Is there anything in the law preventing the insurance company from giving a customer a “go away” premium level? As in “Okay, you’re forcing us to offer a policy in a place we feel we’re going to lose money? $1m/month ought to cover it, you sure you want us to insure you, Mr. Homeowner?”
No, those are small settlements in forests, like Paradise. A bushfire won’t make it through LA or anything like that. Nature should be left to nature, and we should increase density in cities, that reduces the damage humans do to the environment overall, instead of having sprawl taking over forests.
I live in a city where about half of everyone here got stripped of insurance, we are in the foothills and a house hasnt burned down from wildfires for over a decade. You are ignorant of how far reaching these policies are, because everywhere is a fire prone area according to the insurance companies.
Also the cities that are outside of the fire prone areas areover saturated, they need to have density increased and be rebuilt but that aint happening anytime soon.
I have photos (physical, not digital) of mountains on fire because all I had to do was stand in the backyard of my apartment to take the photos. From multiple events.
These weren’t distant mountains, these were the mountains you would have to drive through to get from my house in the San Fernando Valley to anywhere in the L.A. basin. Like downtown or the beach or my wife’s job.
Along with the multiple mountain ranges the city has swallowed up, L.A. has both a lot of dry brush to catch fire all over the city and the Santa Ana winds to blow cinders onto it.
To sum it all up: there are destructive wildfires in Los Angeles.
Edit: found a non-physical photo of one of the fires on the north side of the Valley, but not a very impressive one that shows flames, just smoke. Oh well.
They recently closed down my local fire dept then jacked my rates up for not being close to a fire dept. I’m not in a fire risk area, but now I’m 30 mins away from a firetruck.
They funded the telco, utilities and property while we funded the salaries. They closed it anyways along with a lot of others, then charged us all a tax for living in an area without a local fire dept.
Our insurance went up about 300% as a result.
San Bernardino county. Yes they deal with major fire prone areas but it’s the largest county in the US, there are a lot of areas that aren’t fire prone.
I realize that you enjoy a rural lifestyle, but it is difficult to fund all of the services you once had with low density housing. The government likely pulled your subsidies and it become financially unviable. The message you are being sent is to live in a more urban area that can afford the services. Not what you want to hear I’m sure, but your choices are limited.
I don’t understand your reply. I see salaries of some people. The salaries seem high, but i didn’t think it would cover the cost of a fire station or operations.
There are some restrictions on price increases but they are allowed to and have been making all sorts of nonsensical demands of homeowners with the threat of cancellation as a way to get out of policies in certain areas.
Is there anything in the law preventing the insurance company from giving a customer a “go away” premium level? As in “Okay, you’re forcing us to offer a policy in a place we feel we’re going to lose money? $1m/month ought to cover it, you sure you want us to insure you, Mr. Homeowner?”
Insurance companies now have a legal quota, ie a certain percentage of their policies must be in fire-prone areas.
So if their premium is so high that nobody in those areas buys a policy, then they won’t meet their quota.
Soo, the government is making everyone else subsidise living in fireprone areas? Shouldn’t we encourage people to live in cities instead?
You do realize these “fire prone areas” are the cities in California, right?
No, those are small settlements in forests, like Paradise. A bushfire won’t make it through LA or anything like that. Nature should be left to nature, and we should increase density in cities, that reduces the damage humans do to the environment overall, instead of having sprawl taking over forests.
I live in a city where about half of everyone here got stripped of insurance, we are in the foothills and a house hasnt burned down from wildfires for over a decade. You are ignorant of how far reaching these policies are, because everywhere is a fire prone area according to the insurance companies.
Also the cities that are outside of the fire prone areas areover saturated, they need to have density increased and be rebuilt but that aint happening anytime soon.
I used to live in L.A.
I have photos (physical, not digital) of mountains on fire because all I had to do was stand in the backyard of my apartment to take the photos. From multiple events.
These weren’t distant mountains, these were the mountains you would have to drive through to get from my house in the San Fernando Valley to anywhere in the L.A. basin. Like downtown or the beach or my wife’s job.
Along with the multiple mountain ranges the city has swallowed up, L.A. has both a lot of dry brush to catch fire all over the city and the Santa Ana winds to blow cinders onto it.
To sum it all up: there are destructive wildfires in Los Angeles.
Edit: found a non-physical photo of one of the fires on the north side of the Valley, but not a very impressive one that shows flames, just smoke. Oh well.
That’s how insurance works.
Not really.
If everyone facing a similar risk pays for insurance then yes the cost of addressing that risk is shared.
If someone facing additional risk pays the same price then everyone else subsidises them.
Northern California already has subsidized fire insurance called PG&E delivery charges. It just takes a while to pay out through the civil suits.
Uggghh… you mean the upper class liberals who claim to love the poor people would actually have to live with them? No thanks!
They recently closed down my local fire dept then jacked my rates up for not being close to a fire dept. I’m not in a fire risk area, but now I’m 30 mins away from a firetruck.
I don’t want to live in the city.
You make it sound like the same people did both things…
Does it matter if one group or two groups did it? The effect is the same
Would you and your neighbors be willing to fund a fire district? If yes, get in touch with your local representatives to make it happen.
They funded the telco, utilities and property while we funded the salaries. They closed it anyways along with a lot of others, then charged us all a tax for living in an area without a local fire dept.
Our insurance went up about 300% as a result.
San Bernardino county. Yes they deal with major fire prone areas but it’s the largest county in the US, there are a lot of areas that aren’t fire prone.
https://www.sbsun.com/2022/01/11/2nd-attempt-to-repeal-san-bernardino-county-fire-tax-goes-to-voters-in-june/
I realize that you enjoy a rural lifestyle, but it is difficult to fund all of the services you once had with low density housing. The government likely pulled your subsidies and it become financially unviable. The message you are being sent is to live in a more urban area that can afford the services. Not what you want to hear I’m sure, but your choices are limited.
Bullshit.
https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=san-bernardino-county&q=Fire&y=2023
I don’t understand your reply. I see salaries of some people. The salaries seem high, but i didn’t think it would cover the cost of a fire station or operations.
There are some restrictions on price increases but they are allowed to and have been making all sorts of nonsensical demands of homeowners with the threat of cancellation as a way to get out of policies in certain areas.