Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

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

There are constant updates. A lot (75%+) of Pacific Palisades burned down. I am watching aerial views now, entire blocks are destroyed. They are at 6% containment only on that fire. The one that started yesterday (Kenneth fire in West Hills) was arson and is contained.

[Anonymous]

Trying to ignore the dumb MAGA posters (I have so much sympathy for Jeff), here is a useful thread.

[Anonymous]

To be clear, I don't think that the Eaton fire impacted those who lived in a danger zone. I mean, some of this is due to climate change - the water last season contributed to high growth that caught fire with high winds that spread this fire. It's not about living in a high risk area per se that got those houses burned down. It's the climate affecting the risk there so I agree, there's not a lot they could have done to prevent the tragedy other than moving which I get is just not on someone's radar when everything is fine.

However, I do think living in the Palisades was a disaster in waiting and I do think everyone there HAD to have had a clue what they would have been in for one day. Those parts are completely ripe for wildfires.

https://www.nbcnews.com/weather/wildfires/california-fires-foreseeable-worst-case-scenario-rcna186887

[Anonymous]

This is a heartbreaking video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, I don't think that the Eaton fire impacted those who lived in a danger zone. I mean, some of this is due to climate change - the water last season contributed to high growth that caught fire with high winds that spread this fire. It's not about living in a high risk area per se that got those houses burned down. It's the climate affecting the risk there so I agree, there's not a lot they could have done to prevent the tragedy other than moving which I get is just not on someone's radar when everything is fine.

However, I do think living in the Palisades was a disaster in waiting and I do think everyone there HAD to have had a clue what they would have been in for one day. Those parts are completely ripe for wildfires.

https://www.nbcnews.com/weather/wildfires/california-fires-foreseeable-worst-case-scenario-rcna186887

Altadena is right at the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Those people knew that was a risk. I used to live up the street similarly at the foothills. It is known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, I don't think that the Eaton fire impacted those who lived in a danger zone. I mean, some of this is due to climate change - the water last season contributed to high growth that caught fire with high winds that spread this fire. It's not about living in a high risk area per se that got those houses burned down. It's the climate affecting the risk there so I agree, there's not a lot they could have done to prevent the tragedy other than moving which I get is just not on someone's radar when everything is fine.

However, I do think living in the Palisades was a disaster in waiting and I do think everyone there HAD to have had a clue what they would have been in for one day. Those parts are completely ripe for wildfires.

https://www.nbcnews.com/weather/wildfires/california-fires-foreseeable-worst-case-scenario-rcna186887

Many of the modest homes in the flats of Altadena are 70+ years old, built of stucco and wood in the post WW2 period. They have flat roofs, old wooden garages, old landscape, and will light up easily. This is much of Southern California - the homes are built after WW2 and are not fire proof. The recipe is ripe for urban wildfires where fire jumps from structure to structure, which is exactly what happened in Altadena. It's more akin to the Great Chicago fire than a forested wild fire.

[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.

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?

People will move because the price of existing homes in Southern California is going to sharply spike after this. Look at what happened after Katrina - New Orleans population still has not recovered.

Are the places I listed perfect? No. But relative to California or Florida, they are A LOT more safe. For example, from an earthquake risk perspective, I'll take DC over anything adjacent to the San Andreas fault any day of the week.

Many of the displaced Californians WILL be moving out of state. It's called internal displacement and resettlement; it's a constant of human history.

[Anonymous]

LA is a nightmare, just suburbia stretched out.
Many areas have only a few good highways to get into and out of. Despite this they are popular areas to live in. Evacuation orders cause huge traffic jams.
There is no metro.
This is in someway an opportunity for city planners to rethink and create a better more functional city.
Don’t ask me about the school system, their education is a nightmare too.
One would think that the richest state in the richest country could do better.
Currently they are tackling homelessness by pretending it doesn’t exist even though that has not helped at all

[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.

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.

DP. You’re absolutely right that’s what was suggested. Now we have a new poster who says they’re a Californian in DC saying the same. “Just move to the mid-Atlantic.”

—California native who has lived in DC for decades

[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.

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?

People will move because the price of existing homes in Southern California is going to sharply spike after this. Look at what happened after Katrina - New Orleans population still has not recovered.

Are the places I listed perfect? No. But relative to California or Florida, they are A LOT more safe. For example, from an earthquake risk perspective, I'll take DC over anything adjacent to the San Andreas fault any day of the week.

Many of the displaced Californians WILL be moving out of state. It's called internal displacement and resettlement; it's a constant of human history.

Sure, to some extent. But people are attached to their homes, history, memories and family. After Katrina, many of the evacuees came back, especially older people. What person who spent 60+ years of their life in Los Angeles wants to just pick up and start over in a state they know nothing about and have no roots in?

[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?

So you want people who just had their houses and condos burned down to sell them? Aren’t you a genius!

[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.

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?

People will move because the price of existing homes in Southern California is going to sharply spike after this. Look at what happened after Katrina - New Orleans population still has not recovered.

Are the places I listed perfect? No. But relative to California or Florida, they are A LOT more safe. For example, from an earthquake risk perspective, I'll take DC over anything adjacent to the San Andreas fault any day of the week.

Many of the displaced Californians WILL be moving out of state. It's called internal displacement and resettlement; it's a constant of human history.

Of course they will be moving. Agents in Arizona are already getting calls from people who lost their homes. Anyone saying people won't move are delusional.

[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.

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?

People will move because the price of existing homes in Southern California is going to sharply spike after this. Look at what happened after Katrina - New Orleans population still has not recovered.

Are the places I listed perfect? No. But relative to California or Florida, they are A LOT more safe. For example, from an earthquake risk perspective, I'll take DC over anything adjacent to the San Andreas fault any day of the week.

Many of the displaced Californians WILL be moving out of state. It's called internal displacement and resettlement; it's a constant of human history.

Sure, to some extent. But people are attached to their homes, history, memories and family. After Katrina, many of the evacuees came back, especially older people. What person who spent 60+ years of their life in Los Angeles wants to just pick up and start over in a state they know nothing about and have no roots in?

People who don't have another option. And there will be lots of those after this set of wild fires. The wealthier ones will bid up the price of homes in Long Beach, Redondo Beach, MDR, Newport, etc. because they have to live somewhere or get their kids in school within the new few weeks.

[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.

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?

People will move because the price of existing homes in Southern California is going to sharply spike after this. Look at what happened after Katrina - New Orleans population still has not recovered.

Are the places I listed perfect? No. But relative to California or Florida, they are A LOT more safe. For example, from an earthquake risk perspective, I'll take DC over anything adjacent to the San Andreas fault any day of the week.

Many of the displaced Californians WILL be moving out of state. It's called internal displacement and resettlement; it's a constant of human history.

Of course they will be moving. Agents in Arizona are already getting calls from people who lost their homes. Anyone saying people won't move are delusional.

This is a bit of a silly discussion. Of course *some* people will move. You can't argue for 100% move/ 100% not move seriously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LA is a nightmare, just suburbia stretched out.
Many areas have only a few good highways to get into and out of. Despite this they are popular areas to live in. Evacuation orders cause huge traffic jams.
There is no metro.
This is in someway an opportunity for city planners to rethink and create a better more functional city.
Don’t ask me about the school system, their education is a nightmare too.
One would think that the richest state in the richest country could do better.
Currently they are tackling homelessness by pretending it doesn’t exist even though that has not helped at all

Well when everyone moves from CA that’s what will happen elsewhere, you brainiacs.