Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

It’s a myth that it doesn’t rain in California. It does but they dump the water into the Pacific. California is swimming in water and they get ice melt from Vancouver even Alaska.

They are inept and failed by climate change environmentalists who ironically caused smoky air and entire cities to burn bringing the opposite of what they want: clean air and environment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t climate change but climate change alarmists and environmental activism gone amuk in California that caused this California wildfire

How’s Newsmax?

Trump is right about California and environmentalism being the problem. Why didn’t we see any of these fires in the 90s? It’s only in the past two decades when it became a one party state after it made asking for voter Id illegal that these fires started to become an annual occurrence. It’s not due to climate change. It’s due to Democrats

[Anonymous]

“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this,” Trump wrote Wednesday on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The availability of water has been a particular concern over the past few days after some fire hydrants in the Pacific Palisades temporarily dried up as firefighters attempted to contain a massive blaze there.

But three water policy experts said the problem wasn’t the water supply — the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power filled all available water facility storage tanks ahead of the fires.

Rather, the city’s water infrastructure wasn’t equipped to fight major wildfires, they said.

Part of Trump’s criticism seemingly refers to a plan put forth during his first administration to redirect more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Northern California to Central Valley farms and Southern California cities. Newsom’s administration opposed it, saying it would endanger fish species in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna187219

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under Gavin Newsom, thousands of gallons of water gets rerouted to the Pacific to save the fish. I guess we should be concerned about saving the sanctity of the woods /trees and ocean before saving human life and property

Stop regurgitating news stories that aren’t true. Read and stay informed. Get off Truth Social.

[Anonymous]

I guess they aren’t concerned about rising sea levels dumping billions of gallons of water into the sea every year. Why do humans need water when fish in the ocean are dying of thirst?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under Gavin Newsom, thousands of gallons of water gets rerouted to the Pacific to save the fish. I guess we should be concerned about saving the sanctity of the woods /trees and ocean before saving human life and property

Stop regurgitating news stories that aren’t true. Read and stay informed. Get off Truth Social.

This is from NBC. It’s not Truth Social. Trump was right about covid and he’s right about Newsom.

Why does the fish matter more than human life and vegetation? Farmers and city residents needed that water, not the fish

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t climate change but climate change alarmists and environmental activism gone amuk in California that caused this California wildfire

How’s Newsmax?

Trump is right about California and environmentalism being the problem. Why didn’t we see any of these fires in the 90s? It’s only in the past two decades when it became a one party state after it made asking for voter Id illegal that these fires started to become an annual occurrence. It’s not due to climate change. It’s due to Democrats

Did you graduate high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t climate change but climate change alarmists and environmental activism gone amuk in California that caused this California wildfire

How’s Newsmax?

Trump is right about California and environmentalism being the problem. Why didn’t we see any of these fires in the 90s? It’s only in the past two decades when it became a one party state after it made asking for voter Id illegal that these fires started to become an annual occurrence. It’s not due to climate change. It’s due to Democrats

Did you graduate high school?

Typical elitist without common sense. Common sense does not require a Ph. Do you not realize how the environmentalists have burned California to the ground literally with foolish policies like dumping billions of gallons of water into the Pacific to save fish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They can sell like everyone else the. Take their $1m, because 2-3 siblings will split that $2-3m house, and they will be perfectly fine. Plenty of places to spend that $1m and get a great starter home.

We aren’t going to let you take the assets of elderly people to fund your useless greedy homeless NGOs.

How is anyone taking anything?

When you evict long-term home owners by raising their taxes to levels they cannot ever possibly pay, you are taking their homes. Don’t play coy. We know in the end your goal is a wealth transfer from hard-working elderly Californians who have contributed to their communities for years into the pockets of giant hedge funds and rapacious NGOs, both of which are united in their goal of destroying any sense of community and family that remains.

There is a huge overlap between people against Prop 13 and people who are vehemently opposed to general inheritance taxes because “I already paid taxes on that money!”

The only explanation is selfishness and greed.

Seems like the pro Prop 13 crowd have plenty of selfish reasons to resist change. Hiding behind grandma's apron "think of the olds!" doesn't disguise the motive.

You know, five to ten years ago or so in California, voters might have bought this inane propaganda. But they now see clearly what greedy progressives have done to the state, especially the ones who are useful fools for the hedge funds trying to buy up all the land. You and your greedy leftist friends cannot fool us any more.

