01-12-2025, 07:28 PM
This post was last modified 01-12-2025, 07:58 PM by IdeomotorPrisoner. Edited 4 times in total. 
Just Indulge me, if they had sufficient funding. Were not short staffed, and had every reservoir filled or hydrant working, what would have changed?
We'd still have a burned Palisades and Altadena. Still would have lost the fight. Even the best funded fight. While we will never know, I think it's irrelevant to the outcome that happened, and something that needs to be addressed after the fact.
Fires for Southern California are in September through December and may pop back up in May. Never seen a major fire event in January in 18 years. Usually mudslides are right now.
From Google AI.
It's outside normal climate behavior to have the pressure centers set up like The end of the monsoon in January.
The climate plays a greater role than a even a woefully underfunded LAFD. It's a shame this happened in a drought after record rainfall, it really is.
Blame the atmospheric rivers. It refilled the lakes, flooded farmland, and then dried out during the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD.
No matter what circumstances LAFD was in, and I think even if they had a full reservoir, the outcome and loss isn't lessened the slightest bit.
Like covid after it was out, nothing done or not done would change the seemingly deterministic outcome.
LA was always going to burn to the same ravaging extent.
All the water in the world and hundreds of extra firefighters isn't doing shit if you can't stay positioned in an offensive position against the fire. It's a false dilemma because nothing was stopping it.
So while LAs inadequacies may be fact and without debate, and put under a retrospective microscope, it's not changing the outcome, nor would it have.
So it's once again, "misinformation". LA being inept and the fire being beyond ability to stop can both be true simultaneously.
And maybe the Chief will get her funding back? Maybe scrutiny will get new stations built? Hydrants up to code?
Good on her if she does, but it's wasn't changing the outcome damage-wise to any large degree.
She's in a better position because her city failed her department, because if hey didn't, she would be getting roasted as the DEI hire that was unqualified to lead in the crisis when everything still burned.
Because the same thing would have happened. No matter the preparedness people are still running down a hill and jumping in the ocean to escape it.
The inadequate support the city gave her is better saved for the congressional inquiry.
We'd still have a burned Palisades and Altadena. Still would have lost the fight. Even the best funded fight. While we will never know, I think it's irrelevant to the outcome that happened, and something that needs to be addressed after the fact.
Fires for Southern California are in September through December and may pop back up in May. Never seen a major fire event in January in 18 years. Usually mudslides are right now.
From Google AI.
Quote:The region sees about 10 Santa Ana wind events a year on average, typically occurring from fall into January.
It's outside normal climate behavior to have the pressure centers set up like The end of the monsoon in January.
The climate plays a greater role than a even a woefully underfunded LAFD. It's a shame this happened in a drought after record rainfall, it really is.
Blame the atmospheric rivers. It refilled the lakes, flooded farmland, and then dried out during the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD.
No matter what circumstances LAFD was in, and I think even if they had a full reservoir, the outcome and loss isn't lessened the slightest bit.
Like covid after it was out, nothing done or not done would change the seemingly deterministic outcome.
LA was always going to burn to the same ravaging extent.
All the water in the world and hundreds of extra firefighters isn't doing shit if you can't stay positioned in an offensive position against the fire. It's a false dilemma because nothing was stopping it.
So while LAs inadequacies may be fact and without debate, and put under a retrospective microscope, it's not changing the outcome, nor would it have.
So it's once again, "misinformation". LA being inept and the fire being beyond ability to stop can both be true simultaneously.
And maybe the Chief will get her funding back? Maybe scrutiny will get new stations built? Hydrants up to code?
Good on her if she does, but it's wasn't changing the outcome damage-wise to any large degree.
She's in a better position because her city failed her department, because if hey didn't, she would be getting roasted as the DEI hire that was unqualified to lead in the crisis when everything still burned.
Because the same thing would have happened. No matter the preparedness people are still running down a hill and jumping in the ocean to escape it.
The inadequate support the city gave her is better saved for the congressional inquiry.