LA Fires Underscore the Risks of "Living with Nature" and of Urban Sprawl

The news is full of the fires in Los Angeles, which makes my blood run cold. September fires—often riled by Santana Winds which seem not to be blowing now—were a feature of my San Diego childhood. We lived in town, near the ocean, but that did not prevent the skies from growing dark with smoke several times as wildfires raged in the back country.

But the question arises, as firefighters try to stop these fires from destroying houses and to rescue people who stubbornly refused to leave, why do people build in areas where fires have been a normal part of the ecologicl process for ever? And why should anyone risk his or her life to rescue them?

Urban sprawl is part of the reason for houses being built in dangerous country. People want to get away from their neighbors, want to be “close to nature,” as I heard one man say on the CBC’s As It Happens program last night. I understand the desire, but building in the middle of dry forests is big risk and doesn’t do much for nature itself.

When Mt. Saint Helens erupted nearly 30 years ago, one man refused to leave. Harry Truman was in his 80s and said when he was warned to get out that he thought it would be a good place to die. He was a man who understood what nature was, and the risks involved in living close to it. Too bad the fools who want to “protect” their dangerous homesteads don’t think the same.