Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I did not say I want anyone to die. Do you know that area?
The outskirts of LA to Lancaster and Victorville are straight up desert and where NASA did all their X planes testing. Like where we tested experimental aircraft because it was a freaking desert and there was desert, military bases, rattlesnakes Joshua trees and jack rabbits. Not Many people. If there was a fire there was no congestion to get out.

I am fine with a small amount of people living in areas where nature does not support it; but when you turn it into Fairfax county and then the palisades into McLean with mountains what do you expect?

That area has always had high winds in the winter since long before man was on earth. And, yes, little water - hence it is a desert.

Like I said - some places mother nature is going to flex and people should take notice of her warning.

You cannot city plan in a f’n canyon neighborhood with single point of failure surrounding you. These are big mountains and winds, egress and water are all limiting factors.

Okay. So where are relocating these millions of people?

“Where are relocating” - you need to complete a sentence with a pro-noun there.

If you used “we” you are a complete idiot. Not society’s job to relocate people from illogical places to live.

If you used “they” then you are still pretty much an idiot. They are the evolved superior species on the planet - they can figure it out for themselves for a more logical habitat.

Oh, so you want wealthy Californians to buy up all the land in the tiny chunks of the country where there is lesser climate risk? That seems totally workable. 🙄

Question: do you ever talk to human beings other than your mom when she brings you your lunch to your basement hole?

Like I said, I know this area. I grew up there.

It is a lot more populated now.

If rich people want to buy the lots for pennies on the dollar, and have no hope of insurance and assume all risk have at it.

Then, after the next inevitable fire rolls through, those rich dumbasses lose millions on their unsustainable mansions maybe the next buyer will get it - this location sucks.

And in real estate- location is everything.

I would type more but mom is folding my laundry and asking why I still have my vibrating bunny.

You didn’t need to say that. It’s obvious from your posts. We all knew already.

Yeah, doubling down on sarcasm is like talking about yourself in the third person.

It just does not work. Someday you will be witty.


The fair insurance collective most palisades homeowners have since they could not have traditional insurance will raise all California’s insurance rates as it will hit 10-20B.
The fund has like 500m - and by CA law
Can collect from all homeowners. So all of the state homeowners pays for the average 3.5m palisades homes.

Jeez. What a nightmare. Not good public policy.

California made it a state law insurance companies could only raise rates by 7% per year. Anything higher requires a state vote.
So major insurance companies stopped renewing policies.

California then made it a law if you insure inc California you have to to pay fees into the fair insurance collective. Basically extortion.

Since those insurance companies paid the extortion; by law now they can raise rates across the state to their losses. You are looking at 40% increase across the state.

California will implode and does not have a friend in the White House to bail them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how long do people think recovery/rebuilding is going to take? The real estate is too valuable to not rebuild. 5-7 years? 10 years?

State Farm and farmers already stopped insuring in CA.

The remaining insurers will pay out these claims and then go bankrupt or stop insuring as well.
So it will depend on the homeowner- if they owned their home outright they will rebuild and self insure. If they had a note on their home they should pay off their note if they can and move.

Either way, after this real estate should be more affordable- insurance not so much.

Real Estate is going to go way up, including rentals. Right now we don’t know how many Homes are lost. They’re reporting 9000 structures so far, but that includes commercial, outbuildings, even RVs and sometimes cars. But obviously there are going to be thousands of homes lost. Most people are going to want to stay as close to home as they can. For all people say awful things about California, the demand for housing is very strong. The fire is creating a large reduction to the supply and an increase to the demand, so prices will increase.

Without strong state support it is the renters and the lower income owners who will be pushed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how long do people think recovery/rebuilding is going to take? The real estate is too valuable to not rebuild. 5-7 years? 10 years?

State Farm and farmers already stopped insuring in CA.

The remaining insurers will pay out these claims and then go bankrupt or stop insuring as well.
So it will depend on the homeowner- if they owned their home outright they will rebuild and self insure. If they had a note on their home they should pay off their note if they can and move.

