California (again)

[aristocrat]

5 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

“More fire prevention” 

 

What a concept! Why didn’t we think of that????

 

 

Also LMAO at blaming “DEI” for this 

clearly they didn’t and now they are facing the consequences of their own actions. 

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

Elected democrat bringing the deep thoughts. Thank you Rep Jayapal. 

[daz28]

10 hours ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

If you look at all the facts and receipts on Gavin Newsom‘s official government website, you will see that he’s done a very good job.

No, you will be informed of the facts.  Then you get to decide if they were effective or not.  It's clear to even a casual browser of this site that you're a bored troll. 

[US Egg]

A L.A. fire official just mentioned in a press conference “intentional arson” concerns.

 

Also reported on local TV there’s a new large fire breaking out shutting down another major thoroughfare.

Edited 12 hours ago by US Egg

[daz28]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

I have to stay off social media for a while because my brain cannot comprehend what is happening.

 

Social media is doing exactly what it is designed to do then.  Unfortunately, people can't break the hold it has over them.  

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Just like the Dems and Wuhan pandemic.

EVERYTHING is politicized, and the near perfect 50/50 split shows that it's working perfectly as designed. 

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, Roundybout said:

“More fire prevention” 

 

What a concept! Why didn’t we think of that????

 

 

Also LMAO at blaming “DEI” for this 

The dems have ran this area for decades and are completely at fault here. What is your solution?

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, Roundybout said:

“More fire prevention” 

 

What a concept! Why didn’t we think of that????

 

 

Also LMAO at blaming “DEI” for this 

Dei is amazing 

[aristocrat]

But wait more dei!

[daz28]

24 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

But wait more dei!

It's funny you think wildfires are new and political.  LOL.  Prop 103, which State Farm is claiming doesn't allow them to increase rates, was voted up in 1988.  It limits increases to 7%.  The only thing I trust less than government is insurance companies and their lawyers.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Wacka]

Gruesome Newsom showing  his true colors.  All doublespeak BS.  Look up Newsom from years ago on Adam Carrola podcast.

[Andy1]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

The dems have ran this area for decades and are completely at fault here. What is your solution?

This is like saying that republicans are to blame when Florida gets wiped out by a hurricane.  Nothing is stopping a fire pushed by 40-90 mph winds. Burning embers are flying miles ahead of the fire everywhere. The solution is to stop the wind. 

[aristocrat]

17 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

This is like saying that republicans are to blame when Florida gets wiped out by a hurricane.  Nothing is stopping a fire pushed by 40-90 mph winds. Burning embers are flying miles ahead of the fire everywhere. The solution is to stop the wind. 

Look at how Florida responds to these hurricanes now. They have it down to a science. California is completely unprepared for this and that’s leadership. Common sense *****.

 

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

Look at how Florida responds to these hurricanes now. They have it down to a science. California is completely unprepared for this and that’s leadership. Common sense *****.

 

Did you forget about everyone running out of gas on the highways???  Not trusting that "science".  

 

Release Date:

September 25, 2024

WASHINGTON -- In advance of Hurricane Helene’s landfall in Florida, the Biden-Harris Administration approved a pre-landfall emergency declaration for Florida. This declaration enables FEMA to provide federal resources to the state for emergency protective measures and aid initial response and recovery efforts.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

It's funny you think wildfires are new and political.  LOL.  Prop 103, which State Farm is claiming doesn't allow them to increase rates, was voted up in 1988.  It limits increases to 7%.  The only thing I trust less than government is insurance companies and their lawyers.  

My understanding is that all rate increases must be approved in California, and perhaps that’s part of the challenge.    Additionally, an arbitrary 7% cap sounds great politically, but what happens  when the need is 10%? 14%? 22%?  I was talking to a builder friend of mine during COVID, he told me that prior to the inflation bubble he was paying $1.50 for a 2x4x8.  After massive price increases, the same board was $9 per.  He told me they were losing their shirts on deals they made, and it caused a complete restructuring of the way his family company operated for decades.  

 

Finally, I’m not sure why it’s a problem if a state sets rules and guidelines, a company prefers not to participate for whatever reason, and chooses to discontinue operations in said state.  I would assume the state would have a robust plan for attracting and retaining competitors to serve the interests of its citizens?  

