Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. I’m also in deep fear of what happens under dry CA conditions over the next 4 years if federal aid is withheld, as Trump promised on the campaign trail.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/03/helene-trump-politics-natural-disaster-00182419

In 2020 Trump signed a bill that would have diverted excess water from Northern California to LA specifically to boost the reservoirs for fire fighting purposes. The state and advocacy groups, including Newsom, battled him using the pretext that it'd hurt the salmon among others. That is the origin of the disagreement of Trump and Newsom. Unfortunately, it is true, so for all of his childish petulant screeds in a manner that only Trump can muster, Trump actually does have a point here. Right now California is not really governed to serve the safety and wellbeing of its people. Its programs and policies are bled by a thousand cuts through demands by so many advocacy groups wanting to protect/preserve/champion equity for this and that.

Wildfires are a fact of life in California and the dangers of a massive wildfire promising this level and even greater destructions has always been there, yet what we saw was a strange lack of advance preparation despite plenty of warnings that the conditions were ripe. Serious questions have to be asked about it. And I would not be upset if the Trump administration demanded LA and the California state governments to explain why they weren't better prepared or to outline new policies and laws that guaranteed a basic level of preparedness for worst case situations before releasing any new federal aid to the state. Americans cannot be called to pour more money (billions and billions) after bad if no basic changes are being made at the ground level. To use as one small but critical example, so many wildfires (fortunately mostly doused in time) are started by homeless people yet California has seemingly done little to address the homeless problem or is, at least, very slow to do anything meaningful.

Legitimate questions need to be asked about the competence of California governing class.

I’m OP worried about Trump. I agree questions need to be asked re the response to the current fire. That said, the videos of Santa Ana winds and the idea that entire neighborhoods in Southern California should all be able to hose their houses while fire fighters are using hydrants and having enough water for it all seems very hard - if not impossible - to be prepared for. Also, I don’t know that water should be diverted from Northern CA to southern CA and / or farmlands. This is not a problem unique to CA - red states have plenty of wildfires (Alaska, Idaho etc) and also have cities that are likely to face severe water problems regardless of whether a fire ever whips through neighborhoods (eg Phoenix, Las Vegas).

My understanding is that Trump didn’t sign a water diversion bill (ie no such bill existed) but that there have been other water fights. By all means there should be investigations into what happened - Newsom has said as much - but we also need federal aid to continue in January. Calling for an investigation to occur and be concluded as a condition of aid is a dangerous president. For instance, I suspect many more people would have died had a completed investigation into the Texas powergrid failure been a condition for federal aid then, as is true of other emergency responses (hurricanes, forest fires etc). The precedent is that Trump has wanted to withhold disaster funding to CA - and he repeated this on the campaign trail - as a stick, but other states (to my Knowledge) haven’t had similar sticks as conditional requirements in their emergencies.

The whole debate reminds me of the gun reform arguments - after a mass shouting there are a lot of statements that it’s not the right time for policy and help is needed now, but then it never is the right time for policy because help is always needed by that standard given the number of shootings in this country. Balancing emergency response and care with policy reform is needed, but there does have to be some triage.

Agreed. The partisan targeting of California when red states have been equally or even more unprepared is really vile and frankly immoral.

This a thousand times. It’s vile and evil

+1 Yes, and there are many DCUM threads in which posters bash red states. Vile and evil no matter who does it.

The difference is that this time it is red state politicians targeting Californians who have lost their homes. That is not something blue politicians have done.

Think what you want, but blue politicians are not above reproach either.

I have not seen a specific example of blue state politicians holding (or pushing publicly to hold) aid hostage like red state politicians are currently doing.

Example:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/warren-davidson-republican-disaster-relief-california-wildfires

And I am no partisan Democrat. I’m a moderate independent. But honesty is important here. I have never seen that behavior from Democrat politicians towards the victims of disasters.

Malibu. WNC.

Now you’ve seen it all

[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: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

This! People in LA used to make fun of Trump for bringing up the lack of controlled burns.

