Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[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.

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.

100% this. Also small family-run businesses in general, like neighborhood restaurants, barbershops, etc.

Yeah, I want to live in communities where generational hard work is rewarded. I want the little local restaurants where grandparents and grandkids work side by side to survive. I want communities where extended family is prioritized. That’s precisely what Prop 13 protects.

I absolutely do not want a community of soulless tiny concrete apartment blocks owned by Blackrock, which is what the PPs eager to kick out long-term families want. Go shill for hedge funds elsewhere.

Blackrock doesn't buy houses... Blackstone does. And Blackrock is an asset manager, investing pension assets for those elderly people you want to help.

[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: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.

And don't those old people vote for the politicians who reward NGOs?

[Anonymous]

OMG, enough of the lies about the fish.

Most notably, experts on California water policy said Wednesday that there is no basis for linking the existence of the Southern California fires or challenges in the firefighting effort to the water that is kept in the north of the state to protect the smelt and other species and ecosystems. Southern California does not have a shortage of water for fighting the fires.

Facts First: This is false. Newsom has never refused to sign a “water restoration declaration.” In fact, there is no such document, as Newsom’s office said on social media on Wednesday and experts on California water policy confirmed.

"Whatever the merits or flaws of Newsom’s position on the protection of the smelt in the northern Delta, all but three of the state’s major reservoirs were filled at or above their historical averages as of Thursday morning.

While it is true there were some dry hydrants in the Pacific Palisades area of Los Angeles amid the extreme water demand of the firefighting effort, that significant problem was related to local logistical factors affected by the area’s mountainous geography – and possibly to the fact that a smaller reservoir located in the Pacific Palisades was closed for repairs, an issue Newsom ordered Friday to be independently investigated – not the absence of water in the Los Angeles region as a whole.

https://ktvz.com/politics/cnn-us-politics/2025/01/09/fact-check-as-wildfires-rage-trump-lashes-out-with-false-claims-about-fema-and-california-water-policy/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Uhhh I live in Arizona and yea you do. There are wildfires here all the time, they just have no decimated a really concentrated area like LA. There are huge ones in northern Arizona over the last 5 years but the population of that region is about 300,000k and spread out over an area larger than Massachusetts. There were terrible fires in Reno NV last year too.

+1. Drove through a fire-decimated forest in AZ a few years ago. It was a huge area.

They're dealing with a huge fire right now, the Horton Fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In Europe, they use controlled burns to prevent major forest fires. The joke about the city of Los Angeles is it has eight million residents and eleven million homeless.

I am sure they have to make fires to stay warm in the windy winters. It’s a miracle these wildfires don’t happen daily in LA with how messed up that city is. California is a failed state

Finland’s wildfire problems
https://english.news.cn/20240519/d356583c73ac40f4b7c5df652a397771/c.html
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/08/27/why-is-lapland-on-fire-finlands-far-north-set-for-record-breakingly-hot-summer

Spain:
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/wildfires-rage-spain-heatwave-peaks-2024-07-31/

Greece:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Greece_wildfires

I could keep going

[Anonymous]

Don't bother. People here clearly don't understand the nature of the Santa Ana winds and extended drought.

San Diego is likely next as they have had no appreciable precipitation for 9 months+

[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: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.

And don't those old people vote for the politicians who reward NGOs?

Yes, in California a lot of old people believed earnestly that the NGOs were doing some good, and not grifting. I suspect that’s quickly changing, though.

[Anonymous]

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.

They will still be able to sell the land for way more than they paid.

Forcing elderly people out of their homes is never going to be a winning political strategy. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

After the devastating wildfires of 2020, Governor Newsom’s great plan was an executive order banning by 2035 any sales of new cars that weren’t EVs. This mandate did absolutely nothing to curb wildfires.

While wildfires can’t be eliminated completely, there are basic policy changes that will reduce the chances or severity. Conduct controlled burns, thin vegetation, graze goats, cattle, and other herbivores, increase State Water Project allocations to California’s urban areas and invest in a more robust system of water delivery so surges of water can be sustained during firefighting efforts. Invest in pruning and clearing foliage around power lines, and, better yet, move power lines underground in fire prone neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Uhhh I live in Arizona and yea you do. There are wildfires here all the time, they just have no decimated a really concentrated area like LA. There are huge ones in northern Arizona over the last 5 years but the population of that region is about 300,000k and spread out over an area larger than Massachusetts. There were terrible fires in Reno NV last year too.

Los Angeles' leaders should have been thinking of these issues while they were granting building permits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After the devastating wildfires of 2020, Governor Newsom’s great plan was an executive order banning by 2035 any sales of new cars that weren’t EVs. This mandate did absolutely nothing to curb wildfires.

While wildfires can’t be eliminated completely, there are basic policy changes that will reduce the chances or severity. Conduct controlled burns, thin vegetation, graze goats, cattle, and other herbivores, increase State Water Project allocations to California’s urban areas and invest in a more robust system of water delivery so surges of water can be sustained during firefighting efforts. Invest in pruning and clearing foliage around power lines, and, better yet, move power lines underground in fire prone neighborhoods.

Everything this genius is recommending is already being done. Moving the power lines underground is very hard to force. Go read about it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After the devastating wildfires of 2020, Governor Newsom’s great plan was an executive order banning by 2035 any sales of new cars that weren’t EVs. This mandate did absolutely nothing to curb wildfires.

While wildfires can’t be eliminated completely, there are basic policy changes that will reduce the chances or severity. Conduct controlled burns, thin vegetation, graze goats, cattle, and other herbivores, increase State Water Project allocations to California’s urban areas and invest in a more robust system of water delivery so surges of water can be sustained during firefighting efforts. Invest in pruning and clearing foliage around power lines, and, better yet, move power lines underground in fire prone neighborhoods.

Californian here. All of these are done in California. It takes time, however.

[Anonymous]

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.

They will still be able to sell the land for way more than they paid.

Forcing elderly people out of their homes is never going to be a winning political strategy. Sorry.

Their house is burned down. They have few choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the devastating wildfires of 2020, Governor Newsom’s great plan was an executive order banning by 2035 any sales of new cars that weren’t EVs. This mandate did absolutely nothing to curb wildfires.

While wildfires can’t be eliminated completely, there are basic policy changes that will reduce the chances or severity. Conduct controlled burns, thin vegetation, graze goats, cattle, and other herbivores, increase State Water Project allocations to California’s urban areas and invest in a more robust system of water delivery so surges of water can be sustained during firefighting efforts. Invest in pruning and clearing foliage around power lines, and, better yet, move power lines underground in fire prone neighborhoods.

Californian here. All of these are done in California. It takes time, however.

X1000 at some point people are going to have to realize and accept that climate change consequences are here. California does more than any other state to address emergencies like this but no one can stop 100 mph winds.

CA will have more fires. Florida will be under water. Earthquakes will hit the west coast and possibly the east coast. The mid west will flood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Uhhh I live in Arizona and yea you do. There are wildfires here all the time, they just have no decimated a really concentrated area like LA. There are huge ones in northern Arizona over the last 5 years but the population of that region is about 300,000k and spread out over an area larger than Massachusetts. There were terrible fires in Reno NV last year too.

Los Angeles' leaders should have been thinking of these issues while they were granting building permits.

+1