we have a similar problem with flood insurance in Louisiana. I see this problem as part climate change, part for profit insurance ... but I'm sure it's more complicated
we have a similar problem with flood insurance in Louisiana. I see this problem as part climate change, part for profit insurance ... but I'm sure it's more complicated
The for profit insurance companies long since peaced out of these areas. Most if not everyone would be on FAIR, which is run by the state. It’s just not economical to constantly rebuild homes, in...
The for profit insurance companies long since peaced out of these areas. Most if not everyone would be on FAIR, which is run by the state.
It’s just not economical to constantly rebuild homes, in flood or fire prone areas. For or non profit makes no difference.
Personally, I would prefer the government put money into relocating populations rather than provide below-market insurance to rebuild over and over. I realize that's potentially traumatic for the...
Personally, I would prefer the government put money into relocating populations rather than provide below-market insurance to rebuild over and over. I realize that's potentially traumatic for the people involved, but holy heck would it be a better long-term investment for society.
Not to argue your point which I think is valid and where we should be thinking long term but I wonder how much space we’re talking about. What I’m getting at in fire/flood/hurricane areas, how...
Not to argue your point which I think is valid and where we should be thinking long term but I wonder how much space we’re talking about.
What I’m getting at in fire/flood/hurricane areas, how much would we actually have to relocate if the actual statement was “let it burn/flood”?
Obviously a massive undertaking of a project however for a country as large as the US, there seem to be fewer and fewer current spaces which are populated and less prone to these events.
Another one I can think of are the mountain states fighting over the water supply which is drying up. Basically, a lot of this all coming seemingly at once but are really due to sticking our collective heads in the sand for years on end.
There is actually a pretty large pot of money to do that through the FEMA buyout system, post flood anyway. The problem is that the county has to be the go between, so if the country does have...
There is actually a pretty large pot of money to do that through the FEMA buyout system, post flood anyway. The problem is that the county has to be the go between, so if the country does have funding to setup an office to guide, handle, and submit requests then you're up shit creek. It means that wealthy counties often have access when poor ones don't. Secondly, most folks don't want to use the program so you end up with piece meal buyouts which prevent large scale geo-engineering or restoration projects to take place. But it has the potential to be a great program if things like this keep happening!
I work in the insurance industry and handle property damage claims. Reality is, insurance companies have been hemorrhaging money on claims. Construction costs have skyrocketed, and with the...
I work in the insurance industry and handle property damage claims. Reality is, insurance companies have been hemorrhaging money on claims. Construction costs have skyrocketed, and with the increase in frequency and severity of these natural disasters, it's no surprise insurance companies are in the process of exiting certain markets. Our company has been making moves that to me makes me think they are going to eventually pull out of California completely, and I'm sure there are other markets they are considering this as well. We see the same thing happening in Florida as well due to the yearly hurricane devastation. Well that and Florida is sue happy for the most mundane things, making claims last 4x as long and cost 4x as much as it should.
We've had a solid few decades of "let insurance handle it" instead of investing in infrastructure or painful longer term solutions. For better or worse it seems like we're hitting the crux point...
We've had a solid few decades of "let insurance handle it" instead of investing in infrastructure or painful longer term solutions. For better or worse it seems like we're hitting the crux point where that's no longer viable.
A few years ago I remember a big fire - probably the Paradise fire - thinking that it was a really bad idea for people to spend their insurance payouts on rebuilding their houses. They were living...
A few years ago I remember a big fire - probably the Paradise fire - thinking that it was a really bad idea for people to spend their insurance payouts on rebuilding their houses. They were living in a tinderbox. The fires would just come back again and burn those houses too. It was just a matter of time. Instead they should plant trees there to slow the wind and help promote water retention[1]. Something that will make the place less fire prone or at least less damaging when fires do happen.
Now that these fires are a lot closer to home I’m feeling worse about that opinion, but that doesn’t mean I’ve completely given up on it. In all honesty I’m actually a little more jaded when I realize that a lot of these houses are “vanity mansions”. The kind of places you drive out of the official city limits to and into the hills where there are sparsely located giant houses surrounded by hills and green, that are worth millions of dollars more than the average house in the area. It’s a cruel thought, perhaps - especially because that certainly isn’t true of all the houses affected. And with these fires they are also going into actual residential areas, so you’re getting poorer families being affected all the same.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no easy answer to what to do about the escalating fire situation. Really insightful, huh?
[1] I don’t literally mean trees, because apparently just planting trees is not all that effective. I mean permaculture design to make the land more resistant to fire and the effects of climate change generally.
Trees actually make fires worse. Grass and small brush fires are usually pretty controllable, it's really dense forests that provide the energy for these rapidly moving and unpredictable fires...