It’s almost like he’s correct about everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Everybody except the poor pay taxes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the greedy progressive policies? Do you have a tick list of general most destructive down? I want to research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The elderly aren’t all working so they don’t oay income taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re talking about presidential politics, CA will absolutely not go red. If you’re talking about the governorship, it will only go red if someone like Rick Caruso runs. He is well respected and moderate. In terms of our Legislature it is solid solid Blue.

This fire changes very little because most of the political noise is from outside the state.

We have devastating fires all the time in California. Almost every year! And we’re still a blue state. Because we believe in climate change, gun control, assistance for the poor, separation of church & state, and the women’s right to choose. We also believe in competence of Government, and we do not believe that is a characteristic of the current Republican Party.

lol no way a republican can win in California. Could you imagine the incompetence of Trump, DeSantis, Abbott or some random Fox News talking head as Governor of California during this crisis. All of Los Angeles would have burned. They would have stood up there denied there was a fire while making low ball offers for property.

That’s basically what newsume is doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CA will go RED going forward. It's just time and necessary. Either that, or just let it go...

F that. The response to a natural disaster isn't a political disaster.

Republicans want to burn it all down. They aren't the solution to anything.

You already have both

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CA will go RED going forward. It's just time and necessary. Either that, or just let it go...

Californian here. I’ve thought that for awhile (there is a lot of frustration with Democrats here), but the deep anger here at the Republicans who are attacking people who have lost their homes may have interrupted that process. There is a lot of media coverage of those folks and people here are furious, especially because no California politicians tried to target the victims of hurricanes in a similar way.

What people are doing this though? I've only seen a couple examples.

There has been a few links posted in this thread. And it may only be a few Republicans attacking the victims of the fires but links about what they are saying and doing are flying around here, even from people who don’t like Democrats. The behavior is so extreme and cruel that it’s getting a lot of airplay.

There are also rumors claiming that red state folks were cheering for the fires during moments of silence at football games. Californians may be a lot of things, but there are no stories of them cheering for hurricanes during moments of silence for hurricane victims. I’m not even sure that it’s true that red state football fans were cheering during moments of silence but I’ve now seen the claim made a couple of places so the rumors are flying.

Prior to this, I thought that California would go red, because people are so deeply frustrated with the progressive left, but the anger at Republicans who are victim-blaming (while not victim-blaming hurricane victims) is palpable and I am not so sure now.

I just really resent this type of talk as I am in a red state and don't know a single person feeling remotely happy about fires. I am in a couple very large facebook groups for weather/hurricane info, and people feel absolutely terrible and have compassion and want to help. There is a lot of incentive to polarize and divide rather than look at all the people supporting others.

I live in NC, near Asheville, and just went through the Helene devastation. We actually lost our home. After the storm, for a week or more, there was no decent cell service in our region, and almost no one had wifi wither. At least in our neighborhood, people were so banded together during that time, helping each other all day every day. I think it was that way through much of the region. As soon as cell service was back, all the disinformation and politicization started up, and the level of camaraderie was immediately impacted - the tone immediately changed - at a micro level, on the ground, it went from "we're all in this together" to "did you hear that Trump/Biden/FEMA said _________" and the party was over. It was SO eye opening, and sad, and made it feel really apparent how years ago individuals from different parties could work together toward common goals, and how much now we're inundated and affected by what we hear on our partisan news stations and, worse, social media. On a larger scale, of course people are still helping people here, but at the micro level, there was this moment of utopian community action, and it was dispelled instantly by cell service the moment it came back.

SOCIAL MEDIA IS TOXIC!

People - seriously listen to what PP is saying: social media is being used to DIVIDE YOU.

You are being manipulated.

It’s not social media. It’s the Republican politicians spreading lies that are divisive on purpose.

So you're going to just fall for whoever is manipulating you and their lies? You can decide you refuse to get manipulated.

DP. There are multiple bad actors.

Media/news organizations are certainly manipulating a lot of the narratives, motivated by revenue.

Social media provides the platform for unfiltered/unfact checked crap to flood people’s minds.

But Republicans are absolutely spreading lies. They whip up faux “issues” to drive outrage. It’s their entire ethos. They blatantly lie all of the time.

Uh huh. But safe and effective lies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point, with 87 pages it's most likely the same few people arguing back and forth. Not sure if it's worth adding any opinions.

