California Lunacy Thread

[EasternVol]

Nearly my entire job is dictated by policies that republicans put in place during their Congressional periods of control. Almost every decision made in my field is driven by those policies, even when it is outright stupid and counter to the mission.

Could this not be the case in a state where typical left-leaning interests are focused more on the extreme fringe of natural conservatism and environmentalism that may (have) damaged the ability for the state to effectively manage fires?

Again, I'd like to understand how it's possible to split government agency policy from the politicians (and, by extension, political ideologies) that literally make the frameworks if not dictate the outright policies themselves.

Some government functions and actions aren't reflections of conservative or liberal dogma, they're just basic government functions and actions. Were California's land management procedures as regards wildfires much different between Reagan and Brown or Schwarzenegger and Newsom?

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

So CA outlawed rate increase so Insurance companies pull out? Wow that is one ****ed up state.

Just for context

They did not outlaw rate increases but they did not allow insurers to increase by their recommeded increases (i.e., they might allow a 2% increase but the appropriate rate given claims and inflation might have been 9%)

But they absolutely restricted free market.

They did finally allow insurers to charge more market rates but they had to take on more high risk policies to do so...

 

[LouderVol]

Then imagine how you would feel if you were a Californian and lost everything knowing a dei hire was in charge.

what has this lady failed with the direct managing of this fire? Is she giving bad orders, or clamming up like their mayor did? did she use the assets she has in a bad way?

my understanding is the issues in dealing with fires extends well beyond her tenure and control. their fire chief isn't responsible for their budget, or removing the reservoirs.

 

[jwells]

I can only imagine that controlled burns would be a nonstarter in cali.

Prescribed Burning | California Air Resources Board

Prescribed burning is the controlled application of fire to the land to reduce wildfire hazards, clear downed trees, control plant diseases, improve rangeland and wildlife habitats, and restore natural ecosystems. Sometimes called a controlled burn or prescribed fire, prescribed burning is one...

ww2.arb.ca.gov

 

[Septic]

what's going to happen in the aftermath. will Newsom allow people to rebuild on their own land? or will he have regime take over all land and set regulations on what can be built. I'm sure the leftist, nutjob, environmentalist are drooling at the prospect of taking over all those destroyed areas. those dems will not let this tragedy go to waste.

You're certainly not letting your speculation on this tragedy go to waste. Way to get ahead of the curve, no one will notice.

 

[jwells]

You're certainly not letting your speculation on this tragedy go to waste. Way to get ahead of the curve, no one will notice.

i hEarD thEy HaVe LiThiUm thAt the GubMenT wAnts tO gIvE to MinE ComPanieS

 

[LouderVol]

Back when Charlie Crist was running for Senate - State Farm asked the Department of Insurance here in Florida to approve some rate hikes as they were way upside down on their combined loss ratio. Absolutely hemorrhaging money. Old Charlie didn't want to be the guy that approved small rate increases to Florida's largest insurer when he was running for Senate - so SF was denied and subsequently left the housing insurance market here completely. Alot of those SF homeowners ended up in the state run, Citizens program which was intended to be an "insurer of last resort."

Politicians should stay out of the free market and people who live in disaster prone areas need to accept that there's a price to pay to live in areas that are prone to natural disasters.

how did SF pulling out of Florida work? was it a gradual thing as policies aged out? did they buy out of policies or pay out some fee to cover the loss of coverage?

the opposite relation doesn't exist, so I am leary to say its a free market situation. lets say someone doesn't have enough coverage when making a claim, they don't get to say "oops" just bump me up to a higher coverage to fill in this gap. they have to eat it. why does SF get to bail when it becomes inconvenient to them?

 

[lawgator1]

how did SF pulling out of Florida work? was it a gradual thing as policies aged out? did they buy out of policies or pay out some fee to cover the loss of coverage?

the opposite relation doesn't exist, so I am leary to say its a free market situation. lets say someone doesn't have enough coverage when making a claim, they don't get to say "oops" just bump me up to a higher coverage to fill in this gap. they have to eat it. why does SF get to bail when it becomes inconvenient to them?

I live in Florida and have had SF for homeowners since 2004.

 

[Orangeburst]

Just for context

They did not outlaw rate increases but they did not allow insurers to increase by their recommeded increases (i.e., they might allow a 2% increase but the appropriate rate given claims and inflation might have been 9%)

But they absolutely restricted free market.