They were living in a tinderbox. The fires would just come back again and burn those houses too. It was just a matter of time. Instead they should plant trees there to slow the wind and help promote water retention[1]. Something that will make the place less fire prone or at least less damaging when fires do happen.
Trees actually make fires worse. Grass and small brush fires are usually pretty controllable, it's really dense forests that provide the energy for these rapidly moving and unpredictable fires that are the biggest risk to communities. So communities that have recently burned badly are actually probably safe at least for the next 50+ years.
In my opinion as a layperson, insurance companies need to work with high risk communities and building owners to create some sort of standardized and regulated fire prevention requirements. There should be varying levels of incentives/requirements for fireproofing at both the building and community levels. Greenbelt interfaces and the edges of a town in a forested area need to have mandatory firebreaks that are maintained yearly. Homeowners, especially those living on said interfaces need to remove high risk fuel like cedar hedges and large trees. Some of it won't be popular but if the alternative is cost-prohibitive or even lack of insurance I'm sure you can get people on board.
My parents live in a high-risk area right on the edge of a greenbelt and they have spent a decent amount of money fireproofing. But if your neighbors aren't participating it's not going to be very effective and I think tying it to insurance is a good plan for all parties.
Today, insurance companies just aren't working with high risk communities; you just can't buy insurance from them anymore! I like the idea of an insurance company offering you $X to rebuild your...
insurance companies need to work with high risk communities
Today, insurance companies just aren't working with high risk communities; you just can't buy insurance from them anymore!
I like the idea of an insurance company offering you $X to rebuild your house where it was, or >$X to build somewhere else. That would incentivize people to rebuild somewhere less fire prone.
Paradise is a wasteland now -- there are no trees left, and those that did survive are being cut down. It went from being a thickly forested area where you couldn't see a block in any direction to...
Paradise is a wasteland now -- there are no trees left, and those that did survive are being cut down. It went from being a thickly forested area where you couldn't see a block in any direction to barren clear-cut nothingness. The city is very strict about keeping things cleared now too. It's ugly too see, but it'll probably be a long time before Paradise is a fire risk again.
(grew up there, family stayed after the fire -- their houses survived)
Regarding with [1] I think generally natural area restoration would be a better fit. Permaculture, as I understand it, is the whole system approach to integrate natural system into agriculture,...
Regarding with [1] I think generally natural area restoration would be a better fit. Permaculture, as I understand it, is the whole system approach to integrate natural system into agriculture, garden, and land management. Although, permaculture ideals might be better suited as a border between natural areas and surburban/urban areas.
State Farm dropped nearly 70 percent of its policies in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood last year, according to a state filing — more than any other ZIP code in the state — in a sign it saw the neighborhood as risky. That forced more people onto the FAIR Plan, which was originally created in the 1960s to insure riot-scarred Los Angeles neighborhoods but has since found more demand in rural and suburban fire-prone regions.
In Pacific Palisades alone, the FAIR plan insures nearly $6 billion worth of property, according to September figures — more than all but four communities in California. Across the state, the total value of FAIR-insured properties was $458 billion, triple the total insured value in 2020, according to FAIR Plan data.
The damages, which AccuWeather estimated Wednesday at $52 billion-$57 billion, could continue to rise as hurricane-force winds forecasted through Wednesday and Thursday put thousands more homes at risk.
“Should a large number of additional structures be burned in the coming days, it may become the worst wildfire in modern California history,” AccuWeather chief meteorologist Jonathan Porter said in a statement.
Longer discussion on this December regulation https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/12/31/california-home-insurance-wildfire-policies/
Insurers like Allstate have promised to return to the market following the changes.
“If they hadn’t gone into effect in December, I could see the carriers literally saying, ‘Okay, we’re leaving. We’re done,’” Susman said about the rules.
we have a similar problem with flood insurance in Louisiana. I see this problem as part climate change, part for profit insurance ... but I'm sure it's more complicated
The for profit insurance companies long since peaced out of these areas. Most if not everyone would be on FAIR, which is run by the state.
It’s just not economical to constantly rebuild homes, in flood or fire prone areas. For or non profit makes no difference.
Personally, I would prefer the government put money into relocating populations rather than provide below-market insurance to rebuild over and over. I realize that's potentially traumatic for the people involved, but holy heck would it be a better long-term investment for society.
Not to argue your point which I think is valid and where we should be thinking long term but I wonder how much space we’re talking about.
What I’m getting at in fire/flood/hurricane areas, how much would we actually have to relocate if the actual statement was “let it burn/flood”?
