Letters to the Editor: Not rebuilding in burned areas isn’t a solution to wildfires

Saddleridge fire
Firefighters conduct mop-up work Saturday in Sylmar after the Saddleridge fire burned through the area .
(Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: As a Tujunga resident living only a block away from the undeveloped foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, I have respect for the danger we are in whenever the winds come out in force. (“Saddleridge fire’s rapid spread left residents little time to get out,” Oct. 12)

However (and God forbid), if this area were to burn and later be kept off-limits to redevelopment, then this would become the new “wildland,” and the areas to the south of us would inevitably become the new “urban-wildland interface.”

Under this scheme, where exactly would this shifting of areas acceptable for development end?


Every city that has ever existed in human history, by its nature, consists of an urban area surrounded by “wildland.” We should be wary of any thinking that places the blame of our cities burning on the fact that our cities have edges.

Sean LaPointe, Tujunga


To the editor: Maybe TV news programs feel they are simply helping residents prepare for possible wildfires when they constantly warn that it’s “fire weather” and make note of particularly vulnerable areas that could easily burn.

But to a would-be arsonist, surely this is like catnip.

Yes, many recent wildfires have resulted from accidental ignition because of human recklessness or malfunctioning power lines. But arson is always something to worry about.

There must be a better way to warn residents without highlighting target zones.

David Avshalomov, Santa Monica


To the editor: The Dodgers lost. The Rams and Chargers lost. The USC Trojans lost. The UCLA Bruins would have lost if they had played last weekend.


The fires are back. Homeless people are everywhere.

Still, it’s great to be here.

Louis Dawson, Los Angeles