• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    Maybe the state of California should offer insurance itself if it’s so bad.

    But really, between climate change creating tinderboxes and PG&E creating sparks, fire is inevitable.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      PG&E shouldn’t exist at this point. It’s ridiculous that they weren’t either broken up or taken over by the state.

      • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Neither should for profit SFH insurance companies. The idea is just fucking insane.

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      Colorado actually started doing that for the same reason. They also capped the maximum home value so those building McMansions in fire-prone areas aren’t compensated by the program. The program is also self-funding and can’t tap into tax dollars.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      They do. A friend in a fire prone area is unable to get fire coverage through his former provider. He was trying to find an alternative last time we spoke, but the estimate from the state was $500/mo. Just for fire insurance.