We can't keep pushing Californians into the wildland-urban interface with our exclusionary zoning policies. It is risking people's lives and our planet.https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1063490441025327104 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I get where this is coming from, and don’t disagree, but are the wildlife communities inhabited by folks who were excluded from urban locales? Paradise’s population has been consistent for decades.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RickPaulas
some of these people seem like they moved there from the Bay Area....https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/wildfire-victims.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I more mean that the pop of Paradise has stayed steady since at least 1990.pic.twitter.com/PgTsKcRqls
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RickPaulas
most Californian communities started controlling open space and housing unit growth in the 1970s and 1980s. I would guess that Paradise did the same, and is probably controlled & appreciating.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
So, that’s a case where exclusionary practices was... good, maybe? Is there a map of where’s acceptable and where isn’t, in terms of natural disaster risk?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RickPaulas
yes we should probably not have people be building out into high risk fire areas, but we should definitely increase density and allow more people to live in land that's more defensible.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted NatureEcoEvo
these are our options. California has been a fire risk zone... since before there were humans here so there's only so much we can change about that.https://twitter.com/NatureEcoEvo/status/1059470661951860736 …
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.