In situations like this I think we would have to ask that considering that CA in general has high fire risk compared to other regions of the country, are the right people and entities bearing the risk and shouldering the costs of development there appropriately? I should think a lot of people have a vested interest in blaming PG&E, but if a completely ordinary event like a spark from a flat tire can cause a massive fire in the area that impacts a lot of human settlement directly, then someone is not assessing the risk of building and living there appropriately.

>then someone is not assessing the risk of building and living there appropriately.

This is the answer no one wants to hear.

For example almost 10 years ago Paradise almost burned. There was a grand jury review afterwards(that you can find online if you're willing to search some) that pointed out that the place was a tinderbox deathtrap and major changes needed to be implemented for safety.

The problem is populations in these places, along with most humans in general, like trees and shade and the idyllic beauty of nature. People would rather have a pine tree and bushes around their house, rather than a 100 foot cleared defensive parameter.

You are also leaving out environmentalists who fight against thinning and cutting down trees — source, the Angora fire in South Lake Tahoe, Canyon Creek complex in eastern Oregon, and many others. Playing politics and not acknowledging environmental lobby will not do anyone any good. If you know any actual foresters in the USFS, they will tell you as well because they are suid by environmentalists for stuff as simple as salvage logging.

California has indeed failed to update building codes to take into account fire danger, and would be unlikely either to enforce updated codes upon existing dwellings or to offer funding for people unable to afford safety improvements.

On the bright side, at the rate everything is catching on fire, bringing old flammable dwellings up to code won't be a problem for long.

Either NYT or WSJ (I forget) had some analysis for this after some of the fires. One of the cited reasons was that municipalities are fine building into sensitive areas, because it increases their tax base while the state shoulders the cost of fire prevention/fighting/etc.

That's a great example. 8 people died in the Carr fire. A tragedy. But is the driver of the RV with the flat tire guilty of 8 counts of manslaughter, to be locked away for the rest of their natural life? You might be inclined to say that is ridiculous! But just the other day, there were people calling for PG&E to stand trial for 86 counts of manslaughter.

It would not be so ridiculous if the driver had stopped somewhere and been warned that the conditions were dangerous and that the flat tire could start a fire then the driver decided to continue operation.

I dunno, that still sounds pretty ridiculous.

If you were that driver and charged with manslaughter I’m sure you would feel pretty upset at the injustice.