Quote:
Originally Posted by juanbenae
agreed. im not blaming PG&E for doing what's right, but many of the suburban areas burnt the last couple years bumped up against open space or wildland susceptible terrain. in the list of areas to be effected I got from the PG&E website some of the proposed areas seem pretty precluded from the chance of wildfires. my place and region is completely understandable and will roll with it. to PG&E's credit there are tree trimmers working ALL over up here 7 days a week.
|
The lawyers are behind this BS, but PG&E are not angels either.
They are sending a message that if we bite the hands that feeds, they stop feeding.
Ain't right but what else they gonna do?
That reminds me of a time about 10 years ago in California.
USFS and CAL-FIRE fire wanted big ole increases in budget. the economy didn't support it, so they decided they'd show us.
Punish us, for not giving them whatever the heck they wanted.
Wild-fires hit and they were "rather restrained" in the response.
Small fires got big quickly while they watched from the sidelines, saying we told you so.
Eventually they got in the game but of course it was too late, the fires were way out of control.
Again, the thiefs-in-charge said we told you so, now give us the money!
It quietly back-fired on them (see what I did there?) and people at the top resigned after quietly being threatened with prosecution for manslaughter.
http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/07/30/the-politics-of-fire-suppression-did-bush-administration-budget-cuts-caused-bigger-wildfires/