[daz28]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

My understanding is that all rate increases must be approved in California, and perhaps that’s part of the challenge.    Additionally, an arbitrary 7% cap sounds great politically, but what happens  when the need is 10%? 14%? 22%?  I was talking to a builder friend of mine during COVID, he told me that prior to the inflation bubble he was paying $1.50 for a 2x4x8.  After massive price increases, the same board was $9 per.  He told me they were losing their shirts on deals they made, and it caused a complete restructuring of the way his family company operated for decades.  

 

Finally, I’m not sure why it’s a problem if a state sets rules and guidelines, a company prefers not to participate for whatever reason, and chooses to discontinue operations in said state.  I would assume the state would have a robust plan for attracting and retaining competitors to serve the interests of its citizens?  

By my understanding, they could get an approval if they wanted an increase over 7%, with considerations on insolvency.  I just looked this up, so I don't understand it well, but my main point was I don't trust a press release from an insurance company any more than I would one from the government, especially in the day and age of mis/disinformation memes and X post.  The government did set up a poorly planned program to insure these people, much like the flood insurance program I discussed before.  The one that subsidizes expensive waterfront properties at the taxpayers cost.  

Edited 9 hours ago by daz28

[The Frankish Reich]

38 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

This is like saying that republicans are to blame when Florida gets wiped out by a hurricane.  Nothing is stopping a fire pushed by 40-90 mph winds. Burning embers are flying miles ahead of the fire everywhere. The solution is to stop the wind. 

Exactly.

Parts of Florida's coast and Malibu/Pacific Palisades are two sides of the same coin: overbuilding in an area that is virtually certain to create catastrophic loss.

All created by Democrats? Think again.  https://longreads.com/2018/12/04/the-case-for-letting-malibu-burn/

 

“Total fire suppression,” the official policy in the Southern California mountains since 1919, has been a tragic error because it creates enormous stockpiles of fuel. The extreme fires that eventually occur can transform the chemical structure of the soil itself. The volatilization of certain plant chemicals creates a water-repellent layer in the upper soil, and this layer, by preventing percolation, dramatically accelerates subsequent sheet flooding and erosion. A monomaniacal obsession with managing ignition rather than chaparral accumulation simply makes doomsday-like firestorms and the great floods that follow them virtually inevitable.

 

After one of the most protracted legal battles in California history, the court granted the state right-of-way through Rancho Malibu. Opened to traffic in 1928, the Pacific Coast Highway gave delighted Angelenos their first view of the magnificent Malibu coast and introduced a potent new source of ignition—the automobile—into the inflammable landscape.

 

The indefatigable May Rindge continued to fight the road builders and developers in the courts, but in the end the costs of litigation forced her to lease choice parts of Malibu beachfront to a movie colony that included Jack Warner, Clara Bow, Dolores Del Rio, and Barbara Stanwyck herself. The colony’s unexpected housewarming was a lightning-swift wildfire that destroyed 13 new homes in late October 1929. Exactly a year later, walnut pickers in the Thousand Oaks area accidently ignited another blaze, which quickly grew into one of the greatest conflagrations in Malibu history.

 

The 1930 Decker Canyon fire was a worst-case scenario involving 50-year-old chaparral and a fierce Santa Ana. Faced with a five-mile front of towering flames, 1,100 firefighters could do little except save their own lives. As the firestorm unexpectedly wheeled toward the Pacific Palisades, there was official panic. County Supervisor Wright, his nerves shaken by a visit to the collapsing fire lines, posted a hundred patrolmen at the Los Angeles city limits to alert residents for evacuation. Should the “fire raging in the Malibu District get closer,” he gasped, “our whole city might go.” Ultimately, this apocalypse (which may have given Nathanael West the idea for the burning of Los Angeles in his novel Day of the Locust) was avoided—no thanks to human initiative—when the fickle Santa Ana abruptly subsided.

In hindsight, the 1930 fire should have provoked a historic debate on the wisdom of opening Malibu to further development. Only a few months before the disaster, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.—the nation’s foremost landscape architect and designer of the California state park system—had come out in favor of public ownership of at least 10,000 acres of the most scenic beach and mountain areas between Topanga and Point Dume. Despite a further series of fires in 1935, 1936, and 1938 which destroyed almost four hundred homes in Malibu and Topanga Canyon, public officials stubbornly disregarded the wisdom of Olmsted’s proposal for a great public domain in the Santa Monicas. The county of Los Angeles, for example, squandered an extraordinary opportunity in 1938 to acquire 17,000 acres of the bankrupt Rindge estate in exchange for $1.1 million in delinquent taxes. At a mere $64 per acre, it would have been the deal of the century.

