Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since fire hazard is the main reason for the thinning requirements, I was wondering where Ruidoso currently rates in Catastrophic Fire Hazard. In a 2000 study by the USFS, it ranked #2 in the US.......I know that a Forester has been hired since then, and proactive steps have been taken to prevent a major fire.....anybody know where Ruidoso rates as of 2014?
Welcome to living in a "fire forest". Low lever brush burning wild fires are the reason a old pine forest looks so neat with large widely spaced trees. Since man has intervened by building houses in the forests the natural removal of the brush and houses has been replaced with paid maintenance.
It matters little what some arbitrary rating system consigns if the threat of wildfire is not mitigated by more than simply thinning trees. Having witnessed what a high wind driven wildfire can do to relatively treeless areas is a lesson in just how little effect fire breaks have. If and when a major fire takes hold in the Upper Canyon area during the windy season, it's not hard to imagine it roaring into the central business district where many of the buildings have no little fire resistant construction. The prevailing wind is from the SW, which makes the Upper Canyon into a funnel for the conflagration.
I would make the analogy to an acetylene torch. When first lighted, it's just the gas burning and it won't hardly burn wood, much less melt metal. But turn up the oxygen, and the flame intensifies to the point where it will burn right through a steel plate. So too will high winds affect otherwise slow-burning forest fuels.
Realtors are under obligation to "disclose" this kind of information to buyers. I presume legal redress can be sought against realtors who fail their duty in this regard.
Following the first disastrous wildfires about 20 years ago, the village of Ruidoso hired a "Forester" who oversees the ordinances that "require" property owners to remove trees found to be too densely growing, trim off "ladder fuel" (low limbs) and generally clear out underbrush, etc. Regular residents pay a monthly "yard waste" fee in addition to a monthly garbage pickup fee. My "yard waste" fee is $4.00/mo. While I seldom have much yard waste, this is a surtax that goes toward paying the huge cost of maintaining grapple trucks and disposing of the waste, which is done year around on a regular schedule.
Inspection of properties by the Forestry Dept of the village has been done in a zone-wise manner so far. Depending on the size of the property, there may be available offsetting funds to relieve the landowner of the full burden of coming into compliance. I believe once the property is in compliance, it won't be re-inspected for five years.
Property owners that do no comply are faced with forced/involuntary clearing by the village and a lien placed on the property which will have to be satisfied before the land can be sold.
A realtor is not required to disclose anything. The seller is required to disclose any defect in the house or premises that would impact it's value, price or livability. It is up to the purchaser to do due diligence regarding rules, regulations, covenants and restrictions, ordinances, etc. of the property prior to purchasing it.
My advice to the OP is to find someone locally who will do this work at a fraction of the cost. The people who "arrange" these services usually get kickbacks from the people they contract with and vastly over charge homeowners who have no alternative. I'm sure you can find a guy who will keep your property looking tidy for much less.
I doubt a new study has been done. But in spite of efforts to mitigate risk, the hazard is still there. Like joqua said, if a large fire gets out of control in 50mph winds, nothing is going to stop it.
I haven't been here as long as he has, but I've seen several fires in the area. General they seem to be *able* to get on *dangerous* fires really quickly. By dangerous I mean that someone decides that a lot of property damage is likely if they don't put it out quick. And it needs to be quick. But when someone determines the risk is low, it seems the fires are let burn. Note that resources are limited to deal with these, and the fire danger is high over all the SW in the spring.
I happened to be passing by when a fire broke out near the Spencer Theater a few years ago. A plane was sent from Albuquerque and it was put out quickly. That wasn't Ponderosa Pine though... mostly grass and juniper... and only the dead junipers were really burning.
Another one in the Pinecliff area (Ruidoso Downs) looked like it was going to be awful... I thought it was already out of control. But they jumped on that one too, and only a handful of homes were lost. That *was* in Ponderosa Pine.
The one that swept through the hills north of Ruidoso Downs (can't remember the name) wasn't a big threat to homes, so I don't believe they really tried on that one.
The Little Bear fire was plain incompetence and stupidity on someone's part. They underestimated the danger and didn't devote the resources needed to put it out, until it was too late.
I really don't know what the danger is... in % likelihood for x% destruction. If there was a big fire that wiped out a significant part of town I think I'd rather my house was one that burned rather than not, since we'd probably have to move for economic reasons anyway. I don't think our main industry would still be intact.
It seems that realtors are really not obligated or liable for much of anything. I'm surprised that they are still so commonly used in this day of the internet.
If there was a big fire that wiped out a significant part of town I think I'd rather my house was one that burned rather than not, since we'd probably have to move for economic reasons anyway. I don't think our main industry would still be intact.
I recently had cause to reassess my homeowner's policy with my insurer, and was told that if and when someone loses a house in a fire, it is a New Mexico state law that the insurer CANNOT settle for cash - that the insured party MUST rebuild in order to realize any payback from the policy. I can only guess that this is to prevent arsonists from burning down homes simply to collect the insurance.
Perhaps someone else can expand on this aspect of potential home losses. If a wildfire should ever destroy my house, along with my immediate neighborhood, I would NOT want to rebuild on the same site, but will have no choice if the facts are as stated above.
PS Several of the largest fires in the last 15 years in Lincoln Co, in chronological order:
The Little Bear fire was, at the time, rated as the most destructive in NM state history due to the number of structures lost. The Donaldson fire was the largest in terms of acreage.
Nobody would want to rebuild amidst a bunch of burnt crags and ash!
I know someone who lost their Alto home in Little Bear, and later bought a house in Ruidoso. He had State Farm insurance. So it isn't NM law (or at least it wasn't 2 years ago)... but it might be how your policy is written. It might be law that you need to either rebuild or purchase a home *somewhere* rather than just take cash, but you don't have to rebuild in the same spot.
As I recall he was also compensated for the depreciation of the land due to the trees being destroyed.
It seems that realtors are really not obligated or liable for much of anything. I'm surprised that they are still so commonly used in this day of the internet.
The job of a real estate agent is to find someone who is "ready, willing and able" to purchase property. That's all they are responsible for. As long as they do that, and do not break any laws in the process, their job is done. What were you wanting them to do fix your teeth? Remove your appendix?
For 6% of the selling price off the top ($12k on a typical $200k house), that is a lot of money for very little. I think the only reason why realtors are still involved in the great majority of transactions is because buyers falsely believe that they provide security, and also falsely believe that the service is free... since they don't pay for it directly. So if you sell a home yourself you are handicapped because the buyers go to a realtor and the realtors ignore your home.
The other weird thing from the buyer's perspective is that "your" realtor really has a disincentive to look out for your interests. They want you to buy something... the sooner the better. So they are unlikely to mention the negative aspects of a place even if they are aware of them, so long as you are interested and want to buy. Rather they are likely to try to pressure you into buying their own listing (where they get all the commission) or a listing by one of their associates.
Of course there are excellent realtors out there who are not so focused on the $$$, but IME they aren't the norm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
