Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The bolded will change soon if the geniuses in this thread get their way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you dislike it so much for months at a time you must leave. That is not great advertisement.

[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!

No, I was talking about the PP's statement that people should just "move" when risk in an area increases - that's not a realistic solution to decreasing the population in high-risk areas (talking about options where disasters are a potential, not after they've actually happened). Sorry if I wasn't clear in distinguishing between that and what options they have now that the houses have burned, I'm a bit distracted trying to keep track of which friends and family are evacuated, which have already lost their homes, and who is not yet accounted for. Just trying to give some insight into why these people didn't all pick up and move 5 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local CA news reports false evacuation texts are going out.

Maybe if the derelict mayor had not cut the FD budget by $17 million, these types of egregious errors would not keep happening on her watch.

I can only imagine how much she has defunded the LA police in the midst of the current crime wave.

The fire department ultimately had an increased budget. The 17m cut was part of a process. We are in a misinformation fire

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-los-angeles-cut-fire-department-funding-2011568

I don't think this is fully clear yet, because a memo went out by the fire chief on December 4th about budget issues. The article above (and the Politico one which is the single source for the increase info) states that the increase occurred in November. Here's a link to info about the fire chief memo: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/la-widlfires-budget-cuts-palisades-fire/3598438/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, every day. Always planned to return for retirement, but I don't know if we could afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local CA news reports false evacuation texts are going out.

Maybe if the derelict mayor had not cut the FD budget by $17 million, these types of egregious errors would not keep happening on her watch.

I can only imagine how much she has defunded the LA police in the midst of the current crime wave.

The fire department ultimately had an increased budget. The 17m cut was part of a process. We are in a misinformation fire

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-los-angeles-cut-fire-department-funding-2011568

I don't think this is fully clear yet, because a memo went out by the fire chief on December 4th about budget issues. The article above (and the Politico one which is the single source for the increase info) states that the increase occurred in November. Here's a link to info about the fire chief memo: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/la-widlfires-budget-cuts-palisades-fire/3598438/

ABC also reported that, and it’s been confirmed by the FD so 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you dislike it so much for months at a time you must leave. That is not great advertisement.

DP. LOL. My mom lives in CA and it's a completely different beauty than DC areas. I hate it here and looooove CA. Honestly I hate the US on so many political levels but man CA is one beautiful state. I mean that kind of beauty in Palisades and La Jolla, et al, totally different than what you get here. That kinda beauty is akin to paradise. This here DC stuff is nothing. It's also why it's safer here too though

Human folly is no comparison to greed. Developers will buy that land up and more fools will line up to live there thinking they are too good for a natural disaster.

[Anonymous]

This is why aliens will never make contact with us. We are a huge mess as a life form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local CA news reports false evacuation texts are going out.

Maybe if the derelict mayor had not cut the FD budget by $17 million, these types of egregious errors would not keep happening on her watch.

I can only imagine how much she has defunded the LA police in the midst of the current crime wave.

The fire department ultimately had an increased budget. The 17m cut was part of a process. We are in a misinformation fire

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-los-angeles-cut-fire-department-funding-2011568

I don't think this is fully clear yet, because a memo went out by the fire chief on December 4th about budget issues. The article above (and the Politico one which is the single source for the increase info) states that the increase occurred in November. Here's a link to info about the fire chief memo: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/la-widlfires-budget-cuts-palisades-fire/3598438/

The budget for the LAFD was reduced in summer of 2024 by $17M and reallocated to the LAPD due to the hyperventilating on social media about crime.

The fire department was allocated a separate appropriation in late November 2024, which results in LAFD's total funding to about $50M higher in 2025 vs. 2024 numbers.

Here's Politico's write up on it:

Bass also took heat from far-left activists online, who accused the mayor of cutting the fire department’s budget in order to pay for a costly new contract with the city’s police. Also weighing in against her was Patrick Soon-Shiong, the politically idiosyncratic owner of the Los Angeles Times, who echoed the attack, posting on X that “the Mayor cut LA Fire Department’s budget by $23M.”

That assertion is wrong. The city was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the fire department at the time the budget was being crafted, so additional funding for the department was set aside in a separate fund until that deal was finalized in November. In fact, the city’s fire budget increased more than $50 million year-over-year compared to the last budget cycle, according to Blumenfield’s office, although overall concerns about the department’s staffing level have persisted for a number of years.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/wildfire-threatens-karen-bass-extended-honeymoon-00197228

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you dislike it so much for months at a time you must leave. That is not great advertisement.

DP. LOL. My mom lives in CA and it's a completely different beauty than DC areas. I hate it here and looooove CA. Honestly I hate the US on so many political levels but man CA is one beautiful state. I mean that kind of beauty in Palisades and La Jolla, et al, totally different than what you get here. That kinda beauty is akin to paradise. This here DC stuff is nothing. It's also why it's safer here too though

Human folly is no comparison to greed. Developers will buy that land up and more fools will line up to live there thinking they are too good for a natural disaster.

