I keep waiting for people in less risky parts of California ask why they're paying more for insurance and power so that people can live in risky, fire-prone hills and mountains, but it doesn't seem to be happening.
Those asking might want to have a chat with Florida residents, who have a completely ideologically opposite state government and have the same situation, but with flood insurance. Some risk has to be socialized or no one can live anywhere safely.
You think it is inappropriate to live in a fire prone area.
Your arbitrary line of appropriateness is wrong.
My arbitrary line of appropriateness is right.
It is inappropriate to live anywhere where there is a fire, earthquake, blizzard, sink hole, volcano, heat wave, tornado, and hurricane risk but also where there is not ample local (as in constrained to a single independent self-governing body) water, energy, and food resources.
There's no need to draw a discrete line and say it's inappropriate to be on the wrong side of it. People should be able to live where they choose. But people should also pay actuarially fair insurance premiums and market-driven prices for energy and other services, based on those risks and the associated cost to serve them. That's not happening today, because market distortions created by government entities force people in lower-risk areas to cross-subsidize expenses for people in higher-risk areas.
For most of the recent Los Angeles area fires there was never any possibility of conducting controlled burns. The terrain is too steep and there were too many structures nearby. A controlled burn could have turned uncontrolled in moments (which has happened before).
Brush clearing can help to an extent. But that's tremendously labor intensive on steep hillsides where heavy equipment can't be used. Taken too far it can also destabilize the soil and cause mudslides during the rainy season.
More realistic solutions are going to include tightening up the building code to make structures more fire resistant, prohibiting building at all in certain risky areas, and provisioning more water supplies so that the hydrants don't run dry.
However, state and local agencies undertake prescribed burns regularly. To be fair, clarity (read: honesty) from political figures on this topic (and others) is at an all time low.
Much of the damage was in areas where a controlled burn would have been impossible due to geography. And the kind of vegetation in the burn area isn’t suited to controlled burns anyway:
And then there's the ever diminishing opportunity to conduct burns, due mostly to climate change.
Los Angeles had a ton of rain in Feb-Mar 2024 which resulted in massive fuel growth. That rain stopped in a hurry, plunging the region straight into drought.
That fuel subsequently cured over summer and became available to fire. Once it ignited, it was driven by extreme winds and there was no stopping it.
Not only was there no opportunity to conduct burns in that area, but it would've been dangerous to do so at any time due to steep terrain and risk to property.
California is a bit more nuanced to that. There's a whole chunk of Federal land owned by BLM that is poorly managed by the feds. And then there's a fuck-ton of private land as well that makes up forests and brush. And then finally there's state owned land.
Of course california hurts itself with its own environmental regs for burns, but there's alot of legal complexity to pull it off across the various land ownerships.
From what I understand (and I’d appreciate any corrections) FAIR was supposed to pay for itself, not be a subsidized insurer. It seems like FAIR was underpricing the risk, and the private insurers were right to pull out.
Why would the state pay to fund FAIR? It's just a pool of insurers required to provide fire insurance and it's paid for by insurance customers. Even if the state had $100 billion surplus, why would it be justifiable to use it on FAIR as opposed to the countless other ways the money could be used to help Californian residents? It would effectively be like taxing Californians to pay for homeowner fire insurance. Is that fair?
The problem is the same thing that leads to many California problems - it’s the leaders voters keep choosing. One party states tend to be wasteful and ineffective.
I must be missing something, but FAIR is an insurer of last resort backstopped by the insurance companies who refused to sell risky policies in the first place?
The weren’t allowed to - not even the fair plan was charging sound actuarial rates. Cali put price controls on insurance, making this debacle inevitable.
That’s really the core problem here. As is often the case with rent control models, the natural outcome of an incentive structure came to pass in spite of the best intentions of legislators/regulators.
Its hard to understand why so many California houses are built of wood. After a fire all that’s left is a few chimneys. However I happen to live in California in a house made of concrete bricks and we don’t get a higher valuation per square foot or a discount for our fire insurance. There should be more incentives to build fireproof houses.
Readit News
Your arbitrary line of appropriateness is wrong.
My arbitrary line of appropriateness is right.
It is inappropriate to live anywhere where there is a fire, earthquake, blizzard, sink hole, volcano, heat wave, tornado, and hurricane risk but also where there is not ample local (as in constrained to a single independent self-governing body) water, energy, and food resources.
Only those parts are truly less risky parts.
Managing fire risk is a simple task; California refuses to engage in controlled burns.
Brush clearing can help to an extent. But that's tremendously labor intensive on steep hillsides where heavy equipment can't be used. Taken too far it can also destabilize the soil and cause mudslides during the rainy season.
More realistic solutions are going to include tightening up the building code to make structures more fire resistant, prohibiting building at all in certain risky areas, and provisioning more water supplies so that the hydrants don't run dry.
https://cepr.net/publications/us-forest-service-decision-to-...
However, state and local agencies undertake prescribed burns regularly. To be fair, clarity (read: honesty) from political figures on this topic (and others) is at an all time low.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/techne/why-shrubland-make...
Firstly, burns are a short lived control. You can burn but when it rains, the vegetation regrows.
Secondly, regular burns often promote the growth of even more flammable vegetation.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13041
And then there's the health impact on neighbouring communities.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/213/6/exceedances-nation...
And then there's the ever diminishing opportunity to conduct burns, due mostly to climate change.
Los Angeles had a ton of rain in Feb-Mar 2024 which resulted in massive fuel growth. That rain stopped in a hurry, plunging the region straight into drought.
That fuel subsequently cured over summer and became available to fire. Once it ignited, it was driven by extreme winds and there was no stopping it.
Not only was there no opportunity to conduct burns in that area, but it would've been dangerous to do so at any time due to steep terrain and risk to property.
Of course california hurts itself with its own environmental regs for burns, but there's alot of legal complexity to pull it off across the various land ownerships.
The main issues are sprawl and aging, above the ground electrical infra
They knew the insurers were leaving and why. Yet didn't fund FAIR correctly at the time? Or what's the excuse?
Of course now there is a massive deficit. Maybe they'll pay us back on the next surplus...
"FAIR Plan has about $300 billion in total exposure, meaning how much they actually insure, and about $200 million in the bank," - March 2024
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-fair-pl...
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2024/01/22/how-california-...
More details on the insurance debacle, which basically is classic over regulation: https://youtu.be/ojzUtQlug3I
Dead Comment