Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So no?

[Anonymous]

Native Americans were smart. They used to burn the forest and practice controlled burning to kill off dead trees and dry brush and prevent massive wildfires.

Carbon /fire causes more greenery/plant growth. Fire is natural and preventative maintenance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So no?

I only made it to the third grade. You exposed me. How did you know? You’re very smart, aren’t you?

Guessing a stranger’s education level is more important than having a conversation or countering the point they were talking about.

You do realize listening is a sign of maturity, and you’re the one resorting to juvenile tactics by using insults

[Anonymous]

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

I knew they would exploit this tragedy for free press

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Native Americans were smart. They used to burn the forest and practice controlled burning to kill off dead trees and dry brush and prevent massive wildfires.

Carbon /fire causes more greenery/plant growth. Fire is natural and preventative maintenance.

Australian aborigines did the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I knew they would exploit this tragedy for free press

Sad nobody recognized them they managed to get the word out that they were there. Never missing an opportunity to shamelessly promote themselves using the tragedy of others.

[Anonymous]

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

You're kidding, right?

[Anonymous]

I don't get all this arguing about property taxes. I've only ever lived in various Virginia counties, but property taxes are assessed on fair market value, not what you paid in 1978.

Everywhere should be like this. Its only fair.


This is why the real estate market is so distorted. It incentivizes homeowners to stay in their homes forever and pass down to their children. Inventory is so low and so expensive that it's out of reach for people trying to buy their first home or new to the state. Not to mention falling property tax revenues which have led to failing schools. But, this is what the voters want.

Fortunately, in 2020 an amendment was passed to stop the inheriting of parent's tax basis which was really ridiculous and esp inheriting and renting it out for advantageous tax situation (and I am a child who would have benefitted but I agree its not conducive to healthy communities).

Prop 13 did a lot of damage. But when it was first pitched, it was also an attempt to mitigate total gentrification so that people like schoolteachers and regular folks who had bought could stay in their homes even as their neighbors sold and new mansions were built in place of small homes. People like my mom, who bought her home 4 decades years ago, and is a retired part time teacher on a modest fixed income and still has a mortgage because she's refi/cash out for various things (divorce, medical debt, native landscaping, earthquake retrofitting and solar) was able to stay in her home because her taxes are 8k year and not 30k/year, which is what they would be otherwise (and this is not a renovated mansion, its a 2200 sq ft ranch last renovated in 1983). That being said, she and my dad voted against prop 13 way back in 78 because they thought it would decimate public education (and it did) but I dont think anyone foresaw how much it would tie up real estate. There is a lot of history there too--the massive inflation of the 1970s also meant an affordability crisis for homes so constantly increasing taxes plus high interest rates made it very challenging for people to afford/live/work/stay in their communities and there was thus more support for it. But as we have seen Prop 13 had massive consequences as well.

I am in favor of wealthy people paying more taxes in general, both state and federal, and using those dollars to make life better for communities. California does have high income tax, but the property tax situation is distorted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

Haven’t the people of LA suffered enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Native Americans were smart. They used to burn the forest and practice controlled burning to kill off dead trees and dry brush and prevent massive wildfires.

Carbon /fire causes more greenery/plant growth. Fire is natural and preventative maintenance.

Australian aborigines did the same thing.

Yes, so does the rest of the normal world outside of California. It's just the voters of California who kept this from happening. Your point with this post is what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

Haven’t the people of LA suffered enough?

I hear Megan made a special batch of jam for all the homeless.

[Anonymous]

Are undocumented workers going to be framing up the new homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't get all this arguing about property taxes. I've only ever lived in various Virginia counties, but property taxes are assessed on fair market value, not what you paid in 1978.

Everywhere should be like this. Its only fair.


This is why the real estate market is so distorted. It incentivizes homeowners to stay in their homes forever and pass down to their children. Inventory is so low and so expensive that it's out of reach for people trying to buy their first home or new to the state. Not to mention falling property tax revenues which have led to failing schools. But, this is what the voters want.

Fortunately, in 2020 an amendment was passed to stop the inheriting of parent's tax basis which was really ridiculous and esp inheriting and renting it out for advantageous tax situation (and I am a child who would have benefitted but I agree its not conducive to healthy communities).

