Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

Perhaps they should cut spending for the asinine woke programs and especially cut funding for the "undocumented".

I's been clear for decades people aren't paying their fair share. For people who keep voting for generous benefits it's galling that they personally don't want to pay for them and want new arrivals and younger people to foot the bill. It's gross.

Not sure how you eliminate what you call "gross". We bought 8 years ago and paid many times what some of our neighbors paid for their house, pay more in property taxes. Our elderly neighbors bought as young working glass families decades ago, and now it takes being UMC to move in the area, so much we ourselves could not afford it anymore. They could not afford the taxes we pay. I don't begrudge people their good fortune, which was essentially buying at the right place at the right time as completely non-wealthy people, and not some kind of gross trick.

Fine we don't want to kick Grandma out of her house. Why does her son John deserve her home at the SAME 1980 tax basis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

In 1978 when Prop 13 was passed, I believe a Democrat was the governor of California?

It was a ballot measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recall of Karen Bass by LA residents for gross mismanagement has hit 57 thousand signatures.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/11/us-news/outraged-la-residents-call-for-immediate-recall-of-mayor-karen-bass-in-new-petition/

LADWP’s explanation for the shortage comes down to three nearby water tanks, each with a storage capacity of about a million gallons. These tanks help maintain enough pressure for water to flow from fire hydrants in uphill areas — but the pressure had decreased due to heavy water use, and officials knew the tanks couldn’t keep up the drain forever
We pushed the system to the extreme,” LADWP CEO Janisse Quiñones said in a news conference. “Four times the normal demand was seen for 15 hours straight, which lowered our water pressure.”

According to LADWP, the tanks’ water supply needed to be replenished in order to provide enough pressure for the water to flow through fire hydrants uphill. But officials said as firefighters drew more and more water from the trunk line, or main supply, they used water that would have refilled the tanks, eventually depleting them.

I want to make sure that you understand there's water on the trunk line, it just cannot get up the hill because we cannot fill the tanks fast enough,” Quiñones said.

That decreased the water pressure, which is needed for fire hydrants to work in higher elevations.

https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/why-did-pacific-palisades-water-hydrants-run-dry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have much empathy for people who don't insure even though they are high income. A high income person can afford the mortgage in Malibu AND the FAIR coverage, AND fill in what isn't covered with their savings and ongoing income. If they decided to risk it and not pay for coverage, they have to pay up when their bet doesn't pay off.

And I really don't feel bad for the grandfathered in grandparents either. They are holding on to VERY expensive properties and basically betting that they won't have a fire. They shouldn't enjoy both windfall profits from the past 30 years and not have to pay the price when things go wrong.

"PP here from the area. Yep, FAIR doesn't apply to most people even in Malibu since they still CAN get insurance, it's just really expensive and bad coverage (FAIR is expensive and bare bones too).

But yeah, the thing about the area is, it's very expensive and people are generally UMC but not necessarily risk-averse and not the sort of financial situation where the cost of fire + earthquake + flood or an umbrella policy would not be a SERIOUS expense they might not be able to afford comfortably without trimming elsewhere, unless they are grandfathered in (like my parents). Even for my parents, it is a significant cost and one they have to budget for carefully from retirement/pension."

Aren’t people in default of their mortgage if they don’t carry homeowners?

These people don’t have mortgages. They are either people who paid off their (cheap at the time) homes long ago and now pay basically nothing in property taxes to support the community, or they are millionaires who own their multimillion dollar homes outright. That’s why a lot of us don’t have a ton of sympathy for the people in this area. The working class areas are a different matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

Perhaps they should cut spending for the asinine woke programs and especially cut funding for the "undocumented".

I's been clear for decades people aren't paying their fair share. For people who keep voting for generous benefits it's galling that they personally don't want to pay for them and want new arrivals and younger people to foot the bill. It's gross.

This from the UBI and free medical acre for all generation! YAY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have much empathy for people who don't insure even though they are high income. A high income person can afford the mortgage in Malibu AND the FAIR coverage, AND fill in what isn't covered with their savings and ongoing income. If they decided to risk it and not pay for coverage, they have to pay up when their bet doesn't pay off.

And I really don't feel bad for the grandfathered in grandparents either. They are holding on to VERY expensive properties and basically betting that they won't have a fire. They shouldn't enjoy both windfall profits from the past 30 years and not have to pay the price when things go wrong.

