Exactly. Most of Altadena is your typical suburban block with tiny lots packed back to back on a rectangular grid. Very highly connected.
I think @Dinsdale is not understanding the geography of Los Angeles.
Yep. AAA canceled every policy in my ZIP code after the Line fire last year.
I wonder if they could not charge as much as they needed to cover their risk based on CA Dept of Insurance rate regulations.
I readily admit that I do not understand the geography of LA. Looking at a map, I have no idea what risks were reasonable given the mountains that seem to be immediately to the north and east of Altadena. How reasonable is it to say, “Sure, the mountain in my back yard might burn, but no way will it reach my house”?
I think at this point everyone in Southern California is aware of the risk fires poses to communities. A lot of us don’t like to think of it, but the risk is there. It’s like living on a flood plain. You can’t be too surprised when your house gets flooded.
Yeah, The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 - they shouldn’ta outta rebuilt the city right there. Too risky. They shoulda done like in Cairo, Illinois, ya know, just evacuate the city and send people somewhere safe!
People are going to rebuild Altadena and Pacific Palisades and elsewhere burned-up by fires because the land has already been cleared and infrastructure is already there and streets are still there, and people are, for better or worse, financially tied to their properties. If the State or US Govt wants them to live somewhere else, then they should have been compensated at full market value, before a natural disaster, to move somewhere else. But that has not happened, and you can’t come in after a disaster and do that, because their property is now worthless. People are stuck with their burned-up property, and it will be difficult to just walk away.
Yes. A law had been in effect that forbid insurers from basing fees on modeling future risk (known to be increasing). So many just pulled out. The law changed just this month but not soon enough clearly.
The state insurance of last resort is more money and has a top limit below the value of many of these homes. That coverage is actually funded by the industry according to market share and has some reinsurance. Overall those expenses will be recouped by increased fees across the state and even across the country.
I am seeing parallels to big banks taking big risks knowing they will be bailed out if the gamble loses. Huge fires are NOT a complete shock in California.
Realistically, there’s not much in the way of “safe” land that isn’t a desert or the like; inhabitable land tend to be “active” land in one way or another.
It would make more sense to force everyone to adhere to safety regulations and building codes. Earthquake resistant buildings, elevated homes in flood-risk areas, proper maintenance of the electrical grid in fire prone areas and so on. That’ll be a lot more effective than an unrealistic quest to force everyone into near-mythical “safe” areas.
You really think that is an apt comparison? If so, well, good to know.
Maybe they ought to clear a buffer area around any areas where fire risk cannot be reasonably managed. Don’t say the property is too valuable to remain undeveloped. Because the property is only so valuable if it is subject to being burned every so often - at least without sizable subsidies.
My limited familiarity w/ LA is that the place seems to spread all over the place, with hills/mountains jutting up all over the place. My kid used to live down in Orange County. IIRC she had a fire evac warning a few years back. She moved to a suburb of Denver - where there promptly was a grass fire! My wife has a cousin who used to live on top of a mountain in Malibu. She also moved to Colorado, as she was terrified of the prospects of fire. Her old house was destroyed in this recent fire.
So, my limited familiarity suggests there was longstanding fire danger to the NW and SE of LA proper. But Altadena was supposedly inviolable?
What town? Somewhere like Bailey that is in the mountains?
No. (Discourse)
There are things that can be done to mitigate risk. Santa Barbara was destroyed in an earthquake in 1925. A new law was passed. No more brick and no buildings over two stories. As mentioned in the wildfire thread, California banned shake shingle roofs. Brush must be cleared around dwellings in the foothills.
The base issue here is not natural disasters. Those are a function of worsening climate change, especially the global warming component of climate change. 2024 was the hottest year in recorded history. (This year will probably not set another record because of La Nina cooling in the Pacific, but succeeding years will continue to top each other.)
Big Money already recognizes climate change’s impact on its business model, hence the nationwide trend of insurance companies cancelling policies. States have been the insurer of last resort, but cannot continue. DeSantis called Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance Corp. insolvent early last year. It technically wasn’t, but rates are now triple the national average and the fund is letting private insurers take 300,000 homes, which sounds like a vicious cycle when those pull out.
Coastal properties are at risk in early ocean-bordering state. Insurance is fleeing those. Interior flooding has to potential to affect far more towns, buildings, and houses. Insurance is fleeing those. Phoenix and Las Vegas will soon heat above the level of human endurance. What will happen there?
People will need to move elsewhere once these areas become unlivable, either because of weather or costs. California’s growth was so fueled by midwesterners that it became a standing joke. Relocation’s where and how and whose money are topics that desperately require a national conversation now, before the deaths climb from the double digits exponentially upward.
Not a popular opinion I’m sure, but they should scrape away all the ash from the beach side of PCH and let that all go back to a natural beach again. State owned, open to the public.
Yeah, I know. Don’t bother telling me.
Yeah, there is already online misinformation about that…
“We have been hearing rumors online circulating about how the coastal commission is not going to let people rebuild or the permitting process is going to be really hard for people to get permits to rebuild,” said Justin Cummings, a Santa Cruz county supervisor and chair of the California Coastal Commission.
Cummings said that information couldn’t be further from the truth, and he cited a portion of the California Coastal Act that refers to rebuilding.
“It clearly highlights that if a home or business is lost during a disaster, that home or business can be replaced, like for like or up to 10% increase in the area of the building without needing to go and get a new permit,” Cummings said.
Every dense suburban area in the U.S. has the same risks as Altadena under the conditions of January 7, 2025: hurricane-force winds with no recent rains There’s nothing firefighters can do to stop the spread of a fire once it’s started. Every city has risks of ignition from human activity under those conditions.
Altadena burning should be looked at separately from the regular wildfires that burn the hillsides in Los Angeles. Those are often started by lightning strikes from the storms that form over the mountains. They’re a natural part of that landscape.
In CA we do have the CA Fair Plan where the State gives you insurance. Not cheap, however.
It is as good as any other insurance. But it isnt cheap.
The thing is- how often does the disaster happen? The ongoing SoCal fires are one of a kind, nothing like this has occurred for a decades. Florida gets hit with about 3-4 hurricanes a year.
Yep. Sure CA has brushfires- every year. But that is what they generally do- burn brush. Not hundreds or thousands of homes.
Yep, and London- you cant build there!
My sister’s opinion, too, but she’s been saying it for years.
Perhaps SEVERAL suburban areas, but EVERY? Didn’t the LA fires begin in difficult to access wooded terrain very close to the populated areas?
I’m not aware of where such fires could start - and build - around Chicago, New York, St Louis, Phoenix, Miami…
Where did the Altadena fire start? In the middle of town? Or in a wooded, tinder filled hilly area outside the heavily populated area. I thought it was the latter. Apologies if I was mistaken.
In November a fire in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park burned 2 acres. Had we had the same dry conditions and 90mph winds in New York City as they did in Altadena, the same thing could have happened in Brooklyn. So maybe cool it with your ignorance already?