6 ms·

> So instead of a long-overdue debate about the wisdom of rebuilding and the need to prevent further construction in areas of extreme natural fire danger, publi

> So instead of a long-overdue debate about the wisdom of rebuilding and the need to prevent further construction in areas of extreme natural fire danger, public attention was diverted into a discussion of the best methods for clearing vegetation (rototillers or goats?) and making homes fire-resistant. Does anyone honestly think that debate has any actual chance of hapenning, even now? Malibu and the Pacific Palisades are some of the best real estate in the state if not the country. There’s always going to be someone willing to pay the rising cost of fire insurance and take the risk to live there. Short of the state buying out all the property owners or making that area uninsurable by CalFAIR, people are going to build. Not to mention the political connections they have. Altadena, on the other hand, was built where and how it was built because of segregationist redlining in Pasadena and South Pasadena. It’s a historically minority neighborhood that was only built so densely with so little fire protection because they couldn’t afford it and the state never gave them much help. It looks like once again our power companies are responsible for starting a destructive conflagration because they siphoned maintenance money to shareholders and executives (many of whom probably live in Malibu or the Palisades). Any state policy that tries to solve the Malibu/Palisades problem is going to disproportionately screw these low income communities that have built out around the edges. I’m betting that entire neighborhood will sell out to real estate developers building apartment complexes that can afford more expensive fire mitigations, destroying a historical community as much as any freeway and opening the door to tenement fires. This has all happened before and will happen again. I don’t really see a holistic solution that has any chance of passing public scrutiny and working, other than chipping away at the insurance regulator and CalFAIR, which will screw over the most vulnerable and entrench the real estate NIMBYs.

scarab92 2y ago
California needs to get rid of its price controls on insurance, so that people building in high risk areas are exposed to the true costs of the risks they are taking, and have appropriate incentives to build to the conditions.
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  How can there be price controls on insurance? The state subsidizes insurance in these areas?
  - throwup238 2y ago
    The California Department of Insurance regulates the insurance rates, down to how much they can raise them each year. Over the last decade the real risk of these fires has become better known to insurance companies and they've been screaming to be allowed to raise rates faster. Some have even exited the state completely (to new sign ups). CalFAIR is the state insurer of last resort but last I checked it's not subsidized. There were talks of needing a possible bailout last year, and it's going to intensify now, but it hasn't happened yet.
    - silotis 2y ago
      CalFAIR is subsidized in the sense that insurance companies are forced to pay into it. Insurers of course pass this cost on to their customers. Combined with price controls on insurance this is just taxation with extra steps.
      - scoofy 2y ago
        The California FAIR Plan will almost certainly be bankrupted by this event, and then will almost certainly be bailed out by the state... which will be a direct subsidy.
- Neonlicht 2y ago
  I live in the Netherlands. My insurance already doesn't cover a flood (it also doesn't cover war or a nuclear reactor blowing up). It is the government that picks up the bill in real disasters I suggest everyone reads the fine print on their contracts.
  - nosefurhairdo 2y ago
Neonlicht 2y ago
What fire mitigations are there for these kind of disasters besides complete depopulation? There are already 15k firefighters working on this one. It's just gonna get worse with climate change.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I think that assumption is inaccurate: 1. In parts of the Pacific Palisades/Malibu, as the article points out, yes, there are firestorms that are going to happen there pretty much inevitably. But even then, if you look at some places that had both the money and motivation to really invest in fire prevention (e.g. the Getty Villa), they escaped the worst of the damage - no structures in the Getty Villa, smack dab in the middle of the Palisades, burned. 2. What happened in Altadena was entirely different. It shouldn't go unnoticed that in many pictures and videos that lots of trees are still standing unscathed while the homes are all burnt to the ground. Most of these homes went up long before adequate fire protection was deemed a necessity, and given land values there now (even with it being in the state it's in), it should be possible to rebuild in a much more fire resistant state than what existed previously.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Carrok 2y ago
  Metal. Stone. Concrete.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  It will get worse no matter what. Even if we went carbon-negative tomorrow, California in currently in a historically wet period. The music will stop no matter what, unless we acquire planetary weather control. > Across the Californian region, paleoclimate records dating back more than 1,000 years show more significant dry periods compared to the latest century. Ancient data reveals two mega-droughts that endured for well over a century, one lasting 220 years and one for 140 years. The 20th century was fraught with numerous droughts, yet this era could be considered relatively "wet" compared against an expansive 3,500 year history. In recent times, droughts lasting five to 10 years have raised concern, but are not anomalous. Rather, decade long droughts are an ordinary feature of the state's innate climate. Based on scientific evidence, dry spells as severe as the mega-droughts detected from the distant past are likely to recur, even in absence of anthropogenic climate change. I say this because people should not confuse the issues. Fighting climate change won't stop California from burning. This was always going to happen; even in the best-case massively carbon-negative future, we at best defer the burning a few years. So we shouldn't have the attitude "California will just be OK if we can go carbon negative." It won't. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California
nelox 2y ago
As politics follows power, I agree that preventing rebuilding would prove challenging. But so is witnessing an apocalypse, the likes of which Angelinos have just endured. It would be a brave politician indeed to remove any possibility of development in those areas.

