How much protection?
Read "Let Malibu Burn" http://www.rut.com/mdavis/letmalibuburn.html (right click to open in new window or save to your computer!) and/or The Grandview Arms editorial on our Blackboard website. Then post your ideas on the following:
What is the role of government in fire protection? What is the role of the individual? What is the role of the insurance company? How much protection should be provided? Who should pay for it? Your thoughts?
posted by Mrs. Freeman at 10:47 AM
19 Comments:
The role of government in fire protection should be to enforce fire safety regulations on apartment buildings, public buildings, and place of business. I don't think the government has much of a roll with private citizens in there homes as it pertains to regulations beyond building codes at the time of construction. The individual has the right to government protection when they are living in an apartment or working in a business or they are in a public place. Individuals have a responsibility for themselves when they choose to live in an area that is historicaly prone to fire.
I have thought about those people in Malibu before and I think it should be up to them to live there on their own dime once the danger has been explained. It bugs me to think that they get government assistance to rebuild in an area that will be burnt out in a few years. The news is filled every year or so with the "tragedies" that take place in that area. I don't see them as tragedies I see them as what you expect to happen when you build your house in the middle of a high risk fire area.
In my mind it is the same as buying a house next to LAX and then complaining about jet noise and wanting tax payers to pay for your sound wall. I think not.
7:54 PM
As Daniel said, the residents of Malibu are well aware of the dangers of living there. At this point you have to weigh the risk versus the benefit. It is definitely one of the most beautiful places in California, but as more homes are built, they are infringing on nature. The more they build in the wildland areas, the greater the risk.
I believe the government set a standard in 1956 when they gave incentives of tax relief, lower interest loans and lowered the fire code restrictions in an effort to rebuild. This is, in my opinion, a bad standard because more homes will be built with the expectations that if/when they burn down, they will be rebuilt at a low cost to the homeowner.
I believe the homeowner should pay for the homes if they burn. They are risking alot for a beautiful view. History repeats itself, and has repeated itself frequently in Malibu, and the homeowner should be responsible for knowing that.
11:06 AM
The role of the government in fire protection is to provide aid to those disaster areas that are in need of it. However I dont really agree with it. The individual (owner) knew of the risk of living in Malibu. However the owner decides to take the risk and then wants sympathy and support when his property burns down. Well its the owner's fault for being naive.
The role of the insurance companies is to help owners get back on thier feeet when a disaster happens. Since living in a high risk area I think insurance should be extremely high for the home owner. I also believe that the home owners should pay for thier loses.
8:25 PM
The responsibility for protection in a situation like this should be one of cooperation, by all parties involved. Enforcement should be viewed from local government, homeowner, and insurance companies equally. It is not the job of the EMS system to decide who to help and who not to help. It is there to protect the public regardless of the situation. In a situation such as this the homeowner must understand that by living in such an area they put not only their lives at risk, but also those that are required by law to 'save' them. The insurance companies should also recognize this danger and take this into account when setting up their premiums for insurance. Finally, the local government is also responsible, for allowing this community to develop in such a manner. Laws are developed to impede such problems but when they are 'bent', the consequences must be met equally.
Protection should be provided to the fullest extent of safe operating conditions, by trained personnel. Protection should not be afforded by homeowners with garden hoses. This only complicates the dire situation and makes matters worse.
7:07 PM
The role of the government plays a huge part in fire prevention. If the government deemed the land unsuitable to live in, then we wouldn't be losing homes and lives during fires in Malibu. THe government, like they said in the article, realized the inevtiable disaster that would keep occuring in Malibu, yet did nothing to stop the builiding of homes there. I think all the fault is on the government for letting the building of homes occur.
Since that could not be stopped, I then think it is on the shoulders of the homeowners to decide they want to live their. If they want to take the risk let them.
With that being the case i think any damage dealt during fires in Malibu should be paid for by a combination of Homeowner, and Fire Insurance. The reason for this being that, since the government will allow homes to be built there, Insurance companies should cover the homes there. Also since it is the perogative of the person who wants to live in such a dangerous place, they should be held responsible for at least half of the cost when their home goes up in a blaze. I don't think homeowners should be completely at fault, because the government demmed it livable, and the insurance company is involved, because this is what they get paid for.
