Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Disagree. We were in the top cluster within MCPS and our Bay Area public school was 10x better. I’ve heard the same thing from friends who came from Santa Monica, and somewhere near Manhattan Beach though they didn’t have experience with MCPS or Fairfax.

[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

Crime? Meh. What’s a few more rapes and murders.

#DefundThePolice

[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?

No! I ran this question through a fact-checker and it affirmed the fact that California is a paradise superior to all other locations.

Its a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Apparently about 70-80% of the homes in PP did not have insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Disagree. We were in the top cluster within MCPS and our Bay Area public school was 10x better. I’ve heard the same thing from friends who came from Santa Monica, and somewhere near Manhattan Beach though they didn’t have experience with MCPS or Fairfax.

I came from suburban Chicago and the LA area schools were worse, definitely not 10x better. We were surprised what passed for good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

FAIR only covers something like 3% of households (and is still expensive). It is only meant to be last resort, basic coverage insurance for the people who are rejected by all private insurance. It is not meant to provide much more than basic coverage, and it not meant to be an option for most since you have to be unable to obtain it. Most people in places like Malibu CAN obtain insurance, just not great options and it's extremely costly.

By the way, far more people in CA in high risk areas carry fire compared to earthquake insurance. I think only like 10 percent of people statewide have any sort of earthquake coverage. A running joke in CA is that if an earthquake hits your home, you should light it on fire to try to get something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Apparently about 70-80% of the homes in PP did not have insurance.

PP here from the area. Yep, FAIR doesn't apply to most people even in Malibu since they still CAN get insurance, it's just really expensive and bad coverage (FAIR is expensive and bare bones too).

But yeah, the thing about the area is, it's very expensive and people are generally UMC but not necessarily risk-averse and not the sort of financial situation where the cost of fire + earthquake + flood or an umbrella policy would not be a SERIOUS expense they might not be able to afford comfortably without trimming elsewhere, unless they are grandfathered in (like my parents). Even for my parents, it is a significant cost and one they have to budget for carefully from retirement/pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Just saying - it's proximity to danger. And again, you can't be safe 100%. But these people live in paradise. You understand how beautiful the Palisades is? There's a price to be paid for that paradise. I read articles that suggested a number of residents appreciated this fact. Again, lots and lots of sympathy for this tragic event but just a lesson - there's no free lunch and there's a price to be paid for living in such boundless natural beauty. It could be inconvenience and it could be natural disasters that are more frequent. Same goes for putting your house directly on a beach. Same goes for living in a valley. ESPECIALLY with climate change.

Sounds like you're doing great on your ugly mountain of superiority.

Hey - common sense isn't that common I know. I'm not suggesting this isn't a sad day for a lot of people but even residents there echo my sentiments. They know that this is a risk they signed up for. Sucks but gotta accept and learn from tragedies or it will happen again and again.

You're the type to tell people "I told you so" rather than offer condolences. It's not about common sense, just simple empathy. No person in LA needs your "wisdom".

F Y and your disingenuous virtue signalling

You're the one doing that here, not me: " Again, lots and lots of sympathy for this tragic event but just a lesson".

Its awful but it was also most likely preventable.
You can be sad and mad at the same time.

Pro tip: Actual sympathy doesn't contain a "but."

Pro top: You're a simpleton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Any Cal residents know?

[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.

Okay, fine. If that’s the case Dementia Don will kick out the migrants. Still, what is his plan for rebuilding cities without migrants AND creating jobs/housing for US climate refugees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reservoirs were filled.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/extreme-weather-verify/palisades-los-angeles-fire-hydrants-water-fact-check/536-87045971-aacb-4319-9b39-8d999675eae1

No, they were not. Again, nice try.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/pacific-palisades-reservoir-was-offline-and-empty-when-firestorm-exploded/ar-BB1reKjC?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Any Cal residents know?

When the fires hit Santa Cruz temporary shelters including ones that took pets were opened. Airbnb and beach house owners opened up their units to people being evacuated some charged, most deeply discounted, some did free but the population was way smaller. In Paradise, shelters were opened near Chico I think.

[Anonymous]

I don't have much empathy for people who don't insure even though they are high income. A high income person can afford the mortgage in Malibu AND the FAIR coverage, AND fill in what isn't covered with their savings and ongoing income. If they decided to risk it and not pay for coverage, they have to pay up when their bet doesn't pay off.

And I really don't feel bad for the grandfathered in grandparents either. They are holding on to VERY expensive properties and basically betting that they won't have a fire. They shouldn't enjoy both windfall profits from the past 30 years and not have to pay the price when things go wrong.

"PP here from the area. Yep, FAIR doesn't apply to most people even in Malibu since they still CAN get insurance, it's just really expensive and bad coverage (FAIR is expensive and bare bones too).

But yeah, the thing about the area is, it's very expensive and people are generally UMC but not necessarily risk-averse and not the sort of financial situation where the cost of fire + earthquake + flood or an umbrella policy would not be a SERIOUS expense they might not be able to afford comfortably without trimming elsewhere, unless they are grandfathered in (like my parents). Even for my parents, it is a significant cost and one they have to budget for carefully from retirement/pension."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Any Cal residents know?

I was in the Loma Prieta earthquake in the Santa Cruz mountains and a lot of kids at our HS school lost homes, and my good friend lived in hotel for a year. But, our school was fine. That is not the case in PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Any Cal residents know?

When the fires hit Santa Cruz temporary shelters including ones that took pets were opened. Airbnb and beach house owners opened up their units to people being evacuated some charged, most deeply discounted, some did free but the population was way smaller. In Paradise, shelters were opened near Chico I think.

OK that is some thing as not everyone will have options elsewhere