Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

I just found out that one of my parents friends, a family friend who went to college with my dad, lost her house in the Palisade fire. She’s 82 years old, she lived in an 1800 square foot house surrounded by similar sized homes. My heart breaks for her.

On a side note regarding insurance, I had an insurance company cancel my weekend place homeowners insurance because the trees were too close to the house. The place is built in the woods. I was able to get insurance elsewhere but now I’m seriously thinking of cutting the trees way back.

[Anonymous]

Makes you wonder if it is an act of terrorism. You don't need a dirty bomb or something huge to cause massive destruction. Something as small as purposefully throwing a cigarette onto dry brush can in CA can now cause mass destruction and massive financial pain for the whole country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s why half of United States looks like siding shanty towns after 15 years

We’ll get ready for more shanty towns since people think it’s fine to no longer insure people for homes they’ve lived in for decades, and think it’s fine fine to eliminate social services. The billionaires don’t mind driving by the squalor. In fact, the felon will probably start selling cardboard marked with his electoral map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s why half of United States looks like siding shanty towns after 15 years

We’ll get ready for more shanty towns since people think it’s fine to no longer insure people for homes they’ve lived in for decades, and think it’s fine fine to eliminate social services. The billionaires don’t mind driving by the squalor. In fact, the felon will probably start selling cardboard marked with his electoral map.

That's why we need appropriate government assistance to move people who now live in areas that (due to collective inaction on climate change) are no longer habitable. Taxing the billionaires and their corporations is a crucial element of adaptation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

Where do you suggest the CA climate refugees go? Since the entire state is now a fire risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s why half of United States looks like siding shanty towns after 15 years

We’ll get ready for more shanty towns since people think it’s fine to no longer insure people for homes they’ve lived in for decades, and think it’s fine fine to eliminate social services. The billionaires don’t mind driving by the squalor. In fact, the felon will probably start selling cardboard marked with his electoral map.

That's why we need appropriate government assistance to move people who now live in areas that (due to collective inaction on climate change) are no longer habitable. Taxing the billionaires and their corporations is a crucial element of adaptation.

LOL that’s not happening in the next 4 years. People elected a climate change denier. I would bet serious money on the cardboard.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/infrastructure/3282068/rick-caruso-los-angeles-leaders-ignored-warnings-fires/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s why half of United States looks like siding shanty towns after 15 years

We’ll get ready for more shanty towns since people think it’s fine to no longer insure people for homes they’ve lived in for decades, and think it’s fine fine to eliminate social services. The billionaires don’t mind driving by the squalor. In fact, the felon will probably start selling cardboard marked with his electoral map.

That's why we need appropriate government assistance to move people who now live in areas that (due to collective inaction on climate change) are no longer habitable. Taxing the billionaires and their corporations is a crucial element of adaptation.

Where are you shipping people?

[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: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.

That’s why half of United States looks like siding shanty towns after 15 years

We’ll get ready for more shanty towns since people think it’s fine to no longer insure people for homes they’ve lived in for decades, and think it’s fine fine to eliminate social services. The billionaires don’t mind driving by the squalor. In fact, the felon will probably start selling cardboard marked with his electoral map.

That's why we need appropriate government assistance to move people who now live in areas that (due to collective inaction on climate change) are no longer habitable. Taxing the billionaires and their corporations is a crucial element of adaptation.

LOL that’s not happening in the next 4 years. People elected a climate change denier. I would bet serious money on the cardboard.

State and local responses to climate change can make a huge difference too, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if any of you have bothered to notice, but the North Hollywood fire is contained.

Palisades is still 0% contained which is very unfortunate.

We drove out of LA yesterday with our pets and are staying up the coast. The alternative seems to be breathing vast quantities of black smoke and waiting to be evacuated which is not anyone's idea of a good time.

I have been watching so yes. The big air drop helped a lot with the Hollywood one. What are you hearing from people in terms of what they think of the response?

Many are mad a black woman (the mayor) hasn't been pilloried for simply existing as the fires happened.

Sure. It bees racism that she cut the fire budget by 18 million and ignored the many warnings leading up to the devastating fires.

What warnings were ignored? Once the forecast was known everything was in place to fight the fires. The reservoirs were full. It was just too much of a natural disaster.

And the funny part about the progressive comments is that fire (and other) things were cut from the city budget to fund the police budget.

These MAGA nuts don't care about anyone but themselves. Don't let them ruin your day.

Try here.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/infrastructure/3282068/rick-caruso-los-angeles-leaders-ignored-warnings-fires/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

Where do you suggest the CA climate refugees go? Since the entire state is now a fire risk?

Texas? DMV?

[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: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.

That’s why half of United States looks like siding shanty towns after 15 years

We’ll get ready for more shanty towns since people think it’s fine to no longer insure people for homes they’ve lived in for decades, and think it’s fine fine to eliminate social services. The billionaires don’t mind driving by the squalor. In fact, the felon will probably start selling cardboard marked with his electoral map.

That's why we need appropriate government assistance to move people who now live in areas that (due to collective inaction on climate change) are no longer habitable. Taxing the billionaires and their corporations is a crucial element of adaptation.

Where are you shipping people?

Towns on the ocean have had to move already, and more will in the future. Same with places built in flood planes. That's reality. You can live in denial or invent conspiracy theories if you feel like it, but climate change is changing lives every single day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

Where do you suggest the CA climate refugees go? Since the entire state is now a fire risk?

Texas? DMV?

New England is a good option. Ohio.