Idk that it's about being "too good". It'll be about being able to afford the insurance and just wanting to enjoy ___________(insert number of unknown years) of breathtaking beauty, then just move on to another beautiful spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Local CA news reports false evacuation texts are going out.

Maybe if the derelict mayor had not cut the FD budget by $17 million, these types of egregious errors would not keep happening on her watch.

I can only imagine how much she has defunded the LA police in the midst of the current crime wave.

The fire department ultimately had an increased budget. The 17m cut was part of a process. We are in a misinformation fire

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-los-angeles-cut-fire-department-funding-2011568

I don't think this is fully clear yet, because a memo went out by the fire chief on December 4th about budget issues. The article above (and the Politico one which is the single source for the increase info) states that the increase occurred in November. Here's a link to info about the fire chief memo: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/la-widlfires-budget-cuts-palisades-fire/3598438/

The budget for the LAFD was reduced in summer of 2024 by $17M and reallocated to the LAPD due to the hyperventilating on social media about crime.

The fire department was allocated a separate appropriation in late November 2024, which results in LAFD's total funding to about $50M higher in 2025 vs. 2024 numbers.

Here's Politico's write up on it:

Bass also took heat from far-left activists online, who accused the mayor of cutting the fire department’s budget in order to pay for a costly new contract with the city’s police. Also weighing in against her was Patrick Soon-Shiong, the politically idiosyncratic owner of the Los Angeles Times, who echoed the attack, posting on X that “the Mayor cut LA Fire Department’s budget by $23M.”

That assertion is wrong. The city was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the fire department at the time the budget was being crafted, so additional funding for the department was set aside in a separate fund until that deal was finalized in November. In fact, the city’s fire budget increased more than $50 million year-over-year compared to the last budget cycle, according to Blumenfield’s office, although overall concerns about the department’s staffing level have persisted for a number of years.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/wildfire-threatens-karen-bass-extended-honeymoon-00197228

Here is a better article showing more complex info: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/la-fire-department-budget-bass.html

[Anonymous]

I grew up in and lived in the area where many of these fires are--Malibu--and like the PP, I don't remember this level of Santa Ana winds and fire activity at this time of year. I also don't remember ever missing a day of school for fire reasons (in fact, the only unplanned day off the entire time I attended was the day of the Northridge earthquake).

[Anonymous]

I posted earlier how five years out from a devastating fire 7 years ago that affected homes in a coastal town an hour north only 55% of homes had been rebuilt.

All cities after a fire say they will streamline permits, but CA building codes are very strict and there aren’t enough building inspectors (many retired during COVID), AND the entire palisades area is in the coastal commission zone where you need to get additional approval and permits to rebuild.

What could be done to free up nearby housing enough to house everyone who lost their homes is for the county of LA to declare a state of emergency and not allow Airbnb or other short term rentals under one month or under two months. There are thousands of nearby homes that have been converted to short term rentals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier how five years out from a devastating fire 7 years ago that affected homes in a coastal town an hour north only 55% of homes had been rebuilt.

All cities after a fire say they will streamline permits, but CA building codes are very strict and there aren’t enough building inspectors (many retired during COVID), AND the entire palisades area is in the coastal commission zone where you need to get additional approval and permits to rebuild.

What could be done to free up nearby housing enough to house everyone who lost their homes is for the county of LA to declare a state of emergency and not allow Airbnb or other short term rentals under one month or under two months. There are thousands of nearby homes that have been converted to short term rentals.

This is honestly a brilliant idea. They absolutely should revoke the Airbnb permits and force the units onto the long-term rental or sale market.

[Anonymous]

One thing that is coming is fire resistant housing. It’s emergent now but after the Bay Area fires some people in Santa Rosa started doing it. It still needs another 5-10 years in terms of engineering development and availability but I can see this as being the path forward.

Stricter regulations on developers requiring multiple egress roads out of developments. Fire resistant new building codes. New insurance and mortgage models. I think the FAIR plan is a good idea but it shouldn’t cover multi million dollar structures. Remember in CA, the value is in the land not the structure. The land value is still there, insurance covers the structure and contents. Capping that to $1-$2 million would go far in requiring the rich and commercial entities to self insure.

Developing lower cost, subsidized prefab 2 bedroom ADUs that can be mass produced as an affordable way for people to rebuild areas would be good too. In the Bay Area, I can get an ADU dropped in my backyard by a crane for a few hundred thousand dollars. Remove the Bay Area surcharge, mass produce them and those can be a replacement option for destroyed homes.

As CA is democratic these things are and will be pursued. Under Republicans, it would be a developers and grifter free for all milking as much money out of people providing death trap housing laughing on their way to the bank.