scarab92 2y ago

California needs to get rid of its price controls on insurance, so that people building in high risk areas are exposed to the true costs of the risks they are taking, and have appropriate incentives to build to the conditions.

dullcrisp 2y ago
How can there be price controls on insurance? The state subsidizes insurance in these areas?
- throwup238 2y ago
  The California Department of Insurance regulates the insurance rates, down to how much they can raise them each year. Over the last decade the real risk of these fires has become better known to insurance companies and they've been screaming to be allowed to raise rates faster. Some have even exited the state completely (to new sign ups). CalFAIR is the state insurer of last resort but last I checked it's not subsidized. There were talks of needing a possible bailout last year, and it's going to intensify now, but it hasn't happened yet.
  - silotis 2y ago
    CalFAIR is subsidized in the sense that insurance companies are forced to pay into it. Insurers of course pass this cost on to their customers. Combined with price controls on insurance this is just taxation with extra steps.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      The California FAIR Plan will almost certainly be bankrupted by this event, and then will almost certainly be bailed out by the state... which will be a direct subsidy.
Neonlicht 2y ago
I live in the Netherlands. My insurance already doesn't cover a flood (it also doesn't cover war or a nuclear reactor blowing up). It is the government that picks up the bill in real disasters I suggest everyone reads the fine print on their contracts.
- nosefurhairdo 2y ago

Neonlicht 2y ago

What fire mitigations are there for these kind of disasters besides complete depopulation? There are already 15k firefighters working on this one. It's just gonna get worse with climate change.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I think that assumption is inaccurate: 1. In parts of the Pacific Palisades/Malibu, as the article points out, yes, there are firestorms that are going to happen there pretty much inevitably. But even then, if you look at some places that had both the money and motivation to really invest in fire prevention (e.g. the Getty Villa), they escaped the worst of the damage - no structures in the Getty Villa, smack dab in the middle of the Palisades, burned. 2. What happened in Altadena was entirely different. It shouldn't go unnoticed that in many pictures and videos that lots of trees are still standing unscathed while the homes are all burnt to the ground. Most of these homes went up long before adequate fire protection was deemed a necessity, and given land values there now (even with it being in the state it's in), it should be possible to rebuild in a much more fire resistant state than what existed previously.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Carrok 2y ago
Metal. Stone. Concrete.
Amezarak 2y ago
It will get worse no matter what. Even if we went carbon-negative tomorrow, California in currently in a historically wet period. The music will stop no matter what, unless we acquire planetary weather control. > Across the Californian region, paleoclimate records dating back more than 1,000 years show more significant dry periods compared to the latest century. Ancient data reveals two mega-droughts that endured for well over a century, one lasting 220 years and one for 140 years. The 20th century was fraught with numerous droughts, yet this era could be considered relatively "wet" compared against an expansive 3,500 year history. In recent times, droughts lasting five to 10 years have raised concern, but are not anomalous. Rather, decade long droughts are an ordinary feature of the state's innate climate. Based on scientific evidence, dry spells as severe as the mega-droughts detected from the distant past are likely to recur, even in absence of anthropogenic climate change. I say this because people should not confuse the issues. Fighting climate change won't stop California from burning. This was always going to happen; even in the best-case massively carbon-negative future, we at best defer the burning a few years. So we shouldn't have the attitude "California will just be OK if we can go carbon negative." It won't. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California

nelox 2y ago

As politics follows power, I agree that preventing rebuilding would prove challenging. But so is witnessing an apocalypse, the likes of which Angelinos have just endured. It would be a brave politician indeed to remove any possibility of development in those areas.