Is local government to blame for bushfire vulnerability in villages and small towns?

As the main stream media and blogosphere begin to discuss the causes of Victorian bushfire fatalities, a voice of reason is heard in the remarks of Russell Rees, chief officer of Victoria's Country Fire Authority:

AUSTRALIANS living in the bush and in semi-rural suburbs must change the way they live or else risk dying in bushfires....................
firefighters could no longer guarantee saving the lives of those who chose to surround themselves with vegetation despite the obvious fire risks.................

"We've got to choose," .....'If we choose to live in this way, then who do we blame? My fear is that people will say the fire service failed (last Saturday) and I will go to my grave saying we fought our guts out.
"Fundamentally, our community is choosing to live in a way I can't, and our people can't, guarantee their survival. Why do we choose a system of civilisation that puts itself at so much risk?"

Mr. Rees quite rightly mentions personal lifestyle preferences.

However, we also need to remember that local government hungry for residential and business rate revenues and developers avid for less expensive land to sell on at a profit are also pushing the same dangerous (albeit attractive) lifestyle.

This same scenario can be seen playing out in the Northern Rivers coastal town of Yamba right now.

Not only is Clarence Valley Council seriously considering development of flood prone land at West Yamba, this same land sits directly above scrub and forest cover which extends further south into Yuraygir National Park.

When strong southerly winds are driving bushfires, the blaze can (and has) come raging up past Wooloweyah and begin knocking on West Yamba's door.

Which makes one narrow bridge over the Clarence estuary a very chancy exit for around 6,000 people.

Photograph from The Australian