They did finally allow insurers to charge more market rates but they had to take on more high risk policies to do so...

Semantics

 

[C-south]

Prescribed Burning | California Air Resources Board

Prescribed burning is the controlled application of fire to the land to reduce wildfire hazards, clear downed trees, control plant diseases, improve rangeland and wildlife habitats, and restore natural ecosystems. Sometimes called a controlled burn or prescribed fire, prescribed burning is one...

ww2.arb.ca.gov

I guess there were “factors” in place that hindered the application of doing them.

 

[LouderVol]

I live in Florida and have had SF for homeowners since 2004.

so it sounds like they didn't just up and leave. which is good, imo.

is the issue that new people/buildings can't get policies?

 

[n_huffhines]

I said the failures of the reverse 911 features counted, just not as an aspect of managing the fires.

we were talking about putting out fires and managing the fires themselves. getting people out safely is another thing entirely, at least to me.

As an architect my job isn't to keep a building from burning down via my design, my job is to make sure the people get out safely before the building burns down via my design. so I see those two things, managing the fire vs managing the people, as two separate items.

I haven't heard or made any critiques about LA getting people away from the fire. they, at least to this point, haven't failed that in my eyes. It sounds like Gatlinburg did fail in that. Happy?

Mojo and I brought up Gatlinburg as a broad concept. In no way were we saying the mistakes are the same. The point is that there is always mismanagement and something to criticize. I believe this was the first mention of TN's tragedy:

There is always going to be some element of mismanagement to point to. We've had bad fires in Utah and AZ, and we have more the kind of management people are looking for (controlled burns, etc.). **** still happens. Hell, the Smoky Mtns got ****ed up a few years back, and that's rainforest compared to here.

We don't have the infrastructure or geography they do in CA, and we still have bad fires. I had a friend die in one (fighting it. Seen the movie Only the Brave?). It's impossible to know how much blame who deserves for what, but that's not gonna stop any of you in here with an axe to grind.

 

[jwells]

I guess there were “factors” in place that hindered the application of doing them.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have about as much idea on which burns they did or didn't do as I do: None.

This "they didn't clear the brush" thing cropping up is a bit premature, imo. In fact, any jawing about anything related to the fire by people out East blaming the "libs" for their fire is a bit ridiculous. We don't know. We'll find out. Best not to imagine.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

 

[C-south]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have about as much idea on which burns they did or didn't do as I do: None.

This "they didn't clear the brush" thing cropping up is a bit premature, imo. In fact, any jawing about anything related to the fire by people out East blaming the "libs" for their fire is a bit ridiculous. We don't know. We'll find out. Best not to imagine.

I just read what you posted. True that I can only imagine how they’ve handled the situation in any aspect but they have set the precedent by how they handle everything else.

 

[Septic]

how did SF pulling out of Florida work? was it a gradual thing as policies aged out? did they buy out of policies or pay out some fee to cover the loss of coverage?

the opposite relation doesn't exist, so I am leary to say its a free market situation. lets say someone doesn't have enough coverage when making a claim, they don't get to say "oops" just bump me up to a higher coverage to fill in this gap. they have to eat it. why does SF get to bail when it becomes inconvenient to them?

Gave statutory required notice and dipped.

State Farm leaving Florida property insurance market

TALLAHASSEE - Little more than two weeks after state regulators turned down its request for a 47.1 percent rate hike, State Farm announced Tuesday it would stop offering property insurance in Florida…

www.jacksonville.com

Insurance rates are approved on the whims of beurocrats. If you ran a hamburger stand and the government told you you could only charge $1.30 for a burger but your costs and overhead was $3.27 for that burger - you'd be in a losing position as a business owner. That's where SF was so they asked for an approval from the beurocrats to be profitable. Crist and his lackies denied it, so SF did what any responsible business owner would do... They stopped offering an unprofitable product.

 

[lawgator1]

so it sounds like they didn't just up and leave. which is good, imo.

is the issue that new people/buildings can't get policies?

I really don't know how they determine that. It's in the news every year that the insurers ask to increase rates by 30 percent, the state regulators approve 5 percent, the insurers threaten to leave, they get 9 percent.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Vol737]

Found this. It shows the big problem is Multi-agency permitting instead of having a streamlined process for approval and initiation of construction. Could've helped? Possibly. Gotta find a better way. Unfortunately, it may take a disaster like this to force the issue and get some common sense fast tracking of projects.