The big issue in California was the lack of preparedness despite that wildfires are a fact of life, they always happen, they will always happen. There was plenty of advance notice that the weather conditions would be supremely ideal for a massive wildfire (the Santa Ana winds). The meteorologists were warning everyone.

It's hard not to compare this to Florida, which gets battered with hurricanes regularly enough, and hurricane warnings that fizzle out dramatically. I remember plenty of posts on here attacking Florida for everything under the sun leading up to the hurricane, and then when it's over the interest dies away immediately. And it's because Florida has a first rate hurricane response program in place. They are prepared. They know what to do. They get people out, they respond to damage right away, they start rebuilding immediately. They are prepared! That's why we can't remember what the last hurricane was! You may not like Ron DeSantis for whatever reason, but you cannot fault him (and no one does) for not being prepared when a hurricane hits.

We can't say that about California today, no matter what promises the governor or mayor makes or the real truth behind funding numbers or empty fire hydrants. This is a problem because the wildfires will be back somewhere, someday. Arguing over climate change is meaningless because it's here now so you need to be prepared for it now. And that's not California today. Competence, real competence focused on the safety and wellbeing of people, is a problem in California. And that is the situation. Arguing over "he lied" "she lied" is only a red herring.

Yup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the fire, water, & forestry efforts were underfunded & mismanaged, then the various levels of government are culpable.

If they WEREN’T underfunded or mismanaged, then the various levels of government are inept at employing those adequate resources.

But Newsom & Bass want us to believe nobody did anything wrong & STILL these fires are out of control. Somebody needs to send them one of those “The buck stops here!” signs.

There is a cost for preparedness. They could have made changes that could have mitigated the spread of wildfires with these extreme conditions, but at an extreme cost.

Do you plan for the 50 year flood, the 100 year flood, or the 500 year flood?

It’s about balancing resources while managing risk.

If you are in a La Niña year and you see it coming after months and months of dry weather YES, you make a plan like State Farm made a plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the fire, water, & forestry efforts were underfunded & mismanaged, then the various levels of government are culpable.

If they WEREN’T underfunded or mismanaged, then the various levels of government are inept at employing those adequate resources.

But Newsom & Bass want us to believe nobody did anything wrong & STILL these fires are out of control. Somebody needs to send them one of those “The buck stops here!” signs.

There is a cost for preparedness. They could have made changes that could have mitigated the spread of wildfires with these extreme conditions, but at an extreme cost.

Do you plan for the 50 year flood, the 100 year flood, or the 500 year flood?

It’s about balancing resources while managing risk.

You are very right. And the Republican critics of CA’s preparedness are the same ones who want to lower taxes and decrease federal funding for the exact things the at they claim CA should have done more of. You can’t have it both ways. Who is supposed to fund preparation, fire hydrant and reservoir maintenance, increased fire department resources, etc.? And don’t say individuals without acknowledging that the individuals with the most resources (Bezos, Musk, and so on down from there) are the very ones doing their best to shield their resources from taxation and call for bootstrapping.

I think republicans’ vision is basically a magical rich person who’s not them funding everything, or each individual homeowner standing in their yard with a hose and using zero public resources.

Find me a Republican who is calling for more preparedness AND willing to vote for more taxes to fund it and I’d happily vote for them.

You never will find that because they don’t need more taxes. They needed to not waste tax money on a vanity trip to Ghana

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point, with 87 pages it's most likely the same few people arguing back and forth. Not sure if it's worth adding any opinions.

The big issue in California was the lack of preparedness despite that wildfires are a fact of life, they always happen, they will always happen. There was plenty of advance notice that the weather conditions would be supremely ideal for a massive wildfire (the Santa Ana winds). The meteorologists were warning everyone.

It's hard not to compare this to Florida, which gets battered with hurricanes regularly enough, and hurricane warnings that fizzle out dramatically. I remember plenty of posts on here attacking Florida for everything under the sun leading up to the hurricane, and then when it's over the interest dies away immediately. And it's because Florida has a first rate hurricane response program in place. They are prepared. They know what to do. They get people out, they respond to damage right away, they start rebuilding immediately. They are prepared! That's why we can't remember what the last hurricane was! You may not like Ron DeSantis for whatever reason, but you cannot fault him (and no one does) for not being prepared when a hurricane hits.