Obviously a massive undertaking of a project however for a country as large as the US, there seem to be fewer and fewer current spaces which are populated and less prone to these events.
Another one I can think of are the mountain states fighting over the water supply which is drying up. Basically, a lot of this all coming seemingly at once but are really due to sticking our collective heads in the sand for years on end.
There is actually a pretty large pot of money to do that through the FEMA buyout system, post flood anyway. The problem is that the county has to be the go between, so if the country does have funding to setup an office to guide, handle, and submit requests then you're up shit creek. It means that wealthy counties often have access when poor ones don't. Secondly, most folks don't want to use the program so you end up with piece meal buyouts which prevent large scale geo-engineering or restoration projects to take place. But it has the potential to be a great program if things like this keep happening!
I work in the insurance industry and handle property damage claims. Reality is, insurance companies have been hemorrhaging money on claims. Construction costs have skyrocketed, and with the increase in frequency and severity of these natural disasters, it's no surprise insurance companies are in the process of exiting certain markets. Our company has been making moves that to me makes me think they are going to eventually pull out of California completely, and I'm sure there are other markets they are considering this as well. We see the same thing happening in Florida as well due to the yearly hurricane devastation. Well that and Florida is sue happy for the most mundane things, making claims last 4x as long and cost 4x as much as it should.
this is a good point, but I can't help but think for profit insurance is hastening it. maybe that's okay. maybe we should give these places up
Okay, except California will require insurance companies to offer coverage in wildfire zones.
We've had a solid few decades of "let insurance handle it" instead of investing in infrastructure or painful longer term solutions. For better or worse it seems like we're hitting the crux point where that's no longer viable.
A few years ago I remember a big fire - probably the Paradise fire - thinking that it was a really bad idea for people to spend their insurance payouts on rebuilding their houses. They were living in a tinderbox. The fires would just come back again and burn those houses too. It was just a matter of time. Instead they should plant trees there to slow the wind and help promote water retention[1]. Something that will make the place less fire prone or at least less damaging when fires do happen.
Now that these fires are a lot closer to home I’m feeling worse about that opinion, but that doesn’t mean I’ve completely given up on it. In all honesty I’m actually a little more jaded when I realize that a lot of these houses are “vanity mansions”. The kind of places you drive out of the official city limits to and into the hills where there are sparsely located giant houses surrounded by hills and green, that are worth millions of dollars more than the average house in the area. It’s a cruel thought, perhaps - especially because that certainly isn’t true of all the houses affected. And with these fires they are also going into actual residential areas, so you’re getting poorer families being affected all the same.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is no easy answer to what to do about the escalating fire situation. Really insightful, huh?
[1] I don’t literally mean trees, because apparently just planting trees is not all that effective. I mean permaculture design to make the land more resistant to fire and the effects of climate change generally.
Trees actually make fires worse. Grass and small brush fires are usually pretty controllable, it's really dense forests that provide the energy for these rapidly moving and unpredictable fires that are the biggest risk to communities. So communities that have recently burned badly are actually probably safe at least for the next 50+ years.
In my opinion as a layperson, insurance companies need to work with high risk communities and building owners to create some sort of standardized and regulated fire prevention requirements. There should be varying levels of incentives/requirements for fireproofing at both the building and community levels. Greenbelt interfaces and the edges of a town in a forested area need to have mandatory firebreaks that are maintained yearly. Homeowners, especially those living on said interfaces need to remove high risk fuel like cedar hedges and large trees. Some of it won't be popular but if the alternative is cost-prohibitive or even lack of insurance I'm sure you can get people on board.
My parents live in a high-risk area right on the edge of a greenbelt and they have spent a decent amount of money fireproofing. But if your neighbors aren't participating it's not going to be very effective and I think tying it to insurance is a good plan for all parties.
Today, insurance companies just aren't working with high risk communities; you just can't buy insurance from them anymore!
I like the idea of an insurance company offering you $X to rebuild your house where it was, or >$X to build somewhere else. That would incentivize people to rebuild somewhere less fire prone.
Paradise is a wasteland now -- there are no trees left, and those that did survive are being cut down. It went from being a thickly forested area where you couldn't see a block in any direction to barren clear-cut nothingness. The city is very strict about keeping things cleared now too. It's ugly too see, but it'll probably be a long time before Paradise is a fire risk again.
(grew up there, family stayed after the fire -- their houses survived)
Regarding with [1] I think generally natural area restoration would be a better fit. Permaculture, as I understand it, is the whole system approach to integrate natural system into agriculture, garden, and land management. Although, permaculture ideals might be better suited as a border between natural areas and surburban/urban areas.
From the article:
Longer discussion on this December regulation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/12/31/california-home-insurance-wildfire-policies/