"PP here from the area. Yep, FAIR doesn't apply to most people even in Malibu since they still CAN get insurance, it's just really expensive and bad coverage (FAIR is expensive and bare bones too).

But yeah, the thing about the area is, it's very expensive and people are generally UMC but not necessarily risk-averse and not the sort of financial situation where the cost of fire + earthquake + flood or an umbrella policy would not be a SERIOUS expense they might not be able to afford comfortably without trimming elsewhere, unless they are grandfathered in (like my parents). Even for my parents, it is a significant cost and one they have to budget for carefully from retirement/pension."

Aren’t people in default of their mortgage if they don’t carry homeowners?

These people don’t have mortgages. They are either people who paid off their (cheap at the time) homes long ago and now pay basically nothing in property taxes to support the community, or they are millionaires who own their multimillion dollar homes outright. That’s why a lot of us don’t have a ton of sympathy for the people in this area. The working class areas are a different matter.

Oh my God you are so greedy and ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

Sorry, I don’t support you kicking out people who have been mainstays of their communities for decades so you can fund your grifting non-profits and avoid working a real job.

We’ve seen California’s funding priorities and we’ve had enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

Sorry, I don’t support you kicking out people who have been mainstays of their communities for decades so you can fund your grifting non-profits and avoid working a real job.

We’ve seen California’s funding priorities and we’ve had enough.

i'm not following.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Altadena fire really impacted working class LA. People who saved forever to afford a 1-1.25m house, which is a starter home in LA, and don’t have deep pockets or resources like many of the families in pacific palisades.

Altadena isn't working class, lol. More like middle/UMC people with college degrees. But yes, these families still put everything they had into a home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Altadena fire really impacted working class LA. People who saved forever to afford a 1-1.25m house, which is a starter home in LA, and don’t have deep pockets or resources like many of the families in pacific palisades.

Altadena isn't working class, lol. More like middle/UMC people with college degrees. But yes, these families still put everything they had into a home.

Only on DCUM do the "working class" buy 1.25 million homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

I agree that the cap should not be passed on, but strongly disagree with you about the older, long time homeowners. They were once hard working young families who worked and scrimped and bought homes - this is exactly what as a society and economy should be encouraged. Now that they are older and on fixed incomes, you think they should all have to sell and move to the boonies or into senior housing? There are many societal benefits to helping elders age in place, and I would not call this a “hand out” any more than for example a first time homeowner transfer tax exemption (if you live in Md, I bet you didn’t complain about that tax break) or the like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have much empathy for people who don't insure even though they are high income. A high income person can afford the mortgage in Malibu AND the FAIR coverage, AND fill in what isn't covered with their savings and ongoing income. If they decided to risk it and not pay for coverage, they have to pay up when their bet doesn't pay off.

And I really don't feel bad for the grandfathered in grandparents either. They are holding on to VERY expensive properties and basically betting that they won't have a fire. They shouldn't enjoy both windfall profits from the past 30 years and not have to pay the price when things go wrong.

"PP here from the area. Yep, FAIR doesn't apply to most people even in Malibu since they still CAN get insurance, it's just really expensive and bad coverage (FAIR is expensive and bare bones too).

But yeah, the thing about the area is, it's very expensive and people are generally UMC but not necessarily risk-averse and not the sort of financial situation where the cost of fire + earthquake + flood or an umbrella policy would not be a SERIOUS expense they might not be able to afford comfortably without trimming elsewhere, unless they are grandfathered in (like my parents). Even for my parents, it is a significant cost and one they have to budget for carefully from retirement/pension."

Aren’t people in default of their mortgage if they don’t carry homeowners?

No they are not because standard homeowner's insurance may not cover wildfires. It might only cover a standard house fire situation, not a wildfire. It also does not cover earthquakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

I agree that the cap should not be passed on, but strongly disagree with you about the older, long time homeowners. They were once hard working young families who worked and scrimped and bought homes - this is exactly what as a society and economy should be encouraged. Now that they are older and on fixed incomes, you think they should all have to sell and move to the boonies or into senior housing? There are many societal benefits to helping elders age in place, and I would not call this a “hand out” any more than for example a first time homeowner transfer tax exemption (if you live in Md, I bet you didn’t complain about that tax break) or the like.

