Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately I believe a lot of the grotesque posts from leftists aren’t from bots. I’ve seen the posts you are referencing too, and they are as gross as the MAGA. Frankly both the far left and the far right are showing how truly awful they are now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. I do not. That is precisely correct, because I am not self-deluded enough to believe that my professional expertise — which is actually almost certainly more relevant to the actual problems than yours — is sufficient to solve the extremely difficult issues related to climate change.

You, on the other hand, are a beautiful example of Dunning-Kruger in the flesh.

[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.

Californian here, now in DC:

They need to move to places with abundant natural water, but not severe storms. The lack of water is the big issue that's going to really hurt the Mountain West and Southwest and Texas. Too much water in the form of hurricanes is going to make parts of the Southeast uninhabitable.

The Mid-Atlantic has beautiful spots and plenty of year-round water. Same with the Upper Midwest (MN, MI, the Dakotas). I actually see more people going back into Illinois and NY if things get bad enough elsewhere. Aside from an occassional horrible blizzard, these areas do not suffer from acute drought, hurricanes, tornados, or earthquakes.

In other words, people will have to suffer a bit of cold in order to have a stable life. The dreams of Florida or California are quickly becoming a fiction for anyone except the insanely rich who can write off a destroyed home with ease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. I do not. That is precisely correct, because I am not self-deluded enough to believe that my professional expertise — which is actually almost certainly more relevant to the actual problems than yours — is sufficient to solve the extremely difficult issues related to climate change.

You, on the other hand, are a beautiful example of Dunning-Kruger in the flesh.

Aw, the troll is getting worked up. You with your "climate change blah blah!" You are as useless online as you are in real life.

[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.

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?

When the solution is “everyone in California, Florida, and the Midwest should move to Idaho,” there are no facts to argue about. And it is totally fine to say the person making that argument is a moron.

[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.

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?

When the solution is “everyone in California, Florida, and the Midwest should move to Idaho,” there are no facts to argue about. And it is totally fine to say the person making that argument is a moron.

Godo thing nobody said that! What a fantasy world you live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. I do not. That is precisely correct, because I am not self-deluded enough to believe that my professional expertise — which is actually almost certainly more relevant to the actual problems than yours — is sufficient to solve the extremely difficult issues related to climate change.

You, on the other hand, are a beautiful example of Dunning-Kruger in the flesh.

Aw, the troll is getting worked up. You with your "climate change blah blah!" You are as useless online as you are in real life.

Aw, you are mad we all see your stupidity. Go back to playing Minecraft and screaming uselessly about your plan to move millions of people to Minecraft cubes in Idaho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

When the solution is “everyone in California, Florida, and the Midwest should move to Idaho,” there are no facts to argue about. And it is totally fine to say the person making that argument is a moron.

Godo thing nobody said that! What a fantasy world you live in.

That’s exactly what the PP who says people should not live in California, Florida, and the Midwest said. Oh, excuse me, only people who can self-insure their property should live in those places, which effectively works out to nearly everyone in practice.

And I guess everyone who can’t self-insure their property in California, Florida, and the Midwest is supposed to move to Idaho. She’s kind of vague on the specifics of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why 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.

None of those plants are native to the area. They’re all invasive. And none of the animal life is accustomed/adapted to them. You could cause some animal species to become extinct.

Fire is a natural occurrence in chaparral country. It’s humans who need to adapt, not the landscape. The landscape is millions of years old. It exists with periodic fires. We’re the ones having the problem.

I can live with that. (Literally)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why 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.

Yup. I see you jumping in on page 50 when we said that 20 pages ago. But I agree with you. 🤣

[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'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.

You can’t expect 17m people to move on their own. You people are ridiculous. I live in DC.

The cited people in Florida were able to move because somebody else bought their house. So, no overall change to the number of people living in a high risk zone. What would it take for people to simply abandon their homes to sit vacant, and move somewhere else? Or tear down their old home, return the land to nature, and walk away? How many people could afford to do that without somebody buying the property? It's unrealistic (there's an understatement) to expect entire communities to just pick up and abandon their land with no compensation that they can use to start over elsewhere.