Either way, after this real estate should be more affordable- insurance not so much.

Real Estate is going to go way up, including rentals. Right now we don’t know how many Homes are lost. They’re reporting 9000 structures so far, but that includes commercial, outbuildings, even RVs and sometimes cars. But obviously there are going to be thousands of homes lost. Most people are going to want to stay as close to home as they can. For all people say awful things about California, the demand for housing is very strong. The fire is creating a large reduction to the supply and an increase to the demand, so prices will increase.

Without strong state support it is the renters and the lower income owners who will be pushed out.

State is almost bankrupt and cannot cover this. Commercial insurance wants out of California.

Self insurance is going to be the only option for a decade and very, very few can swing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think it’s related to global warming (drought + higher temps longer)
I’m very surprised they didn’t or haven’t brought in federal forest fire crews sooner. Why not bring in national guard or military to truck in water?

Seems eerily similar to what happened in Hawaii.

Yes, fires like this occurring in January is related to a hotter planet. And we should expect to see more and more incidents like this in the coming years and decades.

I posted above a link to John Vallaint's "Fire Weather" which talks about the Fort McMurray fire but also provides a lot of insight into the complexity of fires like these which are essentially wildfires occurring in urban areas. Fires like this make their own weather, and fighting them is extremely complicated. In many instances, things that seem like they make sense to seasoned firefighters can have unexpected and counterintuitive effects. And almost no one has expertise in fighting these fires. Nothing about fighting them is simple or straightforward, and they move an unimaginable speeds, changing course unpredictably.

There will surely be years and decades of analysis into what happened and what went wrong. It will probably be possible to point to pretty much anyone with a modicum of power and blame them for something. But in reality, the world's climate is changing very fast, and we are unprepared for the consequences.

California has always had a volatile climate including years long droughts. The difference is that now we’ve put millions of people in to an entire that is literally adapted to deal with frequent fires (chaparral). It is irresponsible for people to ascribe these fires to climate change. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/amp/

It's easier to whip out the climate change card than practice forest management and clearing dead underbrush and trees like many countries do. We prefer to lecture from a keyboatd while mischarging our employer for the time spent doing it and claiming it as "work".

Another idiot thinking none of this was done. "Forest Management" would not have prevented this. Clearing dead underbrush? Are you f'ing serious?

Drought, high winds, heat = this. Climate change has exacerbated these.

Prescribed burns in a suburban neighborhood? People already try to clean up their yards. They know the risks.

Actual evidence that doesn't involve urban heat islands?

Are you asking if there is any evidence of climate change meaning to higher temps and more extreme winds? Yes, there is. I am so tired of DCUM nutters trying to pretend climate change is in question, when even right wing politicians have ceded that point. It is 2025; if you are not familiar with climate change by now, that is a gap in your education, not a point for debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think it’s related to global warming (drought + higher temps longer)
I’m very surprised they didn’t or haven’t brought in federal forest fire crews sooner. Why not bring in national guard or military to truck in water?

Seems eerily similar to what happened in Hawaii.

Yes, fires like this occurring in January is related to a hotter planet. And we should expect to see more and more incidents like this in the coming years and decades.

I posted above a link to John Vallaint's "Fire Weather" which talks about the Fort McMurray fire but also provides a lot of insight into the complexity of fires like these which are essentially wildfires occurring in urban areas. Fires like this make their own weather, and fighting them is extremely complicated. In many instances, things that seem like they make sense to seasoned firefighters can have unexpected and counterintuitive effects. And almost no one has expertise in fighting these fires. Nothing about fighting them is simple or straightforward, and they move an unimaginable speeds, changing course unpredictably.

There will surely be years and decades of analysis into what happened and what went wrong. It will probably be possible to point to pretty much anyone with a modicum of power and blame them for something. But in reality, the world's climate is changing very fast, and we are unprepared for the consequences.

