Debates of Distraction
Debates of Distraction
Our Inability to See the Incendiary for the Spark
This chapter presents two debates that illustrate how key decision-makers become mired in ideologically contentious disagreements, and how these issues distract nearly all parties from directly addressing the systemic causes of fire risk at the wildland-urban interface. A first example explores contemporary debates over eucalyptus management in the Oakland and Berkeley hills. Disagreements over the flammability of eucalyptus and their nonnative status divert attention away from broader social processes: mechanisms of development that actually drive fire vulnerability (and the premise of these very debates) in the first place. A second case explores yet another ideological battleground, this time pitting private property rights advocates concerned with controlling their own fire protection against those advocating for greater public agency involvement. City fire mitigation fees have produced a contentious proxy debate that forestalls other important discussions, such as whether to build more homes at all and whether to shift fire mitigation efforts from adaptation to growth minimization.
Keywords: wildland-urban interface, eucalyptus management, fire vulnerability, property rights, fire protection, fire mitigation fees, Oakland Hills Tunnel Fire
California Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.
