By

CBSNews /

CBS/ February 11, 2009, 3:59 PM

Evacuee Saw Home Burn On TV, Over And Over

Christie Williams is just one of the many Southern Californians forced to evacuate their homes to avoid the raging wildfires.

But unlike some, who don't yet know the status of their homes, and others, whose homes escaped damage, Williams had the nightmare of actually watching her home burn down while watching TV coverage.

She told The Early Show Wednesday she saw video repeated several times. Her kids saw the video, too, though only once. They're 4, 2 and 1.

Williams spoke to The Early Show from outside San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium, which is being used as an evacuation center.

She vows to go back to her property, which she nicknamed Shangri-La, even if it's just to live there in a mobile home.

On her Web page, Williams wrote, "We have lost everything, (daughter) Lela is devastated by the loss of her toys and favorite blanket, (son) Charlie keeps asking for his wooden rocking horse his grandparents made him and (daughter) Piper wants her routine back and I would give anything to be able to go back and grab her baby video tapes, her first laugh, her first smiles, I will miss those tapes."

To see two interviews of Williams from The Early Show Wednesday,
click here
.

If you want to help the Williams family, click here to get to their Web page.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
46 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
kelrenz says:
Really? Is that what this country has come to? In a time of complete tragedy, where over 1,800 homes have been evacuated, people make posts about how this is going to effect their insurance? You are all really saying "yeah, yeah, people are homeless, but my insurance is going to go up". Complain to your insurance company, complain to your legislature, to whoever else can actually do something about it. Just don''t post things about "whoa is me, now my insurance rates are going to rise" when people have lost homes, heirlooms, pets, etc. It really is nauseating.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
good2go2day says:
SusanHelit wrote: Your insurance isn''''t going to go up and make you lose your house - that''''s a dumb scare tactic. Insurance is there for these losses, and will be there when you need it as well. That''''s what you pay for.

You are wrong - insurance companies raise rates to cover losses. Example, your car insurance rate usually goes up if you file a claim. File what the insurance companies feel are too many (maybe 1 maybe 2...depends on a formula) they CAN & WILL drop your insurance.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
toldyouso21 says:
SusanHelit at 11:57 PM : Oct 24, 2007

My how your position changes. a while ago, you posted that the insurance companies would all but jump for joy to pay what they should--now you allude to them being retailiatory but still want to pretend we are demonizing the homeowners--we are not--what we are pointing out is that we are TIRED of paying for the bad choices of others--over and over again, ad nauseum. What insurers should do--is blacklist any location for certain types of insurance--do it like medical and call it a pre-existing condition and do NOT cover that particular calamity. Say for instance--those who built on fault lines could no longer be insured through normal insurers for earthquakes and those who build in wildfire corridors or near hurricanes--should get the same treatment. They should have to purchase separate, special insurance to live in those areas. That way, if disaster strikes, only they and their like compatriots would suffer the domino effect of their choice and the rising rates. I see no reason why the rest of us should repeatedly pay for people choosing to live on high risk areas. It''s like a healthy person having to pay the price for a lifetime of health problems of a drug abuser. They could build and live where they like--but they should pay a separate cost for some choices.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cdegolier says:
I just read the article about Dayna Czermak, a woman who has been through a lot worse, Previous wild fire, Northridge earthquake, lost her home to Katrina, had to flee because of Rita, and now will probably lose her home to fires and yet is not asking for a dime. I would love to send her money.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
toldyouso21 says:
Posted by cdegolier at 01:57 PM : Oct 25, 2007