California has always had a volatile climate including years long droughts. The difference is that now we’ve put millions of people in to an entire that is literally adapted to deal with frequent fires (chaparral). It is irresponsible for people to ascribe these fires to climate change. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/amp/

It's easier to whip out the climate change card than practice forest management and clearing dead underbrush and trees like many countries do. We prefer to lecture from a keyboatd while mischarging our employer for the time spent doing it and claiming it as "work".

Another idiot thinking none of this was done. "Forest Management" would not have prevented this. Clearing dead underbrush? Are you f'ing serious?

Drought, high winds, heat = this. Climate change has exacerbated these.

Prescribed burns in a suburban neighborhood? People already try to clean up their yards. They know the risks.

Actual evidence that doesn't involve urban heat islands?

Are you asking if there is any evidence of climate change meaning to higher temps and more extreme winds? Yes, there is. I am so tired of DCUM nutters trying to pretend climate change is in question, when even right wing politicians have ceded that point. It is 2025; if you are not familiar with climate change by now, that is a gap in your education, not a point for debate.

Changes nothing--we can assess things using our education and analysis despite you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I did not say I want anyone to die. Do you know that area?
The outskirts of LA to Lancaster and Victorville are straight up desert and where NASA did all their X planes testing. Like where we tested experimental aircraft because it was a freaking desert and there was desert, military bases, rattlesnakes Joshua trees and jack rabbits. Not Many people. If there was a fire there was no congestion to get out.

I am fine with a small amount of people living in areas where nature does not support it; but when you turn it into Fairfax county and then the palisades into McLean with mountains what do you expect?

That area has always had high winds in the winter since long before man was on earth. And, yes, little water - hence it is a desert.

Like I said - some places mother nature is going to flex and people should take notice of her warning.

You cannot city plan in a f’n canyon neighborhood with single point of failure surrounding you. These are big mountains and winds, egress and water are all limiting factors.

Okay. So where are relocating these millions of people?

“Where are relocating” - you need to complete a sentence with a pro-noun there.

If you used “we” you are a complete idiot. Not society’s job to relocate people from illogical places to live.

If you used “they” then you are still pretty much an idiot. They are the evolved superior species on the planet - they can figure it out for themselves for a more logical habitat.

Oh, so you want wealthy Californians to buy up all the land in the tiny chunks of the country where there is lesser climate risk? That seems totally workable. 🙄

Question: do you ever talk to human beings other than your mom when she brings you your lunch to your basement hole?

Like I said, I know this area. I grew up there.

It is a lot more populated now.

If rich people want to buy the lots for pennies on the dollar, and have no hope of insurance and assume all risk have at it.

Then, after the next inevitable fire rolls through, those rich dumbasses lose millions on their unsustainable mansions maybe the next buyer will get it - this location sucks.

And in real estate- location is everything.

I would type more but mom is folding my laundry and asking why I still have my vibrating bunny.

You didn’t need to say that. It’s obvious from your posts. We all knew already.

Yeah, doubling down on sarcasm is like talking about yourself in the third person.

It just does not work. Someday you will be witty.


The fair insurance collective most palisades homeowners have since they could not have traditional insurance will raise all California’s insurance rates as it will hit 10-20B.
The fund has like 500m - and by CA law
Can collect from all homeowners. So all of the state homeowners pays for the average 3.5m palisades homes.

Jeez. What a nightmare. Not good public policy.

Are you always so credulous? Think about to whom you are responding, perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s awful, but it’s God’s way of sending a message.

OK?
What's the message

I haven’t figured it out yet, but it doesn’t look good.

Doesn't look good for who?

[Anonymous]

I can’t understand the problems with the insurance market there. Can someone please explain it? It sounds like the state is limiting how much the insurance companies can charge in premiums, even with high risk, so they said no thank you and walked away. And now a bunch of people including rich people didn’t have any insurance. Is that right? If so, how did they not see that coming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t understand the problems with the insurance market there. Can someone please explain it? It sounds like the state is limiting how much the insurance companies can charge in premiums, even with high risk, so they said no thank you and walked away. And now a bunch of people including rich people didn’t have any insurance. Is that right? If so, how did they not see that coming?

