Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I kind of disagree about the population issue. There are too many of us. This is why we have shortages of homes in many places. We are encroaching on every wild area that exists in our need for housing and stuff. It is, in part, a population issue.

Altadena is an old area. Most people didn't move there recently. Everyone I saw on the news had been there for many decades.

[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.

Why not DC?

Lots of reasons. But read Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen for a start.

We're all going to die some day, regardless of nuclear war. Now if nuclear war hits, sure, some areas will be more at risk. Are you actually living your life based on natural and geopolitical disasters, or do you just happen to live somewhere generally low risk, like some part of Maine or Connecticut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bolded is flatly untrue. Where do people get these crazy ideas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

I don't really understand what you have in mind - like a continuous spray? Water isn't unlimited - hydrants in some of these areas are already running dry as firefighters use them. And any active system would presumably require power and somebody to man it. Plus spraying water in 100 mpg gusts probably not effective.

I know this kind of fire is unfamiliar to east coasters, I'm not mocking. But it's much bigger and faster than you are imagining. You're basically asking why Florida doesn't have some kind of pump to keep hurricanes out.

As with hurricanes, there are new building methods that help. Burying the power lines would be a huge help, but that's expensive and CA allowed it's power utility to be privatized. This is really a story of climate change + bad infrastructure decisions.

Have you ever seen crop irrigation systems, they implement rotating water cannons to cover large swaths of land. Install some of these and only turn them on when a fire is happening and a neighborhood is in danger. It’s not a complex idea.

LOL asking someone from CA if they've seen a crop sprinkler. Uh, yes, I have.
I tried to nicely explain already, but it's clear you are not familiar with fires, the terrain, or the water or electricity situation. But sure, you solved it, good job.

Yeah, still not sure how this idea isnt better than nothing. A quick google search shows that apparently there are companies that do provide this service. Adapting it to be an integral part of a community’s infrastructure would make sense.

https://www.wildfirewater.com/

I think this area would be hard because it is all hills and houses. There isn't space to put a massive sprinkler system.

I assume planes can scoop up water from the ocean to fight the fire? I am not sure how that works.

No you can’t dump sea water all over the land because you will salt the soil and nothing will ever grow there again.

You may not realize it, but I think you’re on to something. The grass growing then dying is the problem. More of them need rock gardens and to stop unwanted regrowing of brush

[Anonymous]

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

It shows you don’t know anything about the population of Altadena, which is absolutely far from millionaires. So basically shows you are ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question from somebody who hasn't had to evacuate - when do you decide to go? My impulse would be to just leave now if I was anywhere near, but I can understand it requires a place to stay, missing work, etc. Do you wait for the order? or go sooner if you can?

I am pp who has been through it three times. We have a system that warns us to prepare to evacuate, and we all are watching location, wind speed/direction, and of course literally watching, communicating with neighbors, and paying attention to our guts. I want to be out before the order so that there is no chance of being stuck in gridlock.

Coordinating with neighbors is a must. We have some teens on the block that aren’t old enough to drive. There are plans A, B, and C for them to get out. We all have keys or codes for multiple neighbors and we know who has which pets. We have a couple of elderly neighbors that are pretty fit but we have designated people to make sure they are ok and help them if needed. We let each other know when we’re going out of town, etc.

Curious, PP: Why do you keep living in such a fire-prone area? Why not move away to a safer place?

What place is safe? People live in Tornado Alley, in hurricane zones, in tsunami risk zones, beside volcanoes, in earthquake risk zones, in flood zones, in wildfire and mudslide risk zones, in avalanche zones and in terrorism/war target/crime zones.

Suburban DC.

Who wants to tell PP?

Just say it. Why be coy?

If nature doesn’t take you out, the people will

[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.

Why not DC?

Lots of reasons. But read Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen for a start.

If there is a nuclear war I’d rather go in the first blast than survive and die slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+100

Also remember that many of these rich people had incredibly consumptive lifestyles. Private jets, limousines, world travel, massive homes. They used a disproportional amount of energy, much of it carbon based, and they had a disproportionate impact in creating global climate change which caused this fire.

