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.
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!