Oh, honestly.
Jun. 4th, 2019 09:56 pmFor the record: Fort McMurray did not "mostly burn down" in the 2016 fire. I keep coming across people on the internet saying this, even now, and it drives me nuts. The news coverage was very scary, and everyone was worried that the whole city would burn down, but it did not.
I did some brief searching and can't find a current, accurate percentage of the damage. Estimate in May 2016 was that we were 85% intact. I would put that a little lower, maybe 80% or 75% - there was a hell of a lot of damage in Beacon Hill and Abasand. But there were also a lot of areas that were untouched.
But the point is, we did not mostly burn down. Most buildings here were not damaged. If the whole place had gone up in flames, I sure as hell wouldn't still be living here, JFC. (I don't know where I would be, but, uh. Probably somewhere else.)
That's not to say that the damage wasn't very, very serious. It was. There are a lot of people who STILL aren't back in their homes. But let's not exaggerate what actually happened, thanks.
I did some brief searching and can't find a current, accurate percentage of the damage. Estimate in May 2016 was that we were 85% intact. I would put that a little lower, maybe 80% or 75% - there was a hell of a lot of damage in Beacon Hill and Abasand. But there were also a lot of areas that were untouched.
But the point is, we did not mostly burn down. Most buildings here were not damaged. If the whole place had gone up in flames, I sure as hell wouldn't still be living here, JFC. (I don't know where I would be, but, uh. Probably somewhere else.)
That's not to say that the damage wasn't very, very serious. It was. There are a lot of people who STILL aren't back in their homes. But let's not exaggerate what actually happened, thanks.