These people were some of the biggest earth-killers, and now earth is having it’s say.

What’s weird about this thread is that the far left and the far right are demonstrating that they’re actually extremely similar in their psychopathy and lack of intellect. We have both nutcase MAGA and nutcase far left posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

I don't really understand what you have in mind - like a continuous spray? Water isn't unlimited - hydrants in some of these areas are already running dry as firefighters use them. And any active system would presumably require power and somebody to man it. Plus spraying water in 100 mpg gusts probably not effective.

I know this kind of fire is unfamiliar to east coasters, I'm not mocking. But it's much bigger and faster than you are imagining. You're basically asking why Florida doesn't have some kind of pump to keep hurricanes out.

As with hurricanes, there are new building methods that help. Burying the power lines would be a huge help, but that's expensive and CA allowed it's power utility to be privatized. This is really a story of climate change + bad infrastructure decisions.

Have you ever seen crop irrigation systems, they implement rotating water cannons to cover large swaths of land. Install some of these and only turn them on when a fire is happening and a neighborhood is in danger. It’s not a complex idea.

LOL asking someone from CA if they've seen a crop sprinkler. Uh, yes, I have.
I tried to nicely explain already, but it's clear you are not familiar with fires, the terrain, or the water or electricity situation. But sure, you solved it, good job.

Yeah, still not sure how this idea isnt better than nothing. A quick google search shows that apparently there are companies that do provide this service. Adapting it to be an integral part of a community’s infrastructure would make sense.

https://www.wildfirewater.com/

I think this area would be hard because it is all hills and houses. There isn't space to put a massive sprinkler system.

I assume planes can scoop up water from the ocean to fight the fire? I am not sure how that works.

No you can’t dump sea water all over the land because you will salt the soil and nothing will ever grow there again.

You may not realize it, but I think you’re on to something. The grass growing then dying is the problem. More of them need rock gardens and to stop unwanted regrowing of brush

It's not the grass on the lawns that is the main culprit; it is the dry brush on the hillsides and canyons. Clearly some posters are very unfamiliar with California topography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These homes start at $2.5M and go up rapidly from there. I bet most of these folks were self-insured.

This represents a huge, extremely wealthy chunk of the Los Angeles county tax base. Lots of families with young kids. It's as if a wild fire completely destroyed CCMD and adjacent neighborhoods in upper NW DC.

This disaster will upend Los Angeles's budget - lots of costs to clean up but also lots of these people will move away. It will only be partially rebuilt, likely with multi-family housing. The entire area will be rebuilt much differently.

No. They will remain single family homes. People rebuild. There’s no way pacific palisades, Malibu or anywhere near the Ocean front will be anything less than multimillion dollar property. This will not affect anything. These people love their lifestyle and paradise there.

If anything, the mildly rich will be replaced by the very rich.

Exactly. My family was never uber rich but comfortable upper middle class and wouldn’t be able to start over in the same place. Many neighbors were regular jobs like electricians and teachers who bought in the 70s, 80s, paid off home and continued on. They will never be able to rebuild and live in the same communities. It’s sad.

My friend in Palisades lost his home. It was a multimillion dollar home but that was his main asset. He doesn't have millions squirreled away to rebuild. A lot of people end up in the position that they could never afford to buy their own home even 5 years later with the way real estate prices increase. I don't know what these people will do, there are millions of them.

Same in FL. People just won’t come back or will sell at a loss.

The real enemy here are the insurance companies. They raised rates in FL now they are cancelling CA right in the thick of the season.

I have no love for insurance companies, but they are really not the enemy here. They are raising rates in line with actual increases in risk. They could raise rates, cancel policies, or become insolvent and unable to pay out a major incident...end result is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

I don't really understand what you have in mind - like a continuous spray? Water isn't unlimited - hydrants in some of these areas are already running dry as firefighters use them. And any active system would presumably require power and somebody to man it. Plus spraying water in 100 mpg gusts probably not effective.

