Reply to Palisades Fire

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Palisades Fire - Los Angeles"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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???[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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? [/quote]

Texas?  DMV?  [/quote]

New England is a good option.  Ohio.[/quote]

So these 5-6 states will be creating 14m housing units for Californians, who can no longer get homeowners insurance? [/quote][/quote]

Californians will need to figure it out.  If they want insurance, I guess.  So will Floridians.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

You can’t expect 17m people to move on their own. You people are ridiculous. I live in DC. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics