David Bonowitz

Brilliant. Do we know who first published this analogy?

Points I might make (unless you advise against):
- Most of our 1920s-1960s multi-unit buildings are already single stair. A new single-stair bldg would be better than those.
- Losing the long corridor should make it possible to avoid shear wall openings, providing a more efficient lateral system.

The California fire marshal has created an email address for comments from the public on the legislatively mandated single-exit work group: SESworkgroup@fire.ca.gov

If you have any comments (any at all, whether particularly novel or not), please send them.

bsky.app/profile/dbon...

www.piet-mondrian.org/blue-facade....

In the 1970s, it was dogma that the building code yields “designs that have successfully withstood severe EQs in the past with little or no damage.” But I traced that claim for FEMA-355E: it came from a 1955 report on the 1952 Kern Co. EQ, which affected engineered bldgs from mostly the 1920s & 30s.

Look, the lying and corruption of DOJ are the main things, but don't we also kinda wish Dem cabinet members would show some of this backbone when subjected to pointless Senate grandstanding?

I said in 2021 that we needed more of a wartime consigliere.

Amazing -- it's going to be in a 1-story tilt-up (per the rendering)? Makes sense, tbh, the epitome of the form, optimized for functionality. No guest rooms, entertainment, etc., just parking and acres of money-siphoning technology worth far more than the building itself.

Yep, and my offer stands:
bsky.app/profile/dbon...

Yes, good news. Not sure who created the graphic, but it should clearly say "10/6" not "11/6," right?

I like this a lot. It's basically what I call Strategy 1, but with the attitude of Strategy 3 -- proactive resistance by the Govs & AGs who have majorities behind them. I also share Jeffery's concern at the end that it's far from clear whether it will work in time.
bsky.app/profile/dbon...

bsky.app/profile/dbon...

This is a good ruling for renewables -- maybe TOO good. The piece says PR is rejecting a return to storm-vulnerable fossil fuel plants, but renewables are vulnerable too, and Big Wind & Solar are fighting against hardening. If you want better renewables, support S55 & S57 at the hearings in 3 weeks.

I hear the Waldorf Astoria Washington DC, which used to be the Old Post Office and then became a venue for bribery & money laundering before being sold again in 2022, is nice.

I understand that members of the military are not allowed to criticize the Commander in Chief. But:
- Is there no faculty ready to remind these students that their FUTURE CiC could be a Democrat?
- If a Dem said this (I know, it's a tired hypothetical), Hegseth would expel any student who cheered.

Are you quizzing me? Or do you really not know what "presidential succession" means? Is there political downside for Ds? Maybe, but the upside is also a lot bigger than in 2021.

(Also, I think that's a low probability assumption.)

This will be my final post on this so as not to hijack the thread.

I get it, we don't have the votes in the Senate to convict. So what? When you're in the minority, you use the tools of the minority -- especially if the cause is fighting tyranny. And if you support the Constitution, you use the tools it provides, lest they atrophy (like 14A S3).

Yes, it CAN work, but this case seems odd compared with the other videos we've seen:
- He resists, which seems really risky, not recommended for everyone
- Helpers physically intervene to disrupt, also risky
- Only 2 ICE thugs? Normally there are 6 or more, no?

Meanwhile:
bsky.app/profile/dbon...

the plan is to let facts be submitted to a candid world (h/t TJ)

Also maybe the most productive (i.e. least destructive) way for Congress to spend 2027 if Dems can win back a House majority.

I will donate to any Dem candidate who makes it a core part of their message to say "Give us the votes and we WILL impeach him. Vance too."

bsky.app/profile/dbon...

bsky.app/profile/did:...

I agree with this too and have long advocated for more mitigation funding -- including by cities & states (e.g. CA is big enough that it shouldn't be relying on FEMA grants). Sadly, for now, states are fighting just to keep the crumbs they had.

But to get back to the original point: FEMA grants do (did) exist, and there are much better ways of helping them get distributed to the jurisdictions that most need them and can do the best with them. The current process is just too opaque and expensive, hence exclusive.

But mitigation is still primarily about safety, not resilience, and I do accept the benefit-cost politics of that (I work mostly in the earthquake world; it might be different for other perils).

Now you're talking my language, because I have been on the leading edge of trying to change that thinking, and I 100% agree that for FEMA to make "adopt the code" a centerpiece of its resilience strategy is thinking WAY too small ... even if there are places in the US that still don't do even that.

FEMA has mitigation grant programs that spend tens of millions of dollars every year -- or did until Noem illegally cancelled them with a press release. Yes, they are typically championed by bldg officials and engineers, less so by EMs, but top EMs know that mitigation & response work together.

Yes. I've argued the same for FEMA mitigation grants. Not only would it give new applicants a better chance & motivation to apply, it would also force the agency to tighten & simplify its criteria, and it would go a long way to reverse the regulatory capture that arises from administrative burden.

Adding orange cones & barrels to my list.
bsky.app/profile/dbon...

bsky.app/profile/dbon...