5 ms·
I stated the risk is lower in many parts. However the areas of low risk aren’t the ones facing insurance crises. It’s mostly fire prone areas being dropped. For
by bushbaba 3y ago
I stated the risk is lower in many parts. However the areas of low risk aren’t the ones facing insurance crises. It’s mostly fire prone areas being dropped. For example you’ll find no challenges getting insurance in San Francisco city or San Jose for the most part.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 3y agoYour point is taken and I am mindful that SF isn’t say, an hour outside of Sacramento or closer to the national forest range. California is handling this as a state crisis though, which is good from a governance and fiscal strength approach, but not so good considering the significant delta in risk between cities and high risk areas (due to the wildly disproportionate costs).
- gedy 3y ago> For example you’ll find no challenges getting insurance in San Francisco city or San Jose for the most part. While some of that is climate, much of that is because the natural environment was wiped out and urbanized years ago. I have a higher wildfire risk not because my home is in some wooded canyon, but there are more plants, trees, and open areas around vs paved cityscape.
- bushbaba 3y agoInsurance is based on risk. Past actions can be reversed but have made some areas less risky