Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I looked up the controlled burns since some people here insisted that they do them. I was happy to see that there were some, but they were like 20 acres here and 60 acres there, a lot of them privately owned land. Meanwhile the wildfires are 20 THOUSAND acres or 60 THOUSAND acres. People need to understand the difference.

Republicans are strongly against controlled burns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I looked up the controlled burns since some people here insisted that they do them. I was happy to see that there were some, but they were like 20 acres here and 60 acres there, a lot of them privately owned land. Meanwhile the wildfires are 20 THOUSAND acres or 60 THOUSAND acres. People need to understand the difference.

Republicans are strongly against controlled burns.

Here's what your folks do.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/la-mayors-office-silent-deputy-who-charge-fire-dept-placed-leave-alleged-bomb-threat

[Anonymous]

Here’s why I have faith in CA. An older FOX News viewer posted on Nextdoor his concern that an old reservoir in our adjacent area was under construction and would our area burn down. While this was followed by one vote red, vote red idiot, the subsequent posts were all helpful. They pointed out that the reservoir in question was not seismically stable. An earthquake would cause a catastrophic flood to a densely populated area. People also pointed out that the reservoirs that serve us are filled to the level they need to be at to keep us out of drought AND avoid flooding his home when the last of the rains come through in the next two months. The original poster who shared his concern thanked the helpful posters. Californians are really not hyper political. If we could just turn off social media and FOX News, life would go back to normal.

Disasters will happen regardless of who is in office but you would have less noise and distraction from a radicalized right intent on hurting people, and amping up anxiety through disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I looked up the controlled burns since some people here insisted that they do them. I was happy to see that there were some, but they were like 20 acres here and 60 acres there, a lot of them privately owned land. Meanwhile the wildfires are 20 THOUSAND acres or 60 THOUSAND acres. People need to understand the difference.

Republicans are strongly against controlled burns.

Even if that was true, so what? There are like 17 Republicans in LA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I looked up the controlled burns since some people here insisted that they do them. I was happy to see that there were some, but they were like 20 acres here and 60 acres there, a lot of them privately owned land. Meanwhile the wildfires are 20 THOUSAND acres or 60 THOUSAND acres. People need to understand the difference.

Republicans are strongly against controlled burns.

Which ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing that is coming is fire resistant housing. It’s emergent now but after the Bay Area fires some people in Santa Rosa started doing it. It still needs another 5-10 years in terms of engineering development and availability but I can see this as being the path forward.

Stricter regulations on developers requiring multiple egress roads out of developments. Fire resistant new building codes. New insurance and mortgage models. I think the FAIR plan is a good idea but it shouldn’t cover multi million dollar structures. Remember in CA, the value is in the land not the structure. The land value is still there, insurance covers the structure and contents. Capping that to $1-$2 million would go far in requiring the rich and commercial entities to self insure.

Developing lower cost, subsidized prefab 2 bedroom ADUs that can be mass produced as an affordable way for people to rebuild areas would be good too. In the Bay Area, I can get an ADU dropped in my backyard by a crane for a few hundred thousand dollars. Remove the Bay Area surcharge, mass produce them and those can be a replacement option for destroyed homes.

As CA is democratic these things are and will be pursued. Under Republicans, it would be a developers and grifter free for all milking as much money out of people providing death trap housing laughing on their way to the bank.

It’s a developer and grifter free for all NOW. Blackrock vultures reportedly knocking door to door to buy land. Newscum already talking about building high rises and reshaping the landscape into a 15 minute city for the Olympics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I looked up the controlled burns since some people here insisted that they do them. I was happy to see that there were some, but they were like 20 acres here and 60 acres there, a lot of them privately owned land. Meanwhile the wildfires are 20 THOUSAND acres or 60 THOUSAND acres. People need to understand the difference.

Republicans are strongly against controlled burns.

Why do you spread misinformation?

[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:People don't seem to understand that Pacific Palisades, Hollywood Hills, and Malibu are not at all normal neighborhoods in need of policy solutions that would address 99.9% of the rest of the country. These are ultra luxury houses owned by people who can either cover the cost of replacement without much trouble or people who have lived there long enough to be locked into extremely low public tax rates and affordable home insurance. They could have used their savings from taxes over the years to buy additional insurance or put that money into accounts for savings or to cover unexpected costs like these.

California's governors and mayors should also have been planning for emergencies and the priority of needed public safety measures. The results of poor leadership and planning are on display.

Actually California is top in the nation for emergency preparedness due to the climate changing and geography. There are fights between developers and the state about building on coastal bluffs that fall into the ocean. There are fights between people who own houses teetering on coastal bluffs that want to stay.

Climate change sucks. A lot more of the US and world is going to be destroyed.

The Santa Anna winds have been around since the beginning of time. Dirty politicians have not, that's where the blame lies.

It hasn't rained in LA in 8 months. That is not normal

So the potential for catastrophic fires should have been noted by leaders in govt.