My friends who just lost their home to the Eaton fire had lived there 30+ years, and were still considered newcomers in their immediate neighborhood. The boundaries and density of that area haven't changed in 70+ years. It's not a matter of people recently moving into high-risk areas. Fires were known in that region 10/20/50 years ago, but generally stayed in the canyons and moved slowly enough that the fire crews could get fire blocks up to protect the housing. The difference now is that the fires explode so quickly that they overwhelm an entire neighborhood before the crews even have a chance to get in front of it. A fire taking out thousands of acres in a short number of hours was unheard of 20 years ago, even if "fire" wasn't.

So what should the people who bought those homes 30-40 years ago do? They can sell and move, but that just puts someone else in the path. Do you really expect them to take the financial loss of a 30-year old home purchase, probably a good portion of their life savings, and just walk away, leaving the area vacant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

https://reason.org/commentary/californias-state-and-local-government-debt-is-over-500-billion/#:~:text=The%20state%20of%20California%20has,over%20%24230%20billion%20in%20debt.&text=California's%20total%20long%2Dterm%20debt,indebted%20state%20in%20the%20nation.

Their reserves are down to 15b now - or lower since their budget passed.


They are spending each year more than they take in and using their reserves to pay for it.

Should be out of money next year, even without the fire.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/01/10/2024-25-state-budget-proposal-protects-core-priorities-and-ensures-fiscal-stability/


“Even after the proposed withdrawals, this budget plan reflects $18.4 billion in total budgetary reserves, including $11.1 billion in the Rainy Day Fund.”

[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.

Californian here, now in DC:

They need to move to places with abundant natural water, but not severe storms. The lack of water is the big issue that's going to really hurt the Mountain West and Southwest and Texas. Too much water in the form of hurricanes is going to make parts of the Southeast uninhabitable.

The Mid-Atlantic has beautiful spots and plenty of year-round water. Same with the Upper Midwest (MN, MI, the Dakotas). I actually see more people going back into Illinois and NY if things get bad enough elsewhere. Aside from an occassional horrible blizzard, these areas do not suffer from acute drought, hurricanes, tornados, or earthquakes.

In other words, people will have to suffer a bit of cold in order to have a stable life. The dreams of Florida or California are quickly becoming a fiction for anyone except the insanely rich who can write off a destroyed home with ease.

So what about all the states where we know there is a likelihood of an extremely powerful earthquake and those states have done almost nothing to prepare? That includes the mid-Atlantic states. That earthquake is a predictable and known outcome: should people leave those states too? And where should they go?

And your list of locations is pretty deluded IMO. The upper Midwest has been absolutely impacted by both fire and extreme weather. You don’t know much about the area if you think it’s immune from climate change and can absorb all the people from California, Florida, and the Midwest. The same is true of the Mid-Atlantic states: the storms are getting much worse. Also, available water will quickly become an issue if millions from California, Florida, and the Midwest migrate in short order into those states, which is what you seem to be suggesting should happen.

I genuinely do not understand how people like you think. Like are you seriously suggesting that millions and millions of Americans from some of the most populous states in the US should move to Maryland and North Dakota?

[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: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.

You can’t expect 17m people to move on their own. You people are ridiculous. I live in DC.

The cited people in Florida were able to move because somebody else bought their house. So, no overall change to the number of people living in a high risk zone. What would it take for people to simply abandon their homes to sit vacant, and move somewhere else? Or tear down their old home, return the land to nature, and walk away? How many people could afford to do that without somebody buying the property? It's unrealistic (there's an understatement) to expect entire communities to just pick up and abandon their land with no compensation that they can use to start over elsewhere.

My friends who just lost their home to the Eaton fire had lived there 30+ years, and were still considered newcomers in their immediate neighborhood. The boundaries and density of that area haven't changed in 70+ years. It's not a matter of people recently moving into high-risk areas. Fires were known in that region 10/20/50 years ago, but generally stayed in the canyons and moved slowly enough that the fire crews could get fire blocks up to protect the housing. The difference now is that the fires explode so quickly that they overwhelm an entire neighborhood before the crews even have a chance to get in front of it. A fire taking out thousands of acres in a short number of hours was unheard of 20 years ago, even if "fire" wasn't.

So what should the people who bought those homes 30-40 years ago do? They can sell and move, but that just puts someone else in the path. Do you really expect them to take the financial loss of a 30-year old home purchase, probably a good portion of their life savings, and just walk away, leaving the area vacant?

This happens to people all over the world. That is why there are so many refugees .

This is just life. Unfortunately

[Anonymous]

So, no updates to share? The news is not updated frequently. Can reporters even enter the burned areas?