This article provides some context: https://www.vox.com/climate/394176/los-angeles-fires-palisade-insurance-climate-crisis

[Anonymous]

Arson is now trending on X. Some "report" gangs are starting some of the latest smaller fires in order to force people to evacuate and then loot their vacant homes.. News Nation video is circulated of a suspect getting arrested supposedly for arson investigation leading to the Kenneth fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how long do people think recovery/rebuilding is going to take? The real estate is too valuable to not rebuild. 5-7 years? 10 years?

2 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:e?

Without strong state support it is the renters and the lower income owners who will be pushed out.

State is almost bankrupt and cannot cover this. Commercial insurance wants out of California.

Self insurance is going to be the only option for a decade and very, very few can swing that.

Source for "state is almost bankrupt"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how long do people think recovery/rebuilding is going to take? The real estate is too valuable to not rebuild. 5-7 years? 10 years?

State Farm and farmers already stopped insuring in CA.

The remaining insurers will pay out these claims and then go bankrupt or stop insuring as well.
So it will depend on the homeowner- if they owned their home outright they will rebuild and self insure. If they had a note on their home they should pay off their note if they can and move.

Either way, after this real estate should be more affordable- insurance not so much.

Real Estate is going to go way up, including rentals. Right now we don’t know how many Homes are lost. They’re reporting 9000 structures so far, but that includes commercial, outbuildings, even RVs and sometimes cars. But obviously there are going to be thousands of homes lost. Most people are going to want to stay as close to home as they can. For all people say awful things about California, the demand for housing is very strong. The fire is creating a large reduction to the supply and an increase to the demand, so prices will increase.

Without strong state support it is the renters and the lower income owners who will be pushed out.

State is almost bankrupt and cannot cover this. Commercial insurance wants out of California.

Self insurance is going to be the only option for a decade and very, very few can swing that.

Source for "state is almost bankrupt"?

[Anonymous]

What a complete disaster that there’s no water coming out of some taps and fire hydrants. I wonder if the insurance companies will sue the local government for that. It seems like the losses are a lot higher than they otherwise would have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how long do people think recovery/rebuilding is going to take? The real estate is too valuable to not rebuild. 5-7 years? 10 years?

2 years

In December 2017 the Thomas Fire spread from Ventura County to Santa Barbara and burned hundreds of homes. It was the largest fire at the time in California History burning approximately 281,893 acres and destroying over 1,000 structures. That fire has now moved down to be only the 8th largest fire in CA history (incredible that 7 fires have burned more than that in

In the coastal city of Ventura (an hour drive north of Palisades) 535 homes were burned. Same situation as in Palisades - strong Santa Ana winds, sudden fire that travelled quickly through brush and burned hillside homes. The homes in those neighborhoods are currently selling around 1.5 million to 2.5 million so not as expensive as Palisades but still a really nice neighborhood.

Two years later 80 out of the 535 (15%) homes had been rebuilt and people were living in the homes
Three years later 204 out of the 535 (38%) homes had been rebuilt and people were living in the homes
Five years after the fire out of the 299 out of the 535 (56%) of the homes had been rebuilt and people were living in the homes.

Another 70 rebuilds were in process, and 39 were in the plan-checking phase. The owners of the remaining 127 homes may not rebuild for various reasons. They include:

A lack of adequate insurance to pay for the rebuild
The owners moved out of the area
The owners chose to keep the lot vacant until they either sell it or have the funds to rebuild in the future
The owners are searching for an architect or builder to help

COVID obviously affected the speed of some of these rebuilds, but it is an interesting ballpark figure. The other complication to rebuilding for the Palisades is you need to get a California Coastal Commission approval and permit before rebuilding IN ADDITION to any city building permits if you want to build in any coastal area in California. These houses were just outside the coastal zone so they were able to skip that step. The width of the Coastal Zone varies, but it can extend up to five miles inland from the shore, including private and public property, and three miles out to sea. Many of the Palisades homes are for sure going to also have to get Coastal Commission permits.