A monomaniacal obsession

[daz28]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Exactly.

Parts of Florida's coast and Malibu/Pacific Palisades are two sides of the same coin: overbuilding in an area that is virtually certain to create catastrophic loss.

All created by Democrats? Think again.  https://longreads.com/2018/12/04/the-case-for-letting-malibu-burn/

 

“Total fire suppression,” the official policy in the Southern California mountains since 1919, has been a tragic error because it creates enormous stockpiles of fuel. The extreme fires that eventually occur can transform the chemical structure of the soil itself. The volatilization of certain plant chemicals creates a water-repellent layer in the upper soil, and this layer, by preventing percolation, dramatically accelerates subsequent sheet flooding and erosion. A monomaniacal obsession with managing ignition rather than chaparral accumulation simply makes doomsday-like firestorms and the great floods that follow them virtually inevitable.

 

After one of the most protracted legal battles in California history, the court granted the state right-of-way through Rancho Malibu. Opened to traffic in 1928, the Pacific Coast Highway gave delighted Angelenos their first view of the magnificent Malibu coast and introduced a potent new source of ignition—the automobile—into the inflammable landscape.

 

The indefatigable May Rindge continued to fight the road builders and developers in the courts, but in the end the costs of litigation forced her to lease choice parts of Malibu beachfront to a movie colony that included Jack Warner, Clara Bow, Dolores Del Rio, and Barbara Stanwyck herself. The colony’s unexpected housewarming was a lightning-swift wildfire that destroyed 13 new homes in late October 1929. Exactly a year later, walnut pickers in the Thousand Oaks area accidently ignited another blaze, which quickly grew into one of the greatest conflagrations in Malibu history.

 

The 1930 Decker Canyon fire was a worst-case scenario involving 50-year-old chaparral and a fierce Santa Ana. Faced with a five-mile front of towering flames, 1,100 firefighters could do little except save their own lives. As the firestorm unexpectedly wheeled toward the Pacific Palisades, there was official panic. County Supervisor Wright, his nerves shaken by a visit to the collapsing fire lines, posted a hundred patrolmen at the Los Angeles city limits to alert residents for evacuation. Should the “fire raging in the Malibu District get closer,” he gasped, “our whole city might go.” Ultimately, this apocalypse (which may have given Nathanael West the idea for the burning of Los Angeles in his novel Day of the Locust) was avoided—no thanks to human initiative—when the fickle Santa Ana abruptly subsided.

In hindsight, the 1930 fire should have provoked a historic debate on the wisdom of opening Malibu to further development. Only a few months before the disaster, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.—the nation’s foremost landscape architect and designer of the California state park system—had come out in favor of public ownership of at least 10,000 acres of the most scenic beach and mountain areas between Topanga and Point Dume. Despite a further series of fires in 1935, 1936, and 1938 which destroyed almost four hundred homes in Malibu and Topanga Canyon, public officials stubbornly disregarded the wisdom of Olmsted’s proposal for a great public domain in the Santa Monicas. The county of Los Angeles, for example, squandered an extraordinary opportunity in 1938 to acquire 17,000 acres of the bankrupt Rindge estate in exchange for $1.1 million in delinquent taxes. At a mere $64 per acre, it would have been the deal of the century.

A monomaniacal obsession

But Daddy I want to enjoy all the benefits, and accept none of the risks associated-Veruca Salt. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, daz28 said:

By my understanding, they could get an approval if they wanted an increase over 7%, with considerations on insolvency.  I just looked this up, so I don't understand it well, but my main point was I don't trust a press release from an insurance company any more than I would one from the government, especially in the day and age of mis/disinformation memes and X post.  The government did set up a poorly planned program to insure these people, much like the flood insurance program I discussed before.  The one that subsidizes expensive waterfront properties at the taxpayers cost.  

I understand your perspective and share some of your distrust, but at the end of the day—-the playground on which all the kids play is directly controlled by the government of the state in which they are playing.  There is plenty of data to look at and wonder why the heck they perpetually have their back to the wall.  Ultimately, they seem to kind of suck at this.