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:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

I don't really understand what you have in mind - like a continuous spray? Water isn't unlimited - hydrants in some of these areas are already running dry as firefighters use them. And any active system would presumably require power and somebody to man it. Plus spraying water in 100 mpg gusts probably not effective.

I know this kind of fire is unfamiliar to east coasters, I'm not mocking. But it's much bigger and faster than you are imagining. You're basically asking why Florida doesn't have some kind of pump to keep hurricanes out.

As with hurricanes, there are new building methods that help. Burying the power lines would be a huge help, but that's expensive and CA allowed it's power utility to be privatized. This is really a story of climate change + bad infrastructure decisions.

Have you ever seen crop irrigation systems, they implement rotating water cannons to cover large swaths of land. Install some of these and only turn them on when a fire is happening and a neighborhood is in danger. It’s not a complex idea.

LOL asking someone from CA if they've seen a crop sprinkler. Uh, yes, I have.
I tried to nicely explain already, but it's clear you are not familiar with fires, the terrain, or the water or electricity situation. But sure, you solved it, good job.

Yeah, still not sure how this idea isnt better than nothing. A quick google search shows that apparently there are companies that do provide this service. Adapting it to be an integral part of a community’s infrastructure would make sense.

https://www.wildfirewater.com/

I think this area would be hard because it is all hills and houses. There isn't space to put a massive sprinkler system.

I assume planes can scoop up water from the ocean to fight the fire? I am not sure how that works.

No you can’t dump sea water all over the land because you will salt the soil and nothing will ever grow there again.

You may not realize it, but I think you’re on to something. The grass growing then dying is the problem. More of them need rock gardens and to stop unwanted regrowing of brush

It's not the grass on the lawns that is the main culprit; it is the dry brush on the hillsides and canyons. Clearly some posters are very unfamiliar with California topography.

That’s the grass I’m talking about. It’s just grassy brush and small ground coverings that are overgrown then dries out when it stops raining. If the soil can be made fallow with salt then unwanted weedy grasses can’t grow there. Fire won’t spread over rocks and dirt. The fire is spreading because California is basically covered in kindling.

But if you didn’t have at least some kind of vegetation on the hillsides, erosion (when it does rain) would be much worse than it is now. If you think socal has mudslide problems now, what do you think it would be without plant life on the hills? Plus, that vegetation is critical habitat for birds and other animals.

There are drought tolerant and fire resistant plants. Cacti, redwoods, heavier trees with green wood that is hard to start fires with, succulents those wouldn’t ignite, they’d just melt. I’m not a botanist. In other countries hillsides are managed with terraces and rocks as well.

And plants that grow fast in rainy seasons and then go dormant in drought out compete them. Remember all the rain that LA got a couple of years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_California_floods). That led to lots of growth. It hasn't rained for almost a year now, so that growth is all kindling.

[Anonymous]

Climate deniers want these people to die and be homeless. Don’t you understand? They love the suffering, they are gleeful. They think people are too soft and need to suffer. Those who lost homes are losers.

This is an entire ideology and antisocial frame of reference for society. They cheer the collapse.

[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?

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.

The Mayor addressed permits yesterday at press conference and said the process would be streamlined so people do not have so many hurdles and delays in rebuilding.

[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.

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?

Yes. Between abandoned houses in Ohio and Detroit they don’t need to look at the other 4 states

Okay, so true Trump admin will help them move and get good jobs there so they aren’t on welfare? What is his climate refugee program?

Climate refugees merely have to make it to the United States and they are completely safe here! Right? Right? Yeah right.

We’re talking about American climate refugees crossing state borders, try to keep up. PP suggested they move into blighted Detroit properties that have been abandoned for decades..

[Anonymous]

The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Climate deniers want these people to die and be homeless. Don’t you understand? They love the suffering, they are gleeful. They think people are too soft and need to suffer. Those who lost homes are losers.

This is an entire ideology and antisocial frame of reference for society. They cheer the collapse.

I’m getting that sense. Cruelty is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

You are not holier than thou and have no idea what you’re talking about. Wrong on so many accounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

You are not holier than thou and have no idea what you’re talking about. Wrong on so many accounts.

Point out the errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Exactly. People on this thread are insane. Honesty I can see why the country elected a felon because people are showing here a) that it’s up to individuals to take care of themselves when they can’t get ins and the govt isn’t fixing climate change; b) if it doesn’t affect them they don’t care; and c) if it doesn’t affect them they don’t want govt resources spent; and d) there are tons of climate deniers on this thread.

This thread is bananas.

I’m glad I am a regular DCUM reader who understands that a significant number of posters aren’t from DC because otherwise this thread would be a very prime example of why the rest of the country absolutely despises DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Climate deniers want these people to die and be homeless. Don’t you understand? They love the suffering, they are gleeful. They think people are too soft and need to suffer. Those who lost homes are losers.

This is an entire ideology and antisocial frame of reference for society. They cheer the collapse.

To be fair, some of the people on this thread cheering for the fires are from the extreme professional left and definitely believe in climate change. But yes, agreed with you on your assessment of the MAGA folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Climate deniers want these people to die and be homeless. Don’t you understand? They love the suffering, they are gleeful. They think people are too soft and need to suffer. Those who lost homes are losers.

This is an entire ideology and antisocial frame of reference for society. They cheer the collapse.

It's not about the climate, it's more "eat the rich" nonsense. The same people cheering for this also cheer on CEOs getting shot in the back. They are degenerates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Climate deniers want these people to die and be homeless. Don’t you understand? They love the suffering, they are gleeful. They think people are too soft and need to suffer. Those who lost homes are losers.

This is an entire ideology and antisocial frame of reference for society. They cheer the collapse.

It's not about the climate, it's more "eat the rich" nonsense. The same people cheering for this also cheer on CEOs getting shot in the back. They are degenerates.

They are also gravely mistaken about the demographics of these fires because they're only thinking it's celebrities who are affected. But yes, I am seeing much more of that angle than anything else, followed by climate change believers thinking people are morons for living in CA, and then a small proportion of MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

Name the places that are beautiful but a much less riskier. Be specific here.

You’ve already correctly eliminated the entire Midwest and Florida. I want to know where else in the US you want all residents of the Midwest, California, and Florida to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

You are not holier than thou and have no idea what you’re talking about. Wrong on so many accounts.

It is funny how ignorant that PP sounds while trying to sound smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

Some of these meteorologists and climate scientists live in LA, and FL. Are they dumbasses too? Are entire fire departments and first responders dumbasses? And what does "it's totally on you" mean exactly? That they deserve what's coming?