The one-time exemption passed on is how multi-generational families of tradespeople survive in California. You want familial carpenters, electricians, etc to be less than four hours of driving away from the areas they service? You need to let them apprentice their kids and pass a home to those kids.

I have come to absolutely despise the greedy progressives in this California. They are systematically destroying the very fabric of the communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

Sorry, I don’t support you kicking out people who have been mainstays of their communities for decades so you can fund your grifting non-profits and avoid working a real job.

We’ve seen California’s funding priorities and we’ve had enough.

i'm not following.

Yes, that much is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching a lot of the news and struck by how the celebrity/mansion /multimillion dollar homes aspect of the story is pushed. There are also lots of people who have lived there for decades and have otherwise typical middle class lives who have lost homes or are at risk.

My stepmother home is gone. 1800 sq ft 2 bdrm that she bought in 1975 for 78k. She was dropped by her insurer last year and was in the process of getting fair plan insurance and they were taking forever to underwrite. She and my dad moved to a retirement community (fortunately)but she kept her home and had been thinking about renting, selling etc.

My mom’s home (and my childhood home) is now in mandatory evacuation zone. They bought a small ranch in 1972 for 68k and she stayed. It is very modest home for the neighborhood but there are many others like it. Fortunately I got my mom to leave recently and move close to me and rent it out because she could no longer live alone (dementia)…(my sibling refused to sell because of taxes, which was stupid. I wanted her to have easy access to capital so she could get the best care… I have been worried about fire since a 2019 wildfire which was a very close call and she was at that time developing dementia and I knew she would not know what to do the next time.)

The house is her only asset and the rent pays for memory care. I’m thankful she’s not there and aware of what’s happening.

My stepsister is on the edge of the evacuation zone, in a modest home with a couple animals. She is a researcher and can only afford to live there because her dad (a schoolteacher) left her the home when he died. She’s nervous like everyone else and is currently housing a friend who probably lost their home in topanga.

I’m grateful that everyone in my family is ok but I just don’t know what all these people will do. The super rich will have options but for many people those options are simply out of reach.

Someone who purchased a home in what is now a VERY expensive neighborhood is doing extremely well. $78k?! Let me guess, the home is at least $2 million?

Sorry but middle class people don’t live in 2 million dollar properties.

In positive news the land value is way more than the structure

This isn’t right when the person is older and has owned the home for a long time. My parents purchased a home (my childhood home) in a different part of the country for $65,000 in 1978. My parents were middle class and self-employed, and now in their early 80s live on an extremely fixed income (it’s incredible to me how little they spend day to day, but normal to them as they are a different generation that doesn’t stop at starbucks and Wendy’s every time they feel a craving) and have medicare of course.

They still live in that house which is worth $1.5m today. They benefit from reduced property taxes because of their ages and length of time they’ve owned the house, and don’t upkeep it very well - these two factors permit them to financially stay in the house. They aren’t poor of course because they have the house, but they would be financially devastated if they lost the house in a fire and had to move out long term. They are solidly middle class but for an asset that they don’t plan to touch until needed for elder care ($1.5m won’t go far to support 2 people in assisted living who potentially could live almost 20 more years).

Prop 13 capped the amount the taxes could pay each year. These people are literally paying peanuts off the backs of younger hard working families who also want a place on the property ladder. It is completely unjust. And they get to pass that on one time to a child? Eff that.

Perhaps they should cut spending for the asinine woke programs and especially cut funding for the "undocumented".

I's been clear for decades people aren't paying their fair share. For people who keep voting for generous benefits it's galling that they personally don't want to pay for them and want new arrivals and younger people to foot the bill. It's gross.

Not sure how you eliminate what you call "gross". We bought 8 years ago and paid many times what some of our neighbors paid for their house, pay more in property taxes. Our elderly neighbors bought as young working glass families decades ago, and now it takes being UMC to move in the area, so much we ourselves could not afford it anymore. They could not afford the taxes we pay. I don't begrudge people their good fortune, which was essentially buying at the right place at the right time as completely non-wealthy people, and not some kind of gross trick.

Fine we don't want to kick Grandma out of her house. Why does her son John deserve her home at the SAME 1980 tax basis?

If it’s the only way they can afford to keep the house that they inherited.