The New American Dichotomy

[joelbc1]

The fires in LA are a prime example. Folks are gonna want to rebuild there ASAP but insurance companies and others are reluctant because of the $$ and the chances of this event repeating itself. Yet folks will want their homes back, their picturesque views back and want the “government” to insure their future safety….Yet these folks will fight tooth and nail not to pay taxes to allow these things get done. LA is built to control house fires and not rapidly expanding wildfires. The water supply is inadequate for the demand and the infrastructure is aged, outdated… and most of it was built during the Great Depression if the 1930’s. New infrastructure is not cheap to construct.
There is a reality here that must be addressed. How is this problem going to be resolved? Where is the $$ going to come from? California, Florida and “Hurricane Alley” have some serious soul-searching to do here. Or they will wither in the vine.

 

[mthawkeyes]

The fires are the result of many factors.
1) A higher standard deviation in precipitation. Southern California has always seen high variation in rainfall from year to year, dictated by ENSO. (El Nino = wet and La Nina = dry.) But a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, so wet El Nino years are wetter, resulting in more vegetation growth and fuel build up, and dry La Nina years are drier, making that fuel more prone to burning.
2) Failure to employ controlled burns. A lot of people don't want controlled burns for myriad reasons. Some see it as destroying forests that they love. Some don't want the inconvenience of a few days of relatively light smoke during controlled burns. Controlled burns cost money that public agencies don't have, and people don't want to pay higher taxes. Some are concerned that controlled burns could, however unlikely, burn out of control and threaten property. (This is possible, but employs a skewed perception of risk-reward.)
3) Failure to bury power lines, especially in dry areas. This would cost money, cutting into the profits of corporations and increasing the cost of electricity to customers.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but most Americans have been convinced by their political leaders and corporate overlords that the ounce is too expensive or even unnecessary. (Climate change is just a hoax, right?) We are just entering the find out stage and haven't even stopping f***ing around. Mother Nature will get her pound.

 

[thewop]

Well OP, it's a fine question, and the answer is... You and I will pay for it:

Biden says feds to cover 100% of costs for initial LA fire recovery; FEMA assistance available

President Joe Biden on Thursday announced the federal government would cover 100% of costs of the initial federal disaster response to the Los Angeles wildfires.

6abc.com

 

[OrlandNole]

Owners of homes in high risk areas, once destroyed, get a one time buyout of the full property value. You must relocate. No rebuilds.

 

[OrlandNole]

Well OP, it's a fine question, and the answer is... You and I will pay for it:

Biden says feds to cover 100% of costs for initial LA fire recovery; FEMA assistance available

President Joe Biden on Thursday announced the federal government would cover 100% of costs of the initial federal disaster response to the Los Angeles wildfires.

6abc.com

Uh, no, that's not what's going on here.

Meeting with federal officials at the White House, Biden said the funds would go toward debris removal, temporary shelters, salaries for first responders and more for 180 days.

Nothing in there about property replacement.

 

[joelbc1]

Well OP, it's a fine question, and the answer is... You and I will pay for it:

Biden says feds to cover 100% of costs for initial LA fire recovery; FEMA assistance available

President Joe Biden on Thursday announced the federal government would cover 100% of costs of the initial federal disaster response to the Los Angeles wildfires.

6abc.com

Short term, yes…this problem is LONG term though…and people in Cali and Florida are going to have to make tough decisions about lifestyles and how they are to ge financed.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Owners of homes in high risk areas, once destroyed, get a one time buyout of the full property value. You must relocate. No rebuilds.

Was just looking at Zillow for homes for sale in Pacific Palisades. They probably don't exist today but all of them were in the $1,200 - $1,600 per sq ft range. So a 3,000 sq ft home is going to be $3.6 million+.

The problem is - how much of that value is land? A third? Half? Insurance companies don't pay for land. So, if not allowed to rebuild, what do the homeowners do with the land? California doesn't have the money to buy it. So you're just screwed?

Hundreds, thousands of homes in this situation.

