Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[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.

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.

Not professional left, progressive left. Though some of them have indeed been grifting, so I suppose professional is accurate.

[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.

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.

Idaho has gotten much more popular. Plenty of space there.

[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.

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.

A lot of the "extreme professional left" are bots astroturfing phony holier-than-thou viewpoints.

I know a lot of leftwing people in LA.....and they are not making the arguments you see all over Twitter - eg "These are rich people, let them suffer" "Bass gave $17M to corrupt cops and took it away from LAFD!" "We need Luigi to go after the CEOs!" etc.

The leftwing people I know in LA are too busy trying to help their neighbors or finding shelter for themselves/loved ones.

Please be very careful of what you share on social media folks. I see lots of DC people I know sharing (true) info about California convicts helping fight the wildfires. But they are not sharing it in a way to praise; its actually in a divisive manner. That sh#t ain't important right now. Share links to donate money, finding shelter, or fostering animals - ya know, the stuff that makes a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Idaho has gotten much more popular. Plenty of space there.

Idaho and Montana have been choked by wildfires for the past few summers. It's only getting worse. Wildfires are going to eventually sweep through places like Whitefish and Missoula....just a matter of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Idaho has gotten much more popular. Plenty of space there.

Idaho and Montana have been choked by wildfires for the past few summers. It's only getting worse. Wildfires are going to eventually sweep through places like Whitefish and Missoula....just a matter of time.

But if people spread out the insurance issue is less of a problem. Having so many people crammed into a high risk area puts too much risk in one place. There will always be be risks everywhere but insurance only works if a majority of people don't all live in the same high risk place. There is plenty of space for people to spread out in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not the PP but I don’t even know where to start. First is the idea that you are remotely qualified to assess risk, that’s actually hilarious given how flatly idiotic your post sounded. Second is the tie between risk and cost of living you made. Third is the idea that there is some sort of magical “it’s on you” outcome out there. And I’m just going to stop there.

I’m sorry but for anyone who understands climate, the housing market, insurance, human migration patterns, or like the basic functional aspects of life, you sound like an absolute moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Idaho has gotten much more popular. Plenty of space there.

You can’t truly be this stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not the PP but I don’t even know where to start. First is the idea that you are remotely qualified to assess risk, that’s actually hilarious given how flatly idiotic your post sounded. Second is the tie between risk and cost of living you made. Third is the idea that there is some sort of magical “it’s on you” outcome out there. And I’m just going to stop there.

I’m sorry but for anyone who understands climate, the housing market, insurance, human migration patterns, or like the basic functional aspects of life, you sound like an absolute moron.

I didn't even write the post but if you're going to make useless comments you should back them up. You still haven't stated any facts, just your opinions. You are discredited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Idaho has gotten much more popular. Plenty of space there.

You can’t truly be this stupid.

You can't truly be motivated to argue without facts. I guess nothing can be done! Right PP?

[Anonymous]

It does not change that there are risker places to live than others - nature can change and wreck us in a heartbeat.

Just because PP wants to somehow pin living wherever we want because we can or because somehow there are no other options for specific locations to reside does not change the fact above.

It's about respecting nature and not feeling that humans can and should have complete control over the earth. That is our biggest problem and why we have climate change going on. No - I'm sorry - you simply can't build your house anywhere you want just because you are suggesting - well why not - there's no better choices! There absolutely are, you just don't want to go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It does not change that there are risker places to live than others - nature can change and wreck us in a heartbeat.

Just because PP wants to somehow pin living wherever we want because we can or because somehow there are no other options for specific locations to reside does not change the fact above.

It's about respecting nature and not feeling that humans can and should have complete control over the earth. That is our biggest problem and why we have climate change going on. No - I'm sorry - you simply can't build your house anywhere you want just because you are suggesting - well why not - there's no better choices! There absolutely are, you just don't want to go there.

What is the point of this post? Do you sincerely think people in California are not aware of fire risks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Idaho has gotten much more popular. Plenty of space there.

Idaho and Montana have been choked by wildfires for the past few summers. It's only getting worse. Wildfires are going to eventually sweep through places like Whitefish and Missoula....just a matter of time.

But if people spread out the insurance issue is less of a problem. Having so many people crammed into a high risk area puts too much risk in one place. There will always be be risks everywhere but insurance only works if a majority of people don't all live in the same high risk place. There is plenty of space for people to spread out in the US.

Oh. I see your problem. Honey, I know you have spent much of your childhood immersed in Minecraft but the US is not made up of a series of interchangeable cubes. Let the grown-ups figure this one out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not the PP but I don’t even know where to start. First is the idea that you are remotely qualified to assess risk, that’s actually hilarious given how flatly idiotic your post sounded. Second is the tie between risk and cost of living you made. Third is the idea that there is some sort of magical “it’s on you” outcome out there. And I’m just going to stop there.

I’m sorry but for anyone who understands climate, the housing market, insurance, human migration patterns, or like the basic functional aspects of life, you sound like an absolute moron.

I didn't even write the post but if you're going to make useless comments you should back them up. You still haven't stated any facts, just your opinions. You are discredited.

There are literally no facts in your original post worth responding to. Sometimes idiocy just needs to be firmly identified and you don’t seem to understand more sophisticated answers so let me be more clear: your original post was idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not the PP but I don’t even know where to start. First is the idea that you are remotely qualified to assess risk, that’s actually hilarious given how flatly idiotic your post sounded. Second is the tie between risk and cost of living you made. Third is the idea that there is some sort of magical “it’s on you” outcome out there. And I’m just going to stop there.

I’m sorry but for anyone who understands climate, the housing market, insurance, human migration patterns, or like the basic functional aspects of life, you sound like an absolute moron.

I didn't even write the post but if you're going to make useless comments you should back them up. You still haven't stated any facts, just your opinions. You are discredited.

There are literally no facts in your original post worth responding to. Sometimes idiocy just needs to be firmly identified and you don’t seem to understand more sophisticated answers so let me be more clear: your original post was idiotic.

Someone with such poor reading comprehension shouldn't be calling other people names. Learn to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Idaho has gotten much more popular. Plenty of space there.

Idaho and Montana have been choked by wildfires for the past few summers. It's only getting worse. Wildfires are going to eventually sweep through places like Whitefish and Missoula....just a matter of time.

But if people spread out the insurance issue is less of a problem. Having so many people crammed into a high risk area puts too much risk in one place. There will always be be risks everywhere but insurance only works if a majority of people don't all live in the same high risk place. There is plenty of space for people to spread out in the US.

Oh. I see your problem. Honey, I know you have spent much of your childhood immersed in Minecraft but the US is not made up of a series of interchangeable cubes. Let the grown-ups figure this one out.

Babe, you have no solutions whatsoever.