We can't say that about California today, no matter what promises the governor or mayor makes or the real truth behind funding numbers or empty fire hydrants. This is a problem because the wildfires will be back somewhere, someday. Arguing over climate change is meaningless because it's here now so you need to be prepared for it now. And that's not California today. Competence, real competence focused on the safety and wellbeing of people, is a problem in California. And that is the situation. Arguing over "he lied" "she lied" is only a red herring.

Ultimately, Newsome is, and has been, Governor.

Preparedness was his responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the fire, water, & forestry efforts were underfunded & mismanaged, then the various levels of government are culpable.

If they WEREN’T underfunded or mismanaged, then the various levels of government are inept at employing those adequate resources.

But Newsom & Bass want us to believe nobody did anything wrong & STILL these fires are out of control. Somebody needs to send them one of those “The buck stops here!” signs.

There is a cost for preparedness. They could have made changes that could have mitigated the spread of wildfires with these extreme conditions, but at an extreme cost.

Do you plan for the 50 year flood, the 100 year flood, or the 500 year flood?

It’s about balancing resources while managing risk.

You are very right. And the Republican critics of CA’s preparedness are the same ones who want to lower taxes and decrease federal funding for the exact things the at they claim CA should have done more of. You can’t have it both ways. Who is supposed to fund preparation, fire hydrant and reservoir maintenance, increased fire department resources, etc.? And don’t say individuals without acknowledging that the individuals with the most resources (Bezos, Musk, and so on down from there) are the very ones doing their best to shield their resources from taxation and call for bootstrapping.

I think republicans’ vision is basically a magical rich person who’s not them funding everything, or each individual homeowner standing in their yard with a hose and using zero public resources.

Find me a Republican who is calling for more preparedness AND willing to vote for more taxes to fund it and I’d happily vote for them.

Exactly. They are basically full of crap.

And you are basically insignificant and kicked to the curb.
Its fun to watch now.

I’m sure Trump learned this response from reading his Bible. Do you remember what verse Jesus said “thou shalt be kicked to the curb if you don’t worship me” — I forget???

John 6:64-65 and Matthew 7:21-23

[Anonymous]

Great WSJ article about people living in CA and FL being unwilling to insure themselves properly.

https://apple.news/ATap-6f4rTdWStImTmn_28Q

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rick Caruso (who ran against Bass) protected his neighborhood and businesses with private fire companies and his own water tanks. Pacific Village which he owns did not burn down, and everything around it did. That opens up the question of privilege and wealth/entitlement on his part, but it also shows something went wrong here in terms of scope of response, because nothing else can explain that specific area not burning v. surrounding ones burning. Manpower and water were insufficient.

To me, it shows that he’s competent. Maybe the people there will vote for the competent person next time.

Uh, no. He had his private firefighters sit on their hands while the nearby houses burned down.

This is exactly how it works in many red jurisdictions. You want a fire department? You pay to subscribe. If you can’t afford it, too bad. And they will come to protect your neighbor’s house while they watch yours burn.

Um, yes. People pay through taxes. It didn't do them any good in LA.

No, in many red jurisdictions people PRIVATELY SUBSCRIBE OR GO WITHOUT.

This disaster was not something that anyone could have fully prepared for. The Monday morning quarterbacking is too early and dueled by misinformation. Whenever a large scale disaster occurs there is a review process to determine how we can prepare better for the next one. I feel sorry for the people in red states but I hope we can get their financial woes off our blue backs. States’ Rights! More resources for those who fight climate and science denial.

Aren't we talking about LA here? They pay through taxes. And I am in a red state and we also pay through taxes for our firefighters. Enough red/blue crap. The point is this was poorly-managed regardless of the wind, and 100% could have been prepared for better (if you only believe Democrats, look to Newsom and councilwoman Traci Park who said so). I voted for Harris and I am so tired of "we blue do it well always!!" bullshit. Time to hold ALL our elected officials accountable because saying "the other guy is worse" (and yes, often GOP ARE worse) is an easy distraction technique to keep us all down and docile.

You make too much sense.

Agree. This is all we want. Accountability and get the people out of the way who are incapable of governing.