I know this kind of fire is unfamiliar to east coasters, I'm not mocking. But it's much bigger and faster than you are imagining. You're basically asking why Florida doesn't have some kind of pump to keep hurricanes out.

As with hurricanes, there are new building methods that help. Burying the power lines would be a huge help, but that's expensive and CA allowed it's power utility to be privatized. This is really a story of climate change + bad infrastructure decisions.

Have you ever seen crop irrigation systems, they implement rotating water cannons to cover large swaths of land. Install some of these and only turn them on when a fire is happening and a neighborhood is in danger. It’s not a complex idea.

LOL asking someone from CA if they've seen a crop sprinkler. Uh, yes, I have.
I tried to nicely explain already, but it's clear you are not familiar with fires, the terrain, or the water or electricity situation. But sure, you solved it, good job.

Yeah, still not sure how this idea isnt better than nothing. A quick google search shows that apparently there are companies that do provide this service. Adapting it to be an integral part of a community’s infrastructure would make sense.

https://www.wildfirewater.com/

I think this area would be hard because it is all hills and houses. There isn't space to put a massive sprinkler system.

I assume planes can scoop up water from the ocean to fight the fire? I am not sure how that works.

No you can’t dump sea water all over the land because you will salt the soil and nothing will ever grow there again.

You may not realize it, but I think you’re on to something. The grass growing then dying is the problem. More of them need rock gardens and to stop unwanted regrowing of brush

It's not the grass on the lawns that is the main culprit; it is the dry brush on the hillsides and canyons. Clearly some posters are very unfamiliar with California topography.

That’s the grass I’m talking about. It’s just grassy brush and small ground coverings that are overgrown then dries out when it stops raining. If the soil can be made fallow with salt then unwanted weedy grasses can’t grow there. Fire won’t spread over rocks and dirt. The fire is spreading because California is basically covered in kindling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+100

Also remember that many of these rich people had incredibly consumptive lifestyles. Private jets, limousines, world travel, massive homes. They used a disproportional amount of energy, much of it carbon based, and they had a disproportionate impact in creating global climate change which caused this fire.

These people were some of the biggest earth-killers, and now earth is having it’s say.

They are discussing well-known people who have been affected in the news, but 180,000 people have been evacuated. There aren't 180,000 millionaires and billionaires in the area - the majority are everyday folk.

I’m quite familiar with the Pacific Palisades area. There are no “everyday folk” there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bolded is flatly untrue. Where do people get these crazy ideas?

You are an idiot. It is well known that new construction in the US does not fare as well as most of Europe's new construction.

Have you seen the quality of our roads v theirs? That would be your first clue. Next, most Americans focus on big and cheap. Be honest. You really contest this view? US homeownership focuses on transactions - it's appeal v quality. The prioritization is on new construction/turnover - in Europe, the build is for generations.

In Europe and in many older American neighborhoods, you'll see brick and stone. These days, new construction is wood framing. There are def some parts in the US that have stringent local codes but by and large, most of Europe have stricter codes and regulations that focus on sustainability, durability and energy efficiency. Finally, US labor costs are sky high - cutting corners and getting it done quickly and cheaply means that new construction is typically not very high quality. Not saying every house, but frequently, that's what you'll find.

Just look at European food regulations - Europe highly regulates almost everything more than we do in the US. It's somewhat a cultural thing but it's real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

I don't really understand what you have in mind - like a continuous spray? Water isn't unlimited - hydrants in some of these areas are already running dry as firefighters use them. And any active system would presumably require power and somebody to man it. Plus spraying water in 100 mpg gusts probably not effective.

I know this kind of fire is unfamiliar to east coasters, I'm not mocking. But it's much bigger and faster than you are imagining. You're basically asking why Florida doesn't have some kind of pump to keep hurricanes out.

