Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[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: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.

I'm just asking you where you are relocating people to and how, not arguing climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Got it. So, in red states, lack of preparation for impacts of climate change should be ignored, and we should focus on an inadequate response by the federal government, but in blue states, all focus should be on local officials. What a coincidence! Just seems like you're a partisan hack. Who lacks an empathetic bone in his body.

[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: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.

I'm just asking you where you are relocating people to and how, not arguing climate change.

I'm not relocating anyone. Where are you relocating 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.

The Dems aren’t exactly making a dent in progress with trying to keep climate change at bay. Politicians will screw us all in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, I feel for all of the people impacted by the fires. It's a terrible disaster. In times like these those who have had their homes destroyed deserve nothing but sympathy, offers of warm meals, and homes that are open to them and help cleaning up.

For those of you who had nothing but empathy for those in Western North Carolina but find yourselves finding fault with those near LA, you should be ashamed of yourselves. They've just been through a major tragedy.

I agree to the extent that the people who do this are the celebrities themselves who have huge amounts of cash money and assets to liquidate and should be taking care of themselves and of course should be taking care of those non celebrities and non millionaires who are effected by the fires. The celebrities should be the first to have stepped up and created a fund among themselves with donations only accepted from other celebrities to help those without the means affected by the fire.

Why exactly would their celebrity neighbors, who also, by the way, have lost their homes (in many cases their only residence), be more responsible for taking care of the victims of this disaster than FEMA, or the County or the City or the State or any of us with a few bucks to spare for disaster relief? That's what government and non-profits are for: pulling together an appropriate response in times of disaster. Along with some other stuff, of course.

Because the majority of them are very liberal and we should 100% expect them to live their values and share their wealth at a time of disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Got it. So, in red states, lack of preparation for impacts of climate change should be ignored, and we should focus on an inadequate response by the federal government, but in blue states, all focus should be on local officials. What a coincidence! Just seems like you're a partisan hack. Who lacks an empathetic bone in his body.

NP- Why do you assume the bolded part? Can't everyone be held accountable who needs to be held accountable? Isn't it pretty normal to look back on mistakes made to try and remedy for the future? We all pay for certain services and elect officials to work for our communities,on the local, state and federal scale. Why cherry pick who we absolve/don't absolve based on party lines?

[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: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.

The Dems aren’t exactly making a dent in progress with trying to keep climate change at bay. Politicians will screw us all in the end.

Actually, the Infrastructure Act was a huge, concerted effort to make climate change. Consistent action over the course of decades at all levels of government is needed, but Biden did a whole lot more on climate change than any President before him did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Got it. So, in red states, lack of preparation for impacts of climate change should be ignored, and we should focus on an inadequate response by the federal government, but in blue states, all focus should be on local officials. What a coincidence! Just seems like you're a partisan hack. Who lacks an empathetic bone in his body.

NP- Why do you assume the bolded part? Can't everyone be held accountable who needs to be held accountable? Isn't it pretty normal to look back on mistakes made to try and remedy for the future? We all pay for certain services and elect officials to work for our communities,on the local, state and federal scale. Why cherry pick who we absolve/don't absolve based on party lines?

I don't. But the MAGA heads on this forum do. I'm all for everyone preparing, responding and the evaluating both the response and the preparation. But, somehow the MAGA posters only want to criticize Democratic public officials.

Also, are you actually saying that the outcome, in this extreme wind and fire event, would have been markedly different with the preparation measures noted? Because I don't think that's true. And I don't think that case can reasonably be made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Got it. So, in red states, lack of preparation for impacts of climate change should be ignored, and we should focus on an inadequate response by the federal government, but in blue states, all focus should be on local officials. What a coincidence! Just seems like you're a partisan hack. Who lacks an empathetic bone in his body.

You can weakly try to attempt to deflect as much as you want, but much of the criticism is coming from Democrats that live in LA. The statement that I lack empathy is a weak red herring/ emotional appeal attempt to change the subject. All the people's houses in those areas regardless of their political views burn equally.
Not have the reservoirs filled so that the fire hydrants can work is not a climate change issue. Neither is cutting 18 million from fire fighting budget a climate change issue. These are politician mismanagement issues.

[Anonymous]

The reservoirs were filled.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/extreme-weather-verify/palisades-los-angeles-fire-hydrants-water-fact-check/536-87045971-aacb-4319-9b39-8d999675eae1

[Anonymous]

The government can only do as much as the corporations let them, which isn’t much. That will only get worse with the next administration. Several large corporations are already withdrawing from climate pledges to pacify the incoming mob. Money trumps all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Got it. So, in red states, lack of preparation for impacts of climate change should be ignored, and we should focus on an inadequate response by the federal government, but in blue states, all focus should be on local officials. What a coincidence! Just seems like you're a partisan hack. Who lacks an empathetic bone in his body.

NP- Why do you assume the bolded part? Can't everyone be held accountable who needs to be held accountable? Isn't it pretty normal to look back on mistakes made to try and remedy for the future? We all pay for certain services and elect officials to work for our communities,on the local, state and federal scale. Why cherry pick who we absolve/don't absolve based on party lines?

I don't. But the MAGA heads on this forum do. I'm all for everyone preparing, responding and the evaluating both the response and the preparation. But, somehow the MAGA posters only want to criticize Democratic public officials.

Also, are you actually saying that the outcome, in this extreme wind and fire event, would have been markedly different with the preparation measures noted? Because I don't think that's true. And I don't think that case can reasonably be made.

I am saying it’s not unreasonable to ask questions about fire/water/resource management after so much devastation impacting so many people. You can’t just throw your arms up and say you did everything, because that doesn’t teach you how you can have better outcomes next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reservoirs were filled.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/extreme-weather-verify/palisades-los-angeles-fire-hydrants-water-fact-check/536-87045971-aacb-4319-9b39-8d999675eae1

So antiquated water supply infrastructure in one of the wealthiest and most highly taxed areas in the world was the problem?
And who's fault to that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So these 5-6 states will be creating 14m housing units for Californians, who can no longer get homeowners insurance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Plus the California state regulators put forth several conditions which the insurance companies deemed unacceptable.
Seeing similar actions in Florida.

Insurance companies wanted to charge consumers the appropriate rate for the risk. They were denied. Insurance companies cannot pay homeowners for fire risk that they don't have the money to pay them. Same goes for people who build in hurricane zones. Insurance companies are required by law to reserve a certain amount of money to backstop for unforeseen claims so that they have money to pay for events that are deemed rare. There is nothing rare about California fires. They are predictable. If people want to live in that area, then they need to pay their insurance companies for the risk that they as the homeowner are taking on.

Also, friendly reminder -- homeowner's insurance is only required if you have a mortgage to protect the lender or if you live in an HOA/Co-op.

It’s always interesting to me that PPs like this exclude tornadoes and massive storms like Irene from their list of what is acceptable risk. Apparently we should all be happy to cover people who live in the Midwest and northeast but not people who live on the west coast or in the south.

It’s just so ridiculously transparent.