Post-disaster recovery and illegal structures [was: This is a fascinating question]

[Richmond Jake]

What would your community do after a disaster like this under these circumstances? I worked there and know the players.

The comments section at the end of the article are also revealing.

Many structures lost in Summit Fire were illegal

CORRALITOS -- More than half of the homes and buildings destroyed by last month's Summit Fire were built illegally, according to preliminary reviews by county planners and state fire officials.

Surveys of the burned mountainsides above Watsonville are revealing mobile homes set in canyons where no roads go and cabins hidden on remote bluffs as well as the occasional school bus outfitted with solar panels and even a water tower turned bunk house, all constructed without authorization.

"For some of the people living out there it's a lifestyle decision, for others it's an economic decision," said Tom Burns, head of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, who is helping organize teams to survey damage from the 4,270-acre blaze.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_9585591

Thread title changed. Use descriptive titles outside the FAC. Thanks and carry on.

[mike gurnee]

What does the community want? If half were built improperly, someone seems to not care.

In Greensburg, KS they are not allowed back. Yard variations are excused (you could build back on the original foundation for one year after the tornado). A survey is required for all new construction. The year has passed; all have to meet the codes now. A former 4-space mobile home "park" cannot be re-established. The community made a commitment to build back better than before.

[Queen B]

I guess we will find out. The Tornado that hit Chapman was 97% in the floodplain. The only real building that was out was the High School. Otherwise everyone was in. They pretty much know it is in the floodplain. They just don't understand what it takes to build back. It could be so much better if they would build on the hill.

[Otis]

I would apply the ordinance, knowing that once the brush grows back the illegal homes will return, too. It's a way of life in Santa Cruz County.

[Gedunker]

After our flood in 1997, 30 or so squatter homes along the Ohio were damaged beyond replacement. For, really, just a small amount of money, our Natural Resources department could have bought them out and secured the land. We -- the city -- were in no position to do so, either fiscally or in will -- so the state really, really needed to be the guys.

Nope, they wouldn't do it. The squatters cleaned and repaired as best they could and reoccupied all sans permits. Maybe next time we flood they'll have more cajones or we'll have more money.

As to the cited story, I think it a bit much to say that these people were there simply because the planning/permitting process was too difficult to maneuver. Somebody living in a converted lumber shack doesn't want to maneuver any social relationship norms, let alone the permitting process. Evidence the fact that they've left without a trace.

[Gotta Speakup]

People who arent from around there should understand the geography/geology of the area. Two million people live on the flat lands around these mountains. The valley and coastal plain are flat and basically at sea level. Then suddenly the mountains rise up to over 4000 feet and are covered with forest and dense brush. So the hills (as we called them) are so rugged that it is impossible to keep an eye on what is going on. Add to that the strong independence streak of the area and this is what you get.

[The District]

how do you get a mobile home up into such a rugged area without a road? it's one thing to get your 4x4 into a place like that, but to haul a mobile home back there?