What About The Cabins That Burned?

There was an article in the LA Times yesterday that mentioned the plight of cabin owners in Big Tujunga Canyon, and how the same could happen to cabin owners in Big Santa Anita Canyon. When a cabin burns down, whether insured or not, it is "The Forest Service" that decides whether it can be rebuilt.

First I want to talk about cabin tracts like those in 'Big T' and Bouquet Canyon. Their problems are partially their own making. The Times article tells us that, in spite of the fact that the permits are for recreational residences, many live in the cabins full time. It says "They build porches, add above-ground pools and deck roofs with satellite dishes."

Residents in Tujunga scare off legitimate hikers and allow unfriendly dogs to run free. Cabins in Bouquet have carports filled with upholstered furniture and broken appliances. Both are infected with methamphetamine. They are like little pieces of Fontana that broke-off and wandered into the San Gabriels.

Naturally, I am not referring to ALL residents in the tracts. There are folks that use their cabins as intended: for weekends and holidays, but many in these types of cabin tract resist the Forest Service regulations, at least. It is up to the "good ones" to work with the Forest Service to exact control over the degenerates. Of course, as my rants suggest, this may not be as easy for them as it sounds.

This brings me to the point of this post. The Forest Service is also, if not mostly, to blame for the condition of these cabin tracts. The current management of the Angeles National Forest does have a flimsy excuse in that they have inherited many of these problems. But no effort has been made to correct them. There are no patrols to monitor persistent residency, and the additions of "porches, above-ground pools and deck roofs with satellite dishes" abound with impunity.

So what is the most advantageous solution to all of this? Fire! I am not suggesting, not in this post, that anyone would turn a blind eye to a home in peril. But when a problem cabin tract burns, some authorities may think that they could save themselves a lot of headaches by simply saying "NO" to rebuilding. The subtitle of the article gives a hint as to their future reasoning: "Residents of lodges on federal land need fire risk assessments before they can return to their secluded sanctuaries after the Station fire." The 'fire risk assessment' will surely state that the area is too dangerous to build within and that they only want to save lives from future disaster.

I am not offering here an opinion on the rebuilding of Big T, just a little insight and a prognostication as to how it's gonna go down.