10:44 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10:45 AM
The role of the goverment in fire protection should provide equal help to all those who are in need, but repetitive restitution and aid should restricted. Tax breaks, aid in rebuilding, etc, should have a limit to those who live in these fire prone areas.
Insurance companies are private enterprises that charge premiums based on the areas these residents and businesses live in, therefore their role is based on these policies paid for. If no insurance is paid for in these area of fire history, the responsibility should be placed on the owners who habitat these zones.
These situations are similiar to residents who want beach front property that have to deal with storms and flooding. Take responsibily through purchase of insurance or pay the consequences of living in these areas.
2:36 PM
The government role in fire protection should be to enforce the safety regulations on all public buildings like; apartments, stores, restaurants, and business places. But the role of an individual should be regulating or monitoring his/her place for safety. With a public building there should be maximal protection provided. But with a private building, it should be up to the owner of his/her property. I believe that the bill should go to the individual, not the government. The government doesn't tell you where you should leave, so if the individual wants to live in a dangerous area then they should be aware of the consequences.
11:29 PM
The role of government in fire protection is, as Daniel mentions, "to enforce fire safety regulations" and to make the public aware of the dangers that face them everyday. I believe it is up to the individual, whom may own their own property/residence, to take the responsibility of acting upon the knowledge attained to better themselves and their situation at their own will. I don't believe the government should interfere in this matter of residencies unless it is ghastly apparent that an individual is putting their and others lives on the line in a blatant manner. Regarding insurance companies, I believe that insurance companies have little to no role in deciding anything but whether or not they'd like to invest in your dwelling and your competence level. In regarding to whom should pay, I believe that if you voluntarily build or purchase a residence in a high risk area, and insurance companies will not take a chance on you, that you are responsible for paying every cent of damage that you may acquire.
12:06 AM
I do believe that the government does need to play some what of a role in the fact that this is a major occurance that will put peoples lives at risk. they need to recognize when majority of the fires occured and during red flag days make that area high alert and place fire departments on stand by. But majority of the responsibility is with the home owners. since they decided to live in that area they need to take every precaution they can such as clearing a wide area of brush around your house.
The insurance companies have little role in the fact that they relize that malibu is risk so they are not going to want to help the owners as much. When it comes to who should pay it should be the owners for majority of the money because they realize the risk and they didn't take precautions. Protection for malibu should be at the highest level because lives are at risk and these fire don't only affect malibu it affects the surrounding citys as well.
1:12 PM
The government has an obligation to protect its citizens from fire and life hazards. This is why we have fire and police departments. However, it’s also the individual’s responsibility to use good judgment to protect themselves as well. In the example of the Grandview Arms, the city has an obligation to enforce the building and fire codes to protect those citizens that can’t afford to go anywhere else. It was Mrs. Sanchez’ responsibility to leave that place (if she could) when she realized it wasn't safe. At the very least she could have notified the proper authorities.
The insurance companies have a responsibility to protect their investment (premiums). They are obligated to prevent losses that would take from their profits. Simply put, an insurance company is just another business that is out to make money.
I believe that the person or persons that have the highest liability are the owners. They have the ultimate obligation to protect the occupants of their buildings. They should pay for fire insurance and be proactive in solving any issues that may arise. The Fire Departments also have to make sure that these buildings are safe. However, it’s extremely important that the tenant advised the authorities of the problems. How else are they going to know about them?
1:48 PM
The government has an obligation to protect its citizens from fire and life hazards. This is why we have fire and police departments. However, it’s also the individual’s responsibility to use good judgment to protect themselves as well. In the example of the Grandview Arms, the city has an obligation to enforce the building and fire codes to protect those citizens that can’t afford to go anywhere else. It was Mrs. Sanchez’ responsibility to leave that place (if she could) when she realized it wasn't safe. At the very least she could have notified the proper authorities.
The insurance companies have a responsibility to protect their investment (premiums). They are obligated to prevent losses that would take from their profits. Simply put, an insurance company is just another business that is out to make money.
