-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I mean, if he wanted to be wrong and irresponsible this is what he would do. It’s basically the same as the disastrous federal policy for the last 40 years (even after the success of the EPA in the 70s showed how flawed this was)
- 17 more replies
-
-
-
Judging be list are you only looking at wildfire and landslide hazards? Any approach should recognize the flooding and liquefaction issues we'll have to contend with in other areas.
-
Yes! I am also *very* interested in this. Most of our high density development in recent decades has been in liquefaction zones.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But seriously folks... Here's a great similar thread which, amid the vitriol, has good policy prescriptions. Many mentioned here: denser development in safer areas, re-evaluate a century of fire suppression (which I believe has been an ongoing discussion)https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/1064722782557073408 …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
Following bc I have no idea
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Fire insurance red zoning updates. No insurance = no mortgage = little/no building.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.