Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, I'm still insured here in Washington, DC. So, you know, it's not really my problem. You're the one who can't get insured.

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:

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.

No, insurance companies are cancelling insurance right and left for people in tornado alley, not to mention hurricane prone areas. Have you read up on the insurance issues Florida is having? If you think the West coast is uniquely persecuted in this, you're only paying attention to your own back yard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, I'm still insured here in Washington, DC. So, you know, it's not really my problem. You're the one who can't get insured.

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?

Californians will need to figure it out. If they want insurance, I guess. So will Floridians.

[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.

Can I kindly suggest that you trying to insult folks with different viewpoints from you by calling them MAGAheads really makes anything else you write pretty dismissive and makes you look really stupid.
There are reasonable and valid criticism points of California Democrats in charge now

[Anonymous]

Random question about home insurance. Are these companies dropping homeowners mid-policy, or not renewing?

Can an insurance company drop a homeowner mid-policy, for something like risk (and not something like non-payment).

[Anonymous]

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.

This just happened a few days ago and you expect the victims to already be organizing a fundraiser? Smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Random question about home insurance. Are these companies dropping homeowners mid-policy, or not renewing?

Can an insurance company drop a homeowner mid-policy, for something like risk (and not something like non-payment).

Not renewing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To add insult to injury looters have descended on some places to loot the homes while the owners are evacuated. This might be the last straw for some.

Last straw, how?

What are they gonna do? Vote republican???? Hahahaha

[Anonymous]

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.

I'm not one of the megawealthy but people who think they can demand how other people spend their money are a@@holes. You don't get to demand what wealthy people do with their money.

[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.

Exactly. Out of line to say other people owe you. They don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The posts with posters assuming no one has ever spent anytime managing this that are incredibly stupid. You think everyone is just throwing their hands up when that is not true. A tremendous amount of money, time and brain power is spent trying to manage the issue but you're such an idiot you never assume that. You're ignorant. You won't even spend 30 minutes to educate yourself but will come here with endless ignorance and idiocy. Go the f away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Nice try at CYA.

DP. It's a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, I'm still insured here in Washington, DC. So, you know, it's not really my problem. You're the one who can't get insured.

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?

Californians will need to figure it out. If they want insurance, I guess. So will Floridians.

In Florida people are making changes because of the insurance costs. One of my very wealthy siblings just sold their very expensive newly built house because it was on a body of water and the insurance costs went up like crazy in one year. Sibling just sold that house to someone from the midwest and purchased a smaller house a few blocks away. The insurance fees went down drastically.

A cousin elsewhere in Fl decided to sell their sfh and move to a condo only a few miles away also because of the insurance.

I can cite more cases of people I know moving less than 20 miles away from where they live in Fl to decrease insurance costs. They are all moving away from the ocean or lakes.

[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.

What kind of idiot thinks we can "keep climate change at bay."? It's done you fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To add insult to injury looters have descended on some places to loot the homes while the owners are evacuated. This might be the last straw for some.

Last straw, how?

What are they gonna do? Vote republican???? Hahahaha

Give up? Move away? Vote differently? Any of those things.