California Lunacy Thread

#2,026
#2,026
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...

depending on what permitting they want cut, that may be counterproductive if you don't want this to happen again.

you can't let people just build whatever, and expect it to be safe. and if you want to avoid/minimize the issue for the next time you have to make changes and can't just let them build back the same thing.

now cutting all of this hazardous testing and other EPA stuff is probably a great place to start, but you can't go to no permitting. I doubt many construction insurers would issue policies for the construction out there without some permitting going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Smallvol#1
#2,027
#2,027
LouderVol said:
depending on what permitting they want cut, that may be counterproductive if you don't want this to happen again.

you can't let people just build whatever, and expect it to be safe. and if you want to avoid/minimize the issue for the next time you have to make changes and can't just let them build back the same thing.

now cutting all of this hazardous testing and other EPA stuff is probably a great place to start, but you can't go to no permitting. I doubt many construction insurers would issue policies for the construction out there without some permitting going on.
Click to expand...
Let folks build whatever they want, but in order to buy insurance the structures have to meet stringent fire prevention building codes. Build a tender box and take the risk you will loose your entire investment. There are better ways to deal with this instead of city government oversight IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, DC_Vol and StarRaider
#2,028
#2,028
walkenvol said:
Let folks build whatever they want, but in order to buy insurance the structures have to meet stringent fire prevention building codes. Build a tender box and take the risk you will loose your entire investment. There are better ways to deal with this instead of city government oversight IMO
Click to expand...
my understanding is that fire home insurance protection is already difficult/impossible to get out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol
#2,029
#2,029
LouderVol said:
my understanding is that fire home insurance protection is already difficult/impossible to get out there.
Click to expand...
Hope you’re understanding correctly as that’s the only sure fire way I can see to keep folks from building in high risk areas. No insurance = no mortgage also. I’ve been to this part of California and it is a beautiful geographical area that is an appealing place to live until the regular fires decimate the area. If you live there, you need your residence on wheels so you can tow it to a safe haven during high risk conditions. Same with many ocean front buildings
 
#2,033
#2,033
apnews.com

California considers letting victims of natural disasters sue oil companies for damages

California is considering a bill that would allow insurers and victims of climate-driven natural disasters to sue the oil industry for damages. State Sen.
apnews.com apnews.com

I thought we are supposed to delay the blame game.
Apparently CA has lawsuits againt Exxon as well..no telling how much it will cost American consumers. The implications are absolutely enormous.
 
#2,034
#2,034
Orangeburst said:
apnews.com

California considers letting victims of natural disasters sue oil companies for damages

California is considering a bill that would allow insurers and victims of climate-driven natural disasters to sue the oil industry for damages. State Sen.
apnews.com apnews.com

I thought we are supposed to delay the blame game.
Apparently CA has lawsuits againt Exxon as well..no telling how much it will cost American consumers. The implications are absolutely enormous.
Click to expand...
should be easy to beat in a court.

"Ok prove that this company caused the natural disaster or made it worse. we will wait. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#2,037
#2,037
Orangeburst said:
dont be so sure..
Click to expand...
eh, their science hasn't even attempted to address to a specific instance. its a HUGE leap to go from a general problem to a specific problems with some amount of damages to be tied to it.

like if they want 10 billion in damages, they are going to show how Exxon, or whoever, made 10 billion dollars worth of difference.
 
#2,040
#2,040
Orangeburst said:
apnews.com

California considers letting victims of natural disasters sue oil companies for damages

California is considering a bill that would allow insurers and victims of climate-driven natural disasters to sue the oil industry for damages. State Sen.
apnews.com apnews.com

I thought we are supposed to delay the blame game.
Apparently CA has lawsuits againt Exxon as well..no telling how much it will cost American consumers. The implications are absolutely enormous.
Click to expand...
How are they going to prove what is “climate-change driven”?
 
#2,041
#2,041
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#2,042
#2,042
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top