As with hurricanes, there are new building methods that help. Burying the power lines would be a huge help, but that's expensive and CA allowed it's power utility to be privatized. This is really a story of climate change + bad infrastructure decisions.

Have you ever seen crop irrigation systems, they implement rotating water cannons to cover large swaths of land. Install some of these and only turn them on when a fire is happening and a neighborhood is in danger. It’s not a complex idea.

LOL asking someone from CA if they've seen a crop sprinkler. Uh, yes, I have.
I tried to nicely explain already, but it's clear you are not familiar with fires, the terrain, or the water or electricity situation. But sure, you solved it, good job.

Yeah, still not sure how this idea isnt better than nothing. A quick google search shows that apparently there are companies that do provide this service. Adapting it to be an integral part of a community’s infrastructure would make sense.

https://www.wildfirewater.com/

I think this area would be hard because it is all hills and houses. There isn't space to put a massive sprinkler system.

I assume planes can scoop up water from the ocean to fight the fire? I am not sure how that works.

No you can’t dump sea water all over the land because you will salt the soil and nothing will ever grow there again.

You may not realize it, but I think you’re on to something. The grass growing then dying is the problem. More of them need rock gardens and to stop unwanted regrowing of brush

It's not the grass on the lawns that is the main culprit; it is the dry brush on the hillsides and canyons. Clearly some posters are very unfamiliar with California topography.

That’s the grass I’m talking about. It’s just grassy brush and small ground coverings that are overgrown then dries out when it stops raining. If the soil can be made fallow with salt then unwanted weedy grasses can’t grow there. Fire won’t spread over rocks and dirt. The fire is spreading because California is basically covered in kindling.

But if you didn’t have at least some kind of vegetation on the hillsides, erosion (when it does rain) would be much worse than it is now. If you think socal has mudslide problems now, what do you think it would be without plant life on the hills? Plus, that vegetation is critical habitat for birds and other animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These homes start at $2.5M and go up rapidly from there. I bet most of these folks were self-insured.

This represents a huge, extremely wealthy chunk of the Los Angeles county tax base. Lots of families with young kids. It's as if a wild fire completely destroyed CCMD and adjacent neighborhoods in upper NW DC.

This disaster will upend Los Angeles's budget - lots of costs to clean up but also lots of these people will move away. It will only be partially rebuilt, likely with multi-family housing. The entire area will be rebuilt much differently.

No. They will remain single family homes. People rebuild. There’s no way pacific palisades, Malibu or anywhere near the Ocean front will be anything less than multimillion dollar property. This will not affect anything. These people love their lifestyle and paradise there.

If anything, the mildly rich will be replaced by the very rich.

Exactly. My family was never uber rich but comfortable upper middle class and wouldn’t be able to start over in the same place. Many neighbors were regular jobs like electricians and teachers who bought in the 70s, 80s, paid off home and continued on. They will never be able to rebuild and live in the same communities. It’s sad.

My friend in Palisades lost his home. It was a multimillion dollar home but that was his main asset. He doesn't have millions squirreled away to rebuild. A lot of people end up in the position that they could never afford to buy their own home even 5 years later with the way real estate prices increase. I don't know what these people will do, there are millions of them.

Same in FL. People just won’t come back or will sell at a loss.

The real enemy here are the insurance companies. They raised rates in FL now they are cancelling CA right in the thick of the season.

I have no love for insurance companies, but they are really not the enemy here. They are raising rates in line with actual increases in risk. They could raise rates, cancel policies, or become insolvent and unable to pay out a major incident...end result is the same.

+ 1000. This is not insurance being at fault - this is about risk. What business and any objective person does not want to mitigate risk?

This is about being aware that if you live close to danger, it is a risk to your safety. Common sense. Not saying you can't do it, just saying, this is the honest truth and anyone who doesn't want to face this fact has to face the music, in a manner of speaking.

It's the same as building your house on the sand in Outer Banks - come on - really? It's a matter of time before that house goes into the ocean - that is all you need to know.