a break. Just because you built on the edge of the National Forest doesn't obligate the state or Forest Service to guarantee you a fire-free life. Bob Stockbroker and Betty Homemaker should leave the fire fighting recommendations to the professionals.