On the other hand--as someone who was intimately involved in the ARC--please consider that when you send money to the Red Cross less than .50 of each dollar goes to the victims--the money is actually used to pay employees and for other services including padding the other side of the organization--the blood service division. that may sound very altruistic--but most who work for the Red Cross make substantial salaries (the CEO made over 800K ater 9/11) and much of the money never reaches those who need it. I know of cases where money was sent for particular victims in an area, and the money was rerouted to other Red Cross projects instead. (yes, they can ask for money for a hurricane and use it elsewhere) the average family got around 1200.00 for all of their losses including losing a home, food, shelter, possessions etc---even though MILLIONS were taken in. This also happened after 9/11---the government had to step in to get the ARC to actually give money to the victims'' families. I never give through the Red Cross--because I know exactly how they operate, the volunteers in the Red Cross are the real heros--the avg. paid Red Cross Worker seldom has much compassion in my experience--it is just a job and each tragedy and charity event--just another payday.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
toldyouso21 says:
The fact is, my insurance after the quake was cancelled by the insurance company even though my house did not suffer any real damage and I did not file a claim. When the state picked it up, I actually paid almost 900.00 LESS per year than when it was covered privately. My point about insurance is to be very careful and for those who do not live in California to realize that this WILL affect them also. Susan is defensive simply because she lives in California--but that does not change the facts--Insurance companies will do a lot to try to avoid paying--the government and other watchdog groups will have to police them like hawks--and when the payments are finally made--your and my rates will rise to compensate. That is fine--until you realize that the people who are compensated want to rebuild in the same areas as before. We don''t need an endless cycle of shortsighted, selfish people who imagine it is all about them. We all pay. What we should not have to do--is pay more than once for a home in the same location involved in a similar natural disaster. One time is a tragedy--2 or more times is just a very expensive and very bad, self serving habit.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cdegolier says:
I guess what upsets me is this woman using national t.v. to ask for a hand out. The fires aren''t even out yet and all she can do is think about herself. I don''t remember any Katrina victim interviewed asking for money, they were just happy to be alive. I would not ever send you money directly, any donation I will make will go to the red cross to be doled out to other families who don''t have their own web page or even access to the internet. A lot of nerve.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jordan631 says:
Brian Norwood - perhaps before embarrassing yourself on a national blog...you should do a little research on the inhabitants and history of Ramona. You would quickly learn that by no means is it a multi million dollar kind of town. Christie is my sister as well. She shops at garage sales. My other sister lived there too. She worked at Pizza Hut. They lost everything. EVERYTHING. Everything includes the artwork I made for them over the years. The Christmas ornaments my sisters had when they were babies. The tiny dresses my sister sewed for her first baby. One of the only pictures in existence of our grandmother. Among hundreds of other irreplaceable items. Rich or poor, these things are important to any human. Learn some humility, Brian, you should be ashamed.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
susanhelit says:
Every year, we hear the same stories too - blizzards in Chigago, east coast, etc., a few dead. Maybe we shouldn''t have built there. Horrible tornados in the midwest - never should have moved there. A hurricane somewhere in Florida - the entire state should be abandoned - as well as all of Texas - the part that isn''t at risk from hurricanes is at risk for tornadoes. Anyplace that doesn''t have one of these - you guys can live. Until there''s an unusual rainfall, and a flood, and we can all say that since it''s flooded in that state before, you should have known.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
susanhelit says:
Yeah, demonize. A bunch of people lose houses, and because insurance companies threaten to raise their rates for being forced to do what they''ve been being paid all these years to do, you want to find a way to make the fire victims the bad guys. There''s a fire or so a year - but you do realize that San Diego county is about the size of the state of Rhode Island. How dumb would it be to blame Rhode Island for a megafire, because they have at least one fire in that state every year, so obviously we should never have built any houses there.


A ton of misinformation - the houses aren''t in forests, nor on some cliff for a great and dangerous view, nor are they the houses of the wealthy, nor are they in typical wildfire danger zones, nor is all of San Diego a wildfire danger zone. California is huge. Yeah, you hear about disasters here about as often as you hear about them on the east coast - because we''re about the size of the entire east coast. All you can say is that someone''s a dummy if they think that an earthquake risk, the occasional wildfire, is a reason to abandon major cities. I love the complaints though about money - California contributes a ton more in taxes than we use in services, disasters included. Like most blue states.
reply
See all 46 Comments