Do you think the state of California should be watering forests and scrubland? The potential was noted and there were warnings

Increase water reservoirs? Increase number of firefighters and equipment? Take other helpful measures? Not ask for budget cuts? Not be absent and traveling?

Would a public spanking by Daddy Trump suffice to end your braying? Y'all hate taxes.....remember?

Why is Trump always brought up as a defense? I agree with this post and I never voted for him and can't stand him. And people in LA/CA pay plenty of taxes.

Because NONE of what the OP is suggesting would've mattered in the face of 100mph Santa Ana winds and no rain for 8 months. Those are acts of god. You could've doubled the LAFD budget, bought 100 more engines, open 3 new reservoirs China-style in 3 months....and it would not have mattered. At all.

How is this not sinking into your skulls? It was biblical.

-SoCal born & raised

This is simply untrue. You do not know better than firefighters, local officials interviewed who said there were shortages of trucks, limits on overtime, not enough resources allocated to respond optimally, that the infrastructure is old. It would not have stopped the winds but it would have helped the response.

Holy crap, they do PREPARE. They prepared. Were there limits on overtime this week? Uh no. They recalled all firefighters who were off-duty. They actually do preventative brush clearing in all of these communities to the best of their abilities.

You're basically demanding an unlimited budget....yet you all hate taxes. Nothing you says makes any logical sense.

Lies. They didn’t do this. They said Trump is stupid for even suggesting it. I was literally just in pacific palisades on vacation and kindling was everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't seem to understand that Pacific Palisades, Hollywood Hills, and Malibu are not at all normal neighborhoods in need of policy solutions that would address 99.9% of the rest of the country. These are ultra luxury houses owned by people who can either cover the cost of replacement without much trouble or people who have lived there long enough to be locked into extremely low public tax rates and affordable home insurance. They could have used their savings from taxes over the years to buy additional insurance or put that money into accounts for savings or to cover unexpected costs like these.

California's governors and mayors should also have been planning for emergencies and the priority of needed public safety measures. The results of poor leadership and planning are on display.

Actually California is top in the nation for emergency preparedness due to the climate changing and geography. There are fights between developers and the state about building on coastal bluffs that fall into the ocean. There are fights between people who own houses teetering on coastal bluffs that want to stay.

Climate change sucks. A lot more of the US and world is going to be destroyed.

The Santa Anna winds have been around since the beginning of time. Dirty politicians have not, that's where the blame lies.

It hasn't rained in LA in 8 months. That is not normal

So the potential for catastrophic fires should have been noted by leaders in govt.

Do you think the state of California should be watering forests and scrubland? The potential was noted and there were warnings

The way this is dealt with is controlled burns. Florida does this and has avoided major fires.

OMG the level of stupid is insane. Florida is humid and wet, CA and the western states are arid and dry. In Southern CA there are no forests to do prescribed burns.

Wtf do you think is burning? Dirt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that is coming is fire resistant housing. It’s emergent now but after the Bay Area fires some people in Santa Rosa started doing it. It still needs another 5-10 years in terms of engineering development and availability but I can see this as being the path forward.

Stricter regulations on developers requiring multiple egress roads out of developments. Fire resistant new building codes. New insurance and mortgage models. I think the FAIR plan is a good idea but it shouldn’t cover multi million dollar structures. Remember in CA, the value is in the land not the structure. The land value is still there, insurance covers the structure and contents. Capping that to $1-$2 million would go far in requiring the rich and commercial entities to self insure.

Developing lower cost, subsidized prefab 2 bedroom ADUs that can be mass produced as an affordable way for people to rebuild areas would be good too. In the Bay Area, I can get an ADU dropped in my backyard by a crane for a few hundred thousand dollars. Remove the Bay Area surcharge, mass produce them and those can be a replacement option for destroyed homes.

As CA is democratic these things are and will be pursued. Under Republicans, it would be a developers and grifter free for all milking as much money out of people providing death trap housing laughing on their way to the bank.

It’s a developer and grifter free for all NOW. Blackrock vultures reportedly knocking door to door to buy land. Newscum already talking about building high rises and reshaping the landscape into a 15 minute city for the Olympics

Rebuilding is what needs to happen.
What is wrong with someone offering to buy land?
Does everyone have to live in a house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just saw on the LA channel that Mayor Bass fired the chief of LAFD because she was honest about the budget cuts and this fire.

What a mess. She’s mad that fire chief dotted her Is and crossed her Ts. Fire Chief had every request in writing to back up every claim she made. Worth every penny of her $700k

[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.

The elderly shouldn’t pay taxes at all. Most of them haven’t had a salary increase since 1980. What do you want them to pay all of their income to the tax man? The elderly aren’t a nuisance.

[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.

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grandma shouldn’t be living in a big old house by herself just because it is the easiest and cheapest option for her. Society benefits when houses turnover and young families move into family sized houses. Grandma should move into a condo. I’m on the older side so that could be me very soon. It sucks to be forced to move but in the end a condo is fine.

A condo safe enough for the elderly costs the same amount as a modest house in most cities

[Anonymous]

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

I feel so defeated by this statement. It’s so true.