Site search
sponsored by
News
Like most thorny issues, the controversy in the town of Breckenridge over defensible space has two sides that are easy to see. From the town's point of view, putting in more stringent rules about how close trees can be to homes is clearly a public safety issue. When fire strikes, it makes sense that homes without trees too close stand a better chance of surviving, and recent fires in California have shown defensible space efforts did indeed save a lot of homes.
For homeowners, though, the town's actions can appear too draconian — the kind of “nanny state” rules free-spirited Westerners love to hate. And there's no doubt that homeowners affected by the new rules will see some significant expense in adhering to them.
But we believe the town has done its due diligence on this one and has arrived at an ordinance that, in the long run, will benefit all the town's homeowners. The defensible space ordinance was not something the council rushed into or decided behind closed doors. The public had many opportunities to weigh in, and the council was deliberate and thoughtful when it came to addressing those concerns while meeting its obligation to the town as a whole.
In the West — and especially in beetle-kill areas such as ours — the growing number of homes built within the forest interface has made defensible space rules essential. One house adjacent to the forest that goes up in flames endangers all others in the area, so it's not just a question of an individual property owner's rights to do as he wants with his land. And, ultimately, it's the taxpayers at large who bear the brunt of the expense fighting structural fires that may have prevented.
The 5-2 vote in Breckenridge underlies the fact that this is not a perfect ordinance, and perhaps more tweaking will occur in the future. As we continue to gird against the fires we can be almost assured will eventually come, however, the time isn't far away when Breckenridge will be seen as a pioneer in this arena -- and rules of this sort will be the norm across the mountain West.
For homeowners, though, the town's actions can appear too draconian — the kind of “nanny state” rules free-spirited Westerners love to hate. And there's no doubt that homeowners affected by the new rules will see some significant expense in adhering to them.
But we believe the town has done its due diligence on this one and has arrived at an ordinance that, in the long run, will benefit all the town's homeowners. The defensible space ordinance was not something the council rushed into or decided behind closed doors. The public had many opportunities to weigh in, and the council was deliberate and thoughtful when it came to addressing those concerns while meeting its obligation to the town as a whole.
In the West — and especially in beetle-kill areas such as ours — the growing number of homes built within the forest interface has made defensible space rules essential. One house adjacent to the forest that goes up in flames endangers all others in the area, so it's not just a question of an individual property owner's rights to do as he wants with his land. And, ultimately, it's the taxpayers at large who bear the brunt of the expense fighting structural fires that may have prevented.
The 5-2 vote in Breckenridge underlies the fact that this is not a perfect ordinance, and perhaps more tweaking will occur in the future. As we continue to gird against the fires we can be almost assured will eventually come, however, the time isn't far away when Breckenridge will be seen as a pioneer in this arena -- and rules of this sort will be the norm across the mountain West.
