Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[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.

NP. Difference is NC that flooding was unusual while LA fire is not. In CA, it’s fire season everyday due to overcrowding.

No, the flooding in NC wasn’t unusual. It was in a flood zone and entirely predictable.

And even if you want to ignore the past flood zone warnings, now we know that it’s a routine occurrence so NC should be considered as a future risk as well.

The cognitive dissonance from the people who want to pretend that natural disasters in their favored states should be paid for by the rest of the country but not ones in disfavored states is so disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Guess there will always be someone willing to take the risk to have that waterfront home. Some people have enough money to self-insure.

[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: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.

You’re too interested in name calling and knee jerking to even read before you post replies. This is not remotely what I meant, or wrote…

[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.

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.

+1. Denial has sunk us all.

[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.

NP. Difference is NC that flooding was unusual while LA fire is not. In CA, it’s fire season everyday due to overcrowding.

No, the flooding in NC wasn’t unusual. It was in a flood zone and entirely predictable.

And even if you want to ignore the past flood zone warnings, now we know that it’s a routine occurrence so NC should be considered as a future risk as well.

The cognitive dissonance from the people who want to pretend that natural disasters in their favored states should be paid for by the rest of the country but not ones in disfavored states is so disgusting.

+1, there was almost identical flood in NC in the early 1910’s. Those towns in NC were literally built IN the flood zone.

California was a totally different situation. Fires like this never occurred before climate change. This is a new phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

[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:

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.

+1. Denial has sunk us all.

It is happening but we can still lessen its impact. it's worth making changes now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

No, you're just saying that you don't care if your house burns down again and will self-insure, right? I mean, no judgment. In the right circumstances I would totally buy on the ocean, even if it were in a house that couldn't be insured. The right circumstances being that I could afford to lose the house or was so old I just didn't care that much if my house went into the ocean and I really wanted to live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

What should be done about the vast numbers of structures on the New Madrid fault, none of which are built to withstand even a mild earthquake? What should be done about Texas and its failed power grid. At least 365 people died directly from heat in Texas last year, so what about that? Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that no one can live anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

No, you're just saying that you don't care if your house burns down again and will self-insure, right? I mean, no judgment. In the right circumstances I would totally buy on the ocean, even if it were in a house that couldn't be insured. The right circumstances being that I could afford to lose the house or was so old I just didn't care that much if my house went into the ocean and I really wanted to live there.

So nobody should rebuild in NC unless they can entirely self-insure, right?

[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.

NP. Difference is NC that flooding was unusual while LA fire is not. In CA, it’s fire season everyday due to overcrowding.

No, the flooding in NC wasn’t unusual. It was in a flood zone and entirely predictable.

And even if you want to ignore the past flood zone warnings, now we know that it’s a routine occurrence so NC should be considered as a future risk as well.

The cognitive dissonance from the people who want to pretend that natural disasters in their favored states should be paid for by the rest of the country but not ones in disfavored states is so disgusting.

Wait, what? Huge portions of the flooded parts of western NC weren’t in a flood zone or anywhere close to one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

No, you're just saying that you don't care if your house burns down again and will self-insure, right? I mean, no judgment. In the right circumstances I would totally buy on the ocean, even if it were in a house that couldn't be insured. The right circumstances being that I could afford to lose the house or was so old I just didn't care that much if my house went into the ocean and I really wanted to live there.

So nobody should rebuild in NC unless they can entirely self-insure, right?

It depends on the exact plot of land.