Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t the wind in Europe result in massive wild fires?

You’re not so bright are you?

NP

Why do you have to be such an a-hole? Do you think it’s helpful?


Her question is a legitimate one. I’d bet a lot of people wonder the same thing.

Maybe because most of Europe isn’t a frickin desert?

27 square miles burned. Horrific. So terrible that nothing could be done to prevent this disaster or facilitate evacuation.

But the codes in Europe are much stricter than in US. There's a lot of wood houses there. I do get that in an earthquake scenario, wood is better than concrete but just saying - fires are really dangerous in LA because so many of their SFH are wood based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when the right is politicizing this and claiming that the Dems in charge cut the LAFD budget...they are lying.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/wildfire-threatens-karen-bass-extended-honeymoon-00197228

Bass also took heat from far-left activists online, who accused the mayor of cutting the fire department’s budget in order to pay for a costly new contract with the city’s police. Also weighing in against her was Patrick Soon-Shiong, the politically idiosyncratic owner of the Los Angeles Times, who echoed the attack, posting on X that “the Mayor cut LA Fire Department’s budget by $23M.”

That assertion is wrong. The city was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the fire department at the time the budget was being crafted, so additional funding for the department was set aside in a separate fund until that deal was finalized in November. In fact, the city’s fire budget increased more than $50 million year-over-year compared to the last budget cycle, according to Blumenfield’s office, although overall concerns about the department’s staffing level have persisted for a number of years.

Of course. Republicans are liars.

All I can find is this in the December release (https://mayor.lacity.gov/news/delivering-results-2024-mayor-bass-lapd-lafd-and-community-based-safety-solutions-deliver_)"The Mayor’s Office of Public Safety secured historic funding of more than $50 million to replace old firetrucks and other apparatus beyond service life, and to purchase new equipment."

It doesn't state how that 50 million is part of the budget, whether it is a real increase. In any case, if we're talking about maintaining and replacing equipment, it seems adequate at best, bare minimum, and certainly not some great improvement. It's also a fairly small figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in DC but have LA colleagues evacuating, then having to move again as things spread.

It's terrifying.

I’m in DC and heard yesterday morning that my best friend’s brother lost their home. Then my DH came home from a daylong deposition and one of the lawyers on the opposing side found out his family had also lost everything. They were both in the Palisades.

PP and I don't think those of us who haven't experienced this kind of disaster have any clue. It's hard to wrap your head around entire neighborhoods just being wiped out.

[Anonymous]

Is it bad that I don't really care? These people are millionaires and billionaires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Just saying - it's proximity to danger. And again, you can't be safe 100%. But these people live in paradise. You understand how beautiful the Palisades is? There's a price to be paid for that paradise. I read articles that suggested a number of residents appreciated this fact. Again, lots and lots of sympathy for this tragic event but just a lesson - there's no free lunch and there's a price to be paid for living in such boundless natural beauty. It could be inconvenience and it could be natural disasters that are more frequent. Same goes for putting your house directly on a beach. Same goes for living in a valley. ESPECIALLY with climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Just saying - it's proximity to danger. And again, you can't be safe 100%. But these people live in paradise. You understand how beautiful the Palisades is? There's a price to be paid for that paradise. I read articles that suggested a number of residents appreciated this fact. Again, lots and lots of sympathy for this tragic event but just a lesson - there's no free lunch and there's a price to be paid for living in such boundless natural beauty. It could be inconvenience and it could be natural disasters that are more frequent. Same goes for putting your house directly on a beach. Same goes for living in a valley. ESPECIALLY with climate change.

Sounds like you're doing great on your ugly mountain of superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Well you live there but you have to be aware of risks. Of course there's no perfect safe place to live but I mean if you live in Albany NY, you're gonna invest in a snow plow You just manage the risks. It's not rocket science. You don't have a wood house if you live in a place with wild fires????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it bad that I don't really care? These people are millionaires and billionaires.

Just misinformed. Plenty of normal homes destroyed, where people grew up, retired, low income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

It’s cute that you think you will somehow be immune from climate change. I bet the people in Asheville thought that too. Record temps, record rainfall or droughts, record storms. This is our new man made climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Just saying - it's proximity to danger. And again, you can't be safe 100%. But these people live in paradise. You understand how beautiful the Palisades is? There's a price to be paid for that paradise. I read articles that suggested a number of residents appreciated this fact. Again, lots and lots of sympathy for this tragic event but just a lesson - there's no free lunch and there's a price to be paid for living in such boundless natural beauty. It could be inconvenience and it could be natural disasters that are more frequent. Same goes for putting your house directly on a beach. Same goes for living in a valley. ESPECIALLY with climate change.

Sounds like you're doing great on your ugly mountain of superiority.

Hey - common sense isn't that common I know. I'm not suggesting this isn't a sad day for a lot of people but even residents there echo my sentiments. They know that this is a risk they signed up for. Sucks but gotta accept and learn from tragedies or it will happen again and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Just saying - it's proximity to danger. And again, you can't be safe 100%. But these people live in paradise. You understand how beautiful the Palisades is? There's a price to be paid for that paradise. I read articles that suggested a number of residents appreciated this fact. Again, lots and lots of sympathy for this tragic event but just a lesson - there's no free lunch and there's a price to be paid for living in such boundless natural beauty. It could be inconvenience and it could be natural disasters that are more frequent. Same goes for putting your house directly on a beach. Same goes for living in a valley. ESPECIALLY with climate change.

Sounds like you're doing great on your ugly mountain of superiority.

Hey - common sense isn't that common I know. I'm not suggesting this isn't a sad day for a lot of people but even residents there echo my sentiments. They know that this is a risk they signed up for. Sucks but gotta accept and learn from tragedies or it will happen again and again.

You're the type to tell people "I told you so" rather than offer condolences. It's not about common sense, just simple empathy. No person in LA needs your "wisdom".

[Anonymous]

Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

They will be moving. I happen to be selling a home in an adjacent state any my agent is getting inundated with calls from high net worth buyers who are getting an early start on finding their next home. The early bird will get the worm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Just saying - it's proximity to danger. And again, you can't be safe 100%. But these people live in paradise. You understand how beautiful the Palisades is? There's a price to be paid for that paradise. I read articles that suggested a number of residents appreciated this fact. Again, lots and lots of sympathy for this tragic event but just a lesson - there's no free lunch and there's a price to be paid for living in such boundless natural beauty. It could be inconvenience and it could be natural disasters that are more frequent. Same goes for putting your house directly on a beach. Same goes for living in a valley. ESPECIALLY with climate change.

Sounds like you're doing great on your ugly mountain of superiority.

Hey - common sense isn't that common I know. I'm not suggesting this isn't a sad day for a lot of people but even residents there echo my sentiments. They know that this is a risk they signed up for. Sucks but gotta accept and learn from tragedies or it will happen again and again.

+1 Also need to elect responsible leaders who care more about planning and budgeting for public safety than optics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.