We aren’t funding your grifting any more. Californians — ordinary working ones, with regular jobs, that fund your radical leftist NGOs — are taking back our state. It started with the California votes in the last election. The tide is turning.

Leftists are strong proponents of Prop 13. You seem confused as to who supports what.

What? You cannot be from California if you are saying something that moronic.

Are you for real? You seem to fundamentally misunderstanding this issue. Name calling is just embarrassing for you.

Okay, please show me the progressive leftist groups that are “strong proponents” of Prop 13. You are taking the position that in California, the progressive left is a strong proponent of Prop. 13. Prove it.

Explain why it's a political third rail issue.

That’s not what you said. You said that leftists are strong proponents of prop 13. Show me the leftist groups lobbying for it and protecting it. Prove your point.

California is one of the most blue states in America. It’s run almost entirely by democrats. I think that’s what the PP is trying to say - if it was the democrats who wanted these tax benefits gone then they easily have the power and votes to fix it. But they don’t fix it so a reasonable person can conclude that they like it that way.

[Anonymous]

This is actually pretty sweet, a little kindness amid the horror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is actually pretty sweet, a little kindness amid the horror.

Sweet mother of Jesus can we please keep these two out of this?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They can sell like everyone else the. Take their $1m, because 2-3 siblings will split that $2-3m house, and they will be perfectly fine. Plenty of places to spend that $1m and get a great starter home.

We aren’t going to let you take the assets of elderly people to fund your useless greedy homeless NGOs.

How is anyone taking anything?

When you evict long-term home owners by raising their taxes to levels they cannot ever possibly pay, you are taking their homes. Don’t play coy. We know in the end your goal is a wealth transfer from hard-working elderly Californians who have contributed to their communities for years into the pockets of giant hedge funds and rapacious NGOs, both of which are united in their goal of destroying any sense of community and family that remains.

There is a huge overlap between people against Prop 13 and people who are vehemently opposed to general inheritance taxes because “I already paid taxes on that money!”

The only explanation is selfishness and greed.

Seems like the pro Prop 13 crowd have plenty of selfish reasons to resist change. Hiding behind grandma's apron "think of the olds!" doesn't disguise the motive.

You know, five to ten years ago or so in California, voters might have bought this inane propaganda. But they now see clearly what greedy progressives have done to the state, especially the ones who are useful fools for the hedge funds trying to buy up all the land. You and your greedy leftist friends cannot fool us any more.

We aren’t funding your grifting any more. Californians — ordinary working ones, with regular jobs, that fund your radical leftist NGOs — are taking back our state. It started with the California votes in the last election. The tide is turning.

Leftists are strong proponents of Prop 13. You seem confused as to who supports what.

What? You cannot be from California if you are saying something that moronic.

Are you for real? You seem to fundamentally misunderstanding this issue. Name calling is just embarrassing for you.

Okay, please show me the progressive leftist groups that are “strong proponents” of Prop 13. You are taking the position that in California, the progressive left is a strong proponent of Prop. 13. Prove it.

Explain why it's a political third rail issue.

That’s not what you said. You said that leftists are strong proponents of prop 13. Show me the leftist groups lobbying for it and protecting it. Prove your point.

California is one of the most blue states in America. It’s run almost entirely by democrats. I think that’s what the PP is trying to say - if it was the democrats who wanted these tax benefits gone then they easily have the power and votes to fix it. But they don’t fix it so a reasonable person can conclude that they like it that way.

Asking for voter Id is illegal in California. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, just say you were on the way to vote.

It essentially is a one party state after they passed the strictest anti voter ID laws in the country. The effects of one party rule are being writ large right before our eyes. The fires are caused due to failed policy like water dumping all the glacier downmelt from Vancouver into the Pacific.

[Anonymous]

I wonder what people from other countries or our rivals think when they see the governor of California and the female fire chief make a speech by the ocean complaining about the lack of water resources for the fire department

[Anonymous]

Thank God liberal excess is kept away from Arizona and Nevada. The Grand Canyon would be up in flames in five years if left to the devices of Newsom and friends

[Anonymous]

You notice you don’t hear of wildfires in Arizona, Nevada, or Texas despite being dryer than California