Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[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.

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

These people will have no home for years. What else can they do?

[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.

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

That’s gonna be awesome for the current residents of those states, when millions of people, many of whom have more assets than the good denizens of the mid-Atlantic and Idaho, but just can’t afford to self-insure their homes, descend on those locales. Surely it will work out well. 👍

[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.

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

These people will have no home for years. What else can they do?

They'll do various things depending on circumstances: move in with relatives, rent a place, move to a different town, buy somewhere else in the state, out of state. But if they have a job, I don't see why their immediate thought would be to leave the state and now have to find housing AND work.

[Anonymous]

Local CA news reports false evacuation texts are going out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s gonna be awesome for the current residents of those states, when millions of people, many of whom have more assets than the good denizens of the mid-Atlantic and Idaho, but just can’t afford to self-insure their homes, descend on those locales. Surely it will work out well. 👍

Since it's not a very attractive area, I wouldn't lose sleep worrying about that as a mass phenomenon!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s gonna be awesome for the current residents of those states, when millions of people, many of whom have more assets than the good denizens of the mid-Atlantic and Idaho, but just can’t afford to self-insure their homes, descend on those locales. Surely it will work out well. 👍

I'm sure the people who lost third and fourth homes on billionaires row are all going to pile into metro Pittsburgh

[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.

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

These people will have no home for years. What else can they do?

They'll do various things depending on circumstances: move in with relatives, rent a place, move to a different town, buy somewhere else in the state, out of state. But if they have a job, I don't see why their immediate thought would be to leave the state and now have to find housing AND work.

You misunderstand the lack of real estate inventory in California to house all these people. A lot of the Altadena people won't even be able to afford to rebuild.

[Anonymous]

Is California setting up temporary housing for people with no where to go? Or is even that impossible due to fires being not contained enough?

Also why are we not talking about climate change? The severity of this fire is clearly related to increasingly extreme weather - droughts and floods

My consolations to all who who have lost property or family members . It is a horrific situation. No easy answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s gonna be awesome for the current residents of those states, when millions of people, many of whom have more assets than the good denizens of the mid-Atlantic and Idaho, but just can’t afford to self-insure their homes, descend on those locales. Surely it will work out well. 👍

Since it's not a very attractive area, I wouldn't lose sleep worrying about that as a mass phenomenon!

You're nuts. The region surrounding DC is awesome - mountains, rivers, piedmont, the Chesapeake. It's just a different form of beauty. And it's a lot less crowded here than the natural spots in California.

The people who will be leaving California will be traumatized. They will prioritize stability - resilient job market, stable weather/low preponderance of natural disasters, housing availability, school quality, etc. Perfect weather will be low on the list. The mid-Atlantic checks many of those boxes.

[Anonymous]

Pacific Palisades and Altadena burned down because there were hurricane-force winds which prevented air drops of water. Just look at the Hollywood fire on Wed night and the one that started yesterday by Calabasas - they were both stopped because the winds had died down and aircraft could make water drops.

Santa Ana windstorms are becoming stronger and more frequent. I grew up in SoCal and I never remember 100 mph winds during a Santa Ana. And in January? That's supposed to be the wet season, not the fire season.

[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: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

That’s gonna be awesome for the current residents of those states, when millions of people, many of whom have more assets than the good denizens of the mid-Atlantic and Idaho, but just can’t afford to self-insure their homes, descend on those locales. Surely it will work out well. 👍

Since it's not a very attractive area, I wouldn't lose sleep worrying about that as a mass phenomenon!

You're nuts. The region surrounding DC is awesome - mountains, rivers, piedmont, the Chesapeake. It's just a different form of beauty. And it's a lot less crowded here than the natural spots in California.

The people who will be leaving California will be traumatized. They will prioritize stability - resilient job market, stable weather/low preponderance of natural disasters, housing availability, school quality, etc. Perfect weather will be low on the list. The mid-Atlantic checks many of those boxes.

It's a matter of opinion. I don't live in CA or DC and I'd move to CA in a heartbeat still, but never to the DC area. It would be a completely random move for CA people. NV, AZ, TX make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

That’s gonna be awesome for the current residents of those states, when millions of people, many of whom have more assets than the good denizens of the mid-Atlantic and Idaho, but just can’t afford to self-insure their homes, descend on those locales. Surely it will work out well. 👍

I'm sure the people who lost third and fourth homes on billionaires row are all going to pile into metro Pittsburgh

They aren’t in that group. They can afford to self-insure. It’s the group that can’t self-insure that some PPs want to move en masse to Pittsburgh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pacific Palisades and Altadena burned down because there were hurricane-force winds which prevented air drops of water. Just look at the Hollywood fire on Wed night and the one that started yesterday by Calabasas - they were both stopped because the winds had died down and aircraft could make water drops.

Santa Ana windstorms are becoming stronger and more frequent. I grew up in SoCal and I never remember 100 mph winds during a Santa Ana. And in January? That's supposed to be the wet season, not the fire season.

Do you miss southern California? I would imagine it's hard to move away.

[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:

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!

I am sure a developer will offer top dollar. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're nuts. The region surrounding DC is awesome - mountains, rivers, piedmont, the Chesapeake. It's just a different form of beauty. And it's a lot less crowded here than the natural spots in California.

The people who will be leaving California will be traumatized. They will prioritize stability - resilient job market, stable weather/low preponderance of natural disasters, housing availability, school quality, etc. Perfect weather will be low on the list. The mid-Atlantic checks many of those boxes.

It's a matter of opinion. I don't live in CA or DC and I'd move to CA in a heartbeat still, but never to the DC area. It would be a completely random move for CA people. NV, AZ, TX make more sense.

🙋‍♀️ Left CA and moved to DC for all the reasons PP stated. DC is great for outdoor enthusiasts and is more affordable than CA. Have enough $$ to travel during summer humid months.