3 ms·

> Government doesn't pick up bills, taxpayers do. [...] Someone in Montana should not have to pay to rebuild homes in California. Are Montana residents' taxes

> Government doesn't pick up bills, taxpayers do. [...] Someone in Montana should not have to pay to rebuild homes in California. Are Montana residents' taxes currently paying for rebuilding homes in California? How does that work - I actually don't know but I thought FEMA doesn't rebuilt homes?

scoofy 2y ago
I significant amount of the homes destroyed were "uninsurable" which they called an "insurance crisis" and they created an insurer-of-last-resort called the California FAIR Plan, which was socialized fire insurance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_FAIR_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_FAIR_Plan However if you look at the "Key Statistics" fact sheet, you'll see that, guess what: >The FAIR Plan’s Highest Wildfire Exposures >This map shows the five areas with the highest wildfire exposure concentrations each in Northern and Southern California. Each quarter circle represents a 7-mile radius where risk is concentrated. https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/ https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/ Pacific Palisades is one of many cities where a wildfire would bankrupt the entire system, because the plan didn't actually charge people what the actual cost of replacement value of the homes is. The system apparently has about $700M in assets, and it is predicted to have over $7B in exposure right now. I think it's pretty clear that they're going to have California tax payers bailout the system so that people living in the best real estate all of CA rebuild their homes in a place where people probably shouldn't be building in the first place, and continue to have their insurance subsidized by normal folks who could never afford to live in places that valuable.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > I think it's pretty clear that they're going to have California tax payers bailout the system so that people living in the best real estate all of CA rebuild their homes in a place where people probably shouldn't be building in the first place Fascinating (and thanks for sharing all that info), but I still don't see how this money would be coming from Montana residents.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    My understanding is that it entirely possible that the FAIR plan might be bailed out by the Feds.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      God I hope not. That would set a terrible president. Every other state insurance plan would eventually start running itself in a "obviously insolvent but it looks sane if you squint and market it with the morals of a used car salesman" manner but they'd be fools not to if the feds are in the business of picking up the tab.
      - scoofy 2y ago
        >That would set a terrible precedent. The existing precedent is the National Flood Insurance Program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...

scoofy 2y ago

I significant amount of the homes destroyed were "uninsurable" which they called an "insurance crisis" and they created an insurer-of-last-resort called the California FAIR Plan, which was socialized fire insurance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_FAIR_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_FAIR_Plan However if you look at the "Key Statistics" fact sheet, you'll see that, guess what: >The FAIR Plan’s Highest Wildfire Exposures >This map shows the five areas with the highest wildfire exposure concentrations each in Northern and Southern California. Each quarter circle represents a 7-mile radius where risk is concentrated. https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/ https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/ Pacific Palisades is one of many cities where a wildfire would bankrupt the entire system, because the plan didn't actually charge people what the actual cost of replacement value of the homes is. The system apparently has about $700M in assets, and it is predicted to have over $7B in exposure right now. I think it's pretty clear that they're going to have California tax payers bailout the system so that people living in the best real estate all of CA rebuild their homes in a place where people probably shouldn't be building in the first place, and continue to have their insurance subsidized by normal folks who could never afford to live in places that valuable.

dataflow 2y ago
> I think it's pretty clear that they're going to have California tax payers bailout the system so that people living in the best real estate all of CA rebuild their homes in a place where people probably shouldn't be building in the first place Fascinating (and thanks for sharing all that info), but I still don't see how this money would be coming from Montana residents.
- scoofy 2y ago
  My understanding is that it entirely possible that the FAIR plan might be bailed out by the Feds.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    God I hope not. That would set a terrible president. Every other state insurance plan would eventually start running itself in a "obviously insolvent but it looks sane if you squint and market it with the morals of a used car salesman" manner but they'd be fools not to if the feds are in the business of picking up the tab.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      >That would set a terrible precedent. The existing precedent is the National Flood Insurance Program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...