Prop 13 did a lot of damage. But when it was first pitched, it was also an attempt to mitigate total gentrification so that people like schoolteachers and regular folks who had bought could stay in their homes even as their neighbors sold and new mansions were built in place of small homes. People like my mom, who bought her home 4 decades years ago, and is a retired part time teacher on a modest fixed income and still has a mortgage because she's refi/cash out for various things (divorce, medical debt, native landscaping, earthquake retrofitting and solar) was able to stay in her home because her taxes are 8k year and not 30k/year, which is what they would be otherwise (and this is not a renovated mansion, its a 2200 sq ft ranch last renovated in 1983). That being said, she and my dad voted against prop 13 way back in 78 because they thought it would decimate public education (and it did) but I dont think anyone foresaw how much it would tie up real estate. There is a lot of history there too--the massive inflation of the 1970s also meant an affordability crisis for homes so constantly increasing taxes plus high interest rates made it very challenging for people to afford/live/work/stay in their communities and there was thus more support for it. But as we have seen Prop 13 had massive consequences as well.

I am in favor of wealthy people paying more taxes in general, both state and federal, and using those dollars to make life better for communities. California does have high income tax, but the property tax situation is distorted.

It didn't stop children inheriting it from getting their parent's tax base. They still do if it's the primary home. Doesn't transfer if they rent it out. It also allows the homeowner to transfer their tax basis to an entirely different home as long as it meets certain criteria.

[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: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.

I honestly can’t believe that anyone is so moronic as to think this is a liberal/conservative, left/right issue, particularly after “the right” just enthusiastically elected a foreign multibillionaire to be King of America.

This is a class issue, plain and simple. Open your eyes. I’m

Oh, stuff it. The teachers and electricians of Altadena aren’t the enemy, while the NGOs stealing tax money for “homelessness” from the state are.

What? How on Earth did you take away that I think teachers and electricians are “the enemy” from the post to which you replied? I’d love to see a flow chart if your thought process.

You want them and their families evicted from their long-term housing by raising their property taxes to levels they can’t pay on their incomes. I’d say that’s pretty clearly seeing teachers and electricians as the enemy.

You’re extremely confused and most likely extremely unintelligent. No wonder you voted for Elon.

The impact of Lefties’ idiotic policies is currently on display for all to see. Posters like this^^ are swinging wildly in the dark, hoping to land a stray blow, or at least distract people’s attention from their party’s complete meltdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't get all this arguing about property taxes. I've only ever lived in various Virginia counties, but property taxes are assessed on fair market value, not what you paid in 1978.

Everywhere should be like this. Its only fair.


This is why the real estate market is so distorted. It incentivizes homeowners to stay in their homes forever and pass down to their children. Inventory is so low and so expensive that it's out of reach for people trying to buy their first home or new to the state. Not to mention falling property tax revenues which have led to failing schools. But, this is what the voters want.

Fortunately, in 2020 an amendment was passed to stop the inheriting of parent's tax basis which was really ridiculous and esp inheriting and renting it out for advantageous tax situation (and I am a child who would have benefitted but I agree its not conducive to healthy communities).

Prop 13 did a lot of damage. But when it was first pitched, it was also an attempt to mitigate total gentrification so that people like schoolteachers and regular folks who had bought could stay in their homes even as their neighbors sold and new mansions were built in place of small homes. People like my mom, who bought her home 4 decades years ago, and is a retired part time teacher on a modest fixed income and still has a mortgage because she's refi/cash out for various things (divorce, medical debt, native landscaping, earthquake retrofitting and solar) was able to stay in her home because her taxes are 8k year and not 30k/year, which is what they would be otherwise (and this is not a renovated mansion, its a 2200 sq ft ranch last renovated in 1983). That being said, she and my dad voted against prop 13 way back in 78 because they thought it would decimate public education (and it did) but I dont think anyone foresaw how much it would tie up real estate. There is a lot of history there too--the massive inflation of the 1970s also meant an affordability crisis for homes so constantly increasing taxes plus high interest rates made it very challenging for people to afford/live/work/stay in their communities and there was thus more support for it. But as we have seen Prop 13 had massive consequences as well.

I am in favor of wealthy people paying more taxes in general, both state and federal, and using those dollars to make life better for communities. California does have high income tax, but the property tax situation is distorted.

It didn't stop children inheriting it from getting their parent's tax base. They still do if it's the primary home. Doesn't transfer if they rent it out. It also allows the homeowner to transfer their tax basis to an entirely different home as long as it meets certain criteria.

To add ^ it fixes the Lebowski Loophole where Jeff Bridges and his siblings were renting out the family Malibu home for $16,000 a month while paying $5700 annual property taxes.