I believe that the person or persons that have the highest liability are the owners. They have the ultimate obligation to protect the occupants of their buildings. They should pay for fire insurance and be proactive in solving any issues that may arise. The Fire Departments also have to make sure that these buildings are safe. However, it’s extremely important that the tenant advised the authorities of the problems. How else are they going to know about them?
1:49 PM
The government has an obligation to protect its citizens from fire and life hazards. This is why we have fire and police departments. However, it’s also the individual’s responsibility to use good judgment to protect themselves as well. In the example of the Grandview Arms, the city has an obligation to enforce the building and fire codes to protect those citizens that can’t afford to go anywhere else. It was Mrs. Sanchez’ responsibility to leave that place (if she could) when she realized it wasn't safe. At the very least she could have notified the proper authorities.
The insurance companies have a responsibility to protect their investment (premiums). They are obligated to prevent losses that would take from their profits. Simply put, an insurance company is just another business that is out to make money.
I believe that the person or persons that have the highest liability are the owners. They have the ultimate obligation to protect the occupants of their buildings. They should pay for fire insurance and be proactive in solving any issues that may arise. The Fire Departments also have to make sure that these buildings are safe. However, it’s extremely important that the tenant advised the authorities of the problems. How else are they going to know about them?
1:49 PM
The role of the government for fire protection should be enforced on any buidling structure that people will occupy. Personal homes are the individuals responsiblility who live there. Public structures rely on the government and codes.
I agree with Daneil, when you live in a place that has had fire problems before, you should not be surprised if it happens again. At any moment a fire could start there, its happened before why can't it happen again. If you don't want to take the risk of having your place be in jeopardy then don't live in that area. It pretty much comes down to the point that there are a lot of dumb people in society.
2:58 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
3:07 PM
The role of the government in fire protection is to enforce rules and regulations in order to prevent fires. The home owner knew theat they were living in a place with high potiental of being a fire... therefore they should have bought fire insurance. The role of insurance, in this case fire insurance would be to pay for any loss or damages that happened during a fire. So if they person knew that they were living in a place that is at high risk for having a fire then the person should have bought fire insurance. If they didn't buy insurance then the indivual should be stuck paying for the damages done to their home.
3:14 PM
I agree with what the majority has said about the ideas on fire protection, being that, the government should initiate by making building regulations, codes and promotions toward fire safety. The government looks out for the people as a whole. They create builing codes so that there is a set standard which should be a platform that everybody can build off on the individual level. The individual should take leadership from there and be responsible to provide an even safer work and living area.
In terms of living in a higher risk area. If insurance companies would like to have full coverage for these fire disasters, then the rates should be much higher for those individuals. The government should acknowledge these tragedies when they happen, but again it should be the responsiblitiy of the individual to understand that living in a "High Risk" area actually means there is a High risk of loss.
11:07 PM
I believe that the role of government in fire protection should be to inform and protect the community. First off, the government should be responsible for ensuring that fire codes and regulations, especially in the fire rich areas such as malibu, are strictly upheld. Secondly, when fires occur the government should be responsible for sending aid in the form of protection (firefighters), and financial aid (FEMA, tax relief).
I think the role of the individual is to ensure that they are taking the initiative to follow all the fire codes and regulations, such as providing a clearing and maintaining the brush surrounding their property.
Lastly, I think that the insurance companies should help provide for the damages, after all that is what insurance is purchased for. However, very thorough investigations should be performed to ensure that the victims were actually in line with the fire codes and regulations and that the best efforts to protect their homes were provided. However, it seems silly to me that homes are continually reconstructed in areas where fire is imminent. Perhaps a much much higher premium is charged for those homes, or less aid is provided. If it isn't that way, it should be.
11:19 PM
I am in agreement with many of the others here regarding the role of the government in fire protection. The federal and local governments should provide building and fire codes that they should enforce and the public be required to adhere to. The government also has the responsibility to provide fire suppresion and protection to defend lives and property regardless of income level.
However, if an individual chooses to reside in an area of high risk that individual should be totally reponsible for all damages and not receive financial support from city, state, or federal government.
Insurance companies should offer insurance to residents in high fire risk communities, at high risk prices. In these situations it is not a matter of if fire is going to occur but when it will occur.
8:14 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home