 

[BioHawk]

The fires in LA are a prime example. Folks are gonna want to rebuild there ASAP but insurance companies and others are reluctant because of the $$ and the chances of this event repeating itself. Yet folks will want their homes back, their picturesque views back and want the “government” to insure their future safety….Yet these folks will fight tooth and nail not to pay taxes to allow these things get done. LA is built to control house fires and not rapidly expanding wildfires. The water supply is inadequate for the demand and the infrastructure is aged, outdated… and most of it was built during the Great Depression if the 1930’s. New infrastructure is not cheap to construct.
There is a reality here that must be addressed. How is this problem going to be resolved? Where is the $$ going to come from? California, Florida and “Hurricane Alley” have some serious soul-searching to do here. Or they will wither in the vine.

Building code changes. Homes will have to be constructed out of materials that are far less flammable, but also earthquake resistant (and as it happens, wood frame buildings are one of the best methods to resist Earthquakes). So, while structures will probably still use wood frame there might be far greater restrictions to the types of vegetation you are allowed to keep on your lawn.

 

[Nole-4-Life]

They've had less than an inch of rain since May? Damn.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Hopefully they had insurance. Oh wait a minute:

Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners were dropped by their insurers before the Palisades Fire

About 1,600 policies for Pacific Palisades homeowners were dropped by State Farm in July, the state insurance office says.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Hawk_4shur]

They've had less than an inch of rain since May? Damn.

Talk about a dichotomy. No rain, but still lots of vegetation to burn.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Hopefully they had insurance. Oh wait a minute:

Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners were dropped by their insurers before the Palisades Fire

About 1,600 policies for Pacific Palisades homeowners were dropped by State Farm in July, the state insurance office says.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Gus is dead]

I think California should be on the hook for rebuilding homes since their own mismanagement is at fault it seems.

Will wait for more information to come out but it seems as if much of what could have been done to mitigate this, wasnt.

 

[Gus is dead]

"The Palisades Fire could become the costliest wildfire in history because of the number of buildings that have been destroyed and as the structures rank among the nation's most expensive homes, said Daniel Swain, a University of California Los Angeles climatologist, on a Wednesday webcast about the disaster. The neighborhood's 9,000 residential units have a median home value of $3.1 million, according to real estate data firm ATTOM Data."

Yeah, not sure I have a lot of desire to give these folks a handout. I can't believe the banks carrying mortgages on these homes allowed them to be uninsured.

 

[hexumhawk]

I think California should be on the hook for rebuilding homes since their own mismanagement is at fault it seems.

Will wait for more information to come out but it seems as if much of what could have been done to mitigate this, wasnt.

If I lived in California, why should my tax money go to people that made risky housing decisions. That is a giant state with plenty of places to build.

 

[Titanhawk2]

The fires in LA are a prime example. Folks are gonna want to rebuild there ASAP but insurance companies and others are reluctant because of the $$ and the chances of this event repeating itself. Yet folks will want their homes back, their picturesque views back and want the “government” to insure their future safety….Yet these folks will fight tooth and nail not to pay taxes to allow these things get done. LA is built to control house fires and not rapidly expanding wildfires. The water supply is inadequate for the demand and the infrastructure is aged, outdated… and most of it was built during the Great Depression if the 1930’s. New infrastructure is not cheap to construct.
There is a reality here that must be addressed. How is this problem going to be resolved? Where is the $$ going to come from? California, Florida and “Hurricane Alley” have some serious soul-searching to do here. Or they will wither in the vine.

"want the “government” to insure their future safety" - I believe people want the government to insure the quality of life

 

[joelbc1]

"want the “government” to insure their future safety" - I believe people want the government to insure the quality of life

Which certainly includes their “safety” to a large extent. ( police, military, regulations and rules)

 

[Nole-4-Life]

Talk about a dichotomy. No rain, but still lots of vegetation to burn.

And crispy dry.

 

[Crafty Beaver]

joel's massive proclamations (like in his original post) are absolutely non-sensical. He's always trying to make a huge political point in the wake of stuff like this (ie higher taxes would prevent massive disasters like this). But it just doesn't hold up. (California already has the highest tax rate in the country by orders of magnitude, but this disaster proves that their tax rates are actually not high enough!) Mostly he's just bantering about stuff he knows very little about in an attempt to affirm his own viewpoints.