Have no Prop. 1 water projects been built in California? No, but they are moving slowly

Republicans last week blasted Democrats for alleged inaction on the 2014 bond act, Proposition 1, making some good points while being off base on their basic premise, columnist George Skelton writes.

www.latimes.com

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have about as much idea on which burns they did or didn't do as I do: None.

This "they didn't clear the brush" thing cropping up is a bit premature, imo. In fact, any jawing about anything related to the fire by people out East blaming the "libs" for their fire is a bit ridiculous. We don't know. We'll find out. Best not to imagine.

Why is it best not to imagine?

 

[LouderVol]

Mojo and I brought up Gatlinburg as a broad concept. In no way were we saying the mistakes are the same. The point is that there is always mismanagement and something to criticize. I believe this was the first mention of TN's tragedy:

I dug up the Gatlinburg Being Evacuated thread in the Pub. It was page 3 less than 24hrs after the thread got started before people were blaming the City for their failings.

so I think the assumption of different, politically based, reactions is a bit overplayed here. LSU_SIU was also in that thread critiquing the management of that original fire and letting it burn. I didn't dig long enough to see who else popped up there.

 

[volfanhill]

Why is it best not to imagine?

Oh, you don't know

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Newsom's Offshore Wind Plan Will Likely Cost Californians Tens of Billions of Dollars. They Already Pay Some of the Nation's Highest Electric Bills.​

'Californians could pay $80 Billion, plus a large tab for transmission, and get little to nothing in return,' Cato Institute scholar says​

Californians can once again expect a spike to their utility bills, which are already among the highest in the nation, thanks to the Newsom administration's pledge to buy electricity from offshore wind turbines. State-commissioned consultants expect residents will have to pay up to $40 billion, but outside experts predict the actual cost will be multiple times higher.

In August, the California Public Utilities Commission—appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D.)—authorized the state to begin soliciting up to 7.6 gigawatts of offshore wind energy, starting in 2027. That commitment ignored its consultants' recommendation to limit the project to between 1 and 3 gigawatts to avoid major increases to ratepayers' electricity bills.

A state-commissioned analysis by Energy and Environmental Economics projected that relying on offshore wind energy for 7.6 gigawatts—a small fraction of California's annual electric grid needs of 287 gigawatts—could save about $10 billion by 2045 in the most optimistic scenario. But it also predicted that the plan would more likely cost ratepayers as much as $40 billion. Outside experts believe that's a major underestimate, with actual costs ranging from double to nearly quadruple that figure.

Newsom's Offshore Wind Plan Will Likely Cost Californians Tens of Billions of Dollars. They Already Pay Some of the Nation's Highest Electric Bills.

Californians can once again expect a spike to their utility bills, which are already among the highest in the nation, thanks to the Newsom administration's pledge to buy electricity from offshore wind turbines. State-commissioned consultants expect residents will have to pay up to $40 billion...

freebeacon.com

 

[hog88]

what's going to happen in the aftermath. will Newsom allow people to rebuild on their own land? or will he have regime take over all land and set regulations on what can be built. I'm sure the leftist, nutjob, environmentalist are drooling at the prospect of taking over all those destroyed areas. those dems will not let this tragedy go to waste.

A change in building codes to make houses/building more fire resistant which of course will make them more expensive to construct which will force a lot of people to short sell.

 

[volfanhill]

A change in building codes to make houses/building more fire resistant which of course will make them more expensive to construct which will force a lot of people to short sell.

Don't forget all these "pro environment" "pro regulation" democrats trying to pull permits to rebuild to current codes. They are going to shat themselves.

 

[n_huffhines]

I dug up the Gatlinburg Being Evacuated thread in the Pub. It was page 3 less than 24hrs after the thread got started before people were blaming the City for their failings.

so I think the assumption of different, politically based, reactions is a bit overplayed here. LSU_SIU was also in that thread critiquing the management of that original fire and letting it burn. I didn't dig long enough to see who else popped up there.

Was it partisan dunking, tho? That's what's happening here. Page 3 is pretty good considering the LA fires discussion here started like this:

Brilliant…..

She is currently on vacation out of the country.

TFG posted an update that the fires got worse over-night, and several posters "liked" it. WTH is that?