Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[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.

I looked it up and all it takes in CA to become a building inspector is a high school degree and getting certified. Maybe they need to beef up hiring.

[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.

To each their own, I guess. I hope you'll agree that this is a totally subjective opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To each their own, I guess. I hope you'll agree that this is a totally subjective opinion?

NP It's a popular opinion. I'd move tomorrow if I could afford decent housing there. A lot of the east coast is nice, but a quieter kind of beauty, and not year-round. California is just stunning in every way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

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?

Yes. Between abandoned houses in Ohio and Detroit they don’t need to look at the other 4 states

Okay, so true Trump admin will help them move and get good jobs there so they aren’t on welfare? What is his climate refugee program?

Climate refugees merely have to make it to the United States and they are completely safe here! Right? Right? Yeah right.

We’re talking about American climate refugees crossing state borders, try to keep up. PP suggested they move into blighted Detroit properties that have been abandoned for decades..

I’m all caught up and both of those are my posts.

Anyway a suspect has been caught with a flamethrower in the act of setting fires. Stay tuned, he’s a climate migrant.

[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

California is the wealthiest state, kind of. They have 500 BILLION of debt. That is the highest debt to income ratio of any state - 106%!
NY is the next most in debt state but no where close to California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

Name the places that are beautiful but a much less riskier. Be specific here.

You’ve already correctly eliminated the entire Midwest and Florida. I want to know where else in the US you want all residents of the Midwest, California, and Florida to move.

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

Because there are never any wildfires in Idaho... SMDH!!

[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.

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?

Yes. Between abandoned houses in Ohio and Detroit they don’t need to look at the other 4 states

Okay, so true Trump admin will help them move and get good jobs there so they aren’t on welfare? What is his climate refugee program?

Climate refugees merely have to make it to the United States and they are completely safe here! Right? Right? Yeah right.

We’re talking about American climate refugees crossing state borders, try to keep up. PP suggested they move into blighted Detroit properties that have been abandoned for decades..

I’m all caught up and both of those are my posts.

Anyway a suspect has been caught with a flamethrower in the act of setting fires. Stay tuned, he’s a climate migrant.

Insane!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

Name the places that are beautiful but a much less riskier. Be specific here.

You’ve already correctly eliminated the entire Midwest and Florida. I want to know where else in the US you want all residents of the Midwest, California, and Florida to move.

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

Because there are never any wildfires in Idaho... SMDH!!

But you can actually get fire insurance there. California, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

California is the wealthiest state, kind of. They have 500 BILLION of debt. That is the highest debt to income ratio of any state - 106%!
NY is the next most in debt state but no where close to California.

When audits show the budget priorities and budget cuts/proposals of the current governor and LA mayor, plus for the last several decades, Californians will be even more devastated by their losses. A huge tragedy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

California is the wealthiest state, kind of. They have 500 BILLION of debt. That is the highest debt to income ratio of any state - 106%!
NY is the next most in debt state but no where close to California.

CA swings wildly based on IPOs. For years CA has had billions in surplus. Interest rates going up and the banking issue in SV put a damper on the IPOs. Between reserves , being able to adjust the budget and new start ups recovering it’s fine. CA often ends higher than projected.

CA public education is excellent in some areas and crappy in others, like everywhere else. The public school in some areas of LA , not LA unified and the Bay Area , not San Jose Unified are better than your top public schools in the DMV. The UC system is the best in the nation. Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine and Davis are light years better than other state flagships. Heck, the top Cal State schools are better than most state flagships.

[Anonymous]

Malibu poster here. A huge number of homes in my neighborhood are still either older boomers like my parents who are original owners of their homes from the 1980s (or some from the 90s) or their kids who take over their homes.

The reason why is because these people have capped property taxes (Prop 13) and they also have existing, grandfathered insurance plans.

You really need fire + earthquake + flood/mudslide insurance there, because all 3 are a risk (growing up, it was earthquakes and mudslides that did most of the damage to homes in our neighborhood). It would be extremely expensive/difficult now to get all 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

California is the wealthiest state, kind of. They have 500 BILLION of debt. That is the highest debt to income ratio of any state - 106%!
NY is the next most in debt state but no where close to California.

CA swings wildly based on IPOs. For years CA has had billions in surplus. Interest rates going up and the banking issue in SV put a damper on the IPOs. Between reserves , being able to adjust the budget and new start ups recovering it’s fine. CA often ends higher than projected.

CA public education is excellent in some areas and crappy in others, like everywhere else. The public school in some areas of LA , not LA unified and the Bay Area , not San Jose Unified are better than your top public schools in the DMV. The UC system is the best in the nation. Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine and Davis are light years better than other state flagships. Heck, the top Cal State schools are better than most state flagships.

I don't buy this. I moved to one of those school districts in LA, not LAUSD, and we still chose private. Good in California is not at all good compared to other areas that do have good public schools. It's still good for California, but it's not actually good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Malibu poster here. A huge number of homes in my neighborhood are still either older boomers like my parents who are original owners of their homes from the 1980s (or some from the 90s) or their kids who take over their homes.

The reason why is because these people have capped property taxes (Prop 13) and they also have existing, grandfathered insurance plans.

You really need fire + earthquake + flood/mudslide insurance there, because all 3 are a risk (growing up, it was earthquakes and mudslides that did most of the damage to homes in our neighborhood). It would be extremely expensive/difficult now to get all 3.

Even with that FAIR plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen". There are varying levels of risk. If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away. You all get that right? So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes. The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point. It's about practical and logical decision making. If the risk is really high you don't want to be there. Period.
That is all. You find another place. You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions. Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable. Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice. The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there. Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one - but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like. Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it. And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you. There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.

So risk is real but it's variable. People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day. But you are in danger every day there.

Name the places that are beautiful but a much less riskier. Be specific here.

You’ve already correctly eliminated the entire Midwest and Florida. I want to know where else in the US you want all residents of the Midwest, California, and Florida to move.

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

Because there are never any wildfires in Idaho... SMDH!!

But you can actually get fire insurance there. California, not so much.

Wait, what? The insurance problems for wildfire risk areas is just as problematic in Idaho. Oregon is now a problem too. Climate change does not care whether you are a Maggot or a lib.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

California is the wealthiest state, kind of. They have 500 BILLION of debt. That is the highest debt to income ratio of any state - 106%!
NY is the next most in debt state but no where close to California.

CA swings wildly based on IPOs. For years CA has had billions in surplus. Interest rates going up and the banking issue in SV put a damper on the IPOs. Between reserves , being able to adjust the budget and new start ups recovering it’s fine. CA often ends higher than projected.

CA public education is excellent in some areas and crappy in others, like everywhere else. The public school in some areas of LA , not LA unified and the Bay Area , not San Jose Unified are better than your top public schools in the DMV. The UC system is the best in the nation. Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine and Davis are light years better than other state flagships. Heck, the top Cal State schools are better than most state flagships.

The schools that are good are good because of the types of students that go there, not what the administration is doing or what they're investing in students. You'll get large class sizes and not-great per pupil spending but a good student population especially since some parts of CA don't have as much of a private school culture.