Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 30k+ posts · 20k+ votes
Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.
Most Popular Reply
Brian BurkePro Member
Investor · Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 7k+ votes@James Wise you're right about California's bad leadership. But that's not why it's on fire.
Here is how I get my perspective: I was a firefighter in CA for about a decade in my former life. The house I'm sitting in right now is on a hill with 270 degree views and I can see about ten miles in each direction. Nearly every house I can see from here burned to the ground in 2017, including the house that was on this very lot and almost every house on this street. 5,300 in total. Thankfully, at that time I lived just a bit to the south and the winds blew the fire right by my house, missing by 3,000 feet. I woke up that morning to a wall of fire as far as I could see.
I drove to my office, everything around me was on fire including the landscaping and dumpsters in the parking lot--no firefighters around. But the office itself didn't burn.
The fire had traveled ten miles in about 3 hours. You can't get mutual aid (with a several hour ETA) in time to stop it. The calvary arrives just in time to mop up.
I have a second home in Maui, and as I look out in one direction the entire town I used to see burned to the ground in 2023. The wind blew that fire to our south, this time missing us by almost a mile. This is becoming all too familiar, and yet I'm extraordinarily lucky that I suffered no direct fire loss in any of these.
In both of these fires, hydrants didn't work. Firefighting resources were overwhelmed. Winds were near or exceeding hurricane force. The fire created it's own weather including "fire tornados".
Part of the reasons hydrants didn't work was some water storage was already depleted for maintenance. Power was shut off to prevent it from starting more fire (or was killed by the fire) and this power is what drives the municipal water pumps. Homes burned, leaving their water service lines severed and freely flowing water onto the ground, depleting the pressure. It's just chaos.
Suggestions above include:
To not rebuild and convert the land over to parkland. How do you buy out over 5,000 homeowners? Infeasible.
To build out of concrete block. Ok, but from my house I can see what used to be a K-mart about a mile away. It was made out of concrete block and it burned to the ground, along with a lot of other concrete and brick structures. My next door neighbor built their house out of poured in place concrete. Will it help? Maybe. The building codes are pretty strict. Ours is built with stucco siding, concrete tile roof, tempered windows, self-closing soffit and crawl space vents (they melt when exposed to heat). A lot of structures go up because the intense radiant heat from the wildfire ignites contents inside the home through the windows, or the embers enter the attics and crawl spaces through the vents--so just building from block won't be a cure.
Build with steel. These fires are so hot even the steel structures melted and burned. The winds were so strong and fire so hot there were cars turned upside down in driveways, and then melted.
The bottom line is that 100 mph winds combined with dry grass and just about any ignition source is unstoppable once it gets going. If the fire can be knocked down in its infancy you can save entire towns. And that's what usually happens--there are hundreds of fires no one hears about. But the ones that aren't stopped right away and get a head on them, when close to an urban area, with wind like this, will cause extreme devastation. No amount of water will stop it.
And don't even get me started on insurance. My $7,500 policy was "non-renewed" and I only got two quotes: $42K and $92K. Then by a stroke of luck I found another quote for $13K. If that carrier doesn't stay afloat it's pretty dismal.
176 Replies
- Member since 2019 · 12 posts · 4 votes1y
Quote from @James Wise:
Quote from @J Womack:
Quote from @James Wise:
California is on fire and they don't have enough water to stop it.
California is the richest state in the USA.
California has 3,427 miles of Coastline.
___
___
Make it make sense.
As someone who grew up in California, this tells me two things:
1) you don’t know what you are talking about and are very comfortable with your ignorance;
2) you won’t even take two minutes to find facts.
If the hydrant system relies on electric pumps and in some areas there’s no power, then there is no water. If winds are 100 mph then you lose air support while embers gain massive trajectory. The state has had perpetual drought since I was a kid.
I know you won’t do it, but read the UNFCCC exec summary from the Kyoto Protocol written in the late 90s and specifically hone in on forecasts related to water scarcity and desertification. The term ‘climate change” is so politicized in the U.S. that people ignore decades of warnings. From flooding in the Midwest to bomb cyclones on the East Coast, drought in California, the weakened Gulf Stream winds…. all were suggested as risks years ago.
i can’t remember 100 mph Santa Ana wind speeds in the 80s, 90s, or 2000s. But that’s what is making embers fly across neighborhoods today.
Water is an issue nationwide. Florida and Georgia have been locked in court cases since Bush II; there are disputes over water rights from the Colorado River where agreements on utilization of flow as measured in acre-feet were made in 1800s and are no longer sustainable. Is there room to reprice water so it’s rational such that the heaviest users pay the highest rates vs today where the lightest users do, particularly in areas like CA? Yes is the answer. That said, water scarcity is not why my home state and favorite region look apocalyptic right now.
“The governor has doubled the size of our firefighting army, built the world’s largest aerial firefighting fleet and the state has increased the forest management ten-fold since he took office,” Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon told Fox News.
Thank you for sharing. I didn’t realize how much additional spending had been deployed to aid in firefighting. In order to assess the headline accurately, we would have to see the entire budget related to firefighting. If that line went down by $100M but several others went up by a greater amount, then this was called management. It’s what happens when you run the 5th largest economy in the world.
- 1yPaul TacorontePro MemberBaltimore, MD · Member since 2017 · 7 posts · 2 votes
Since your the specialist you should know.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yYou forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started.. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yYou forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started.. - Member since 2025 · 2 posts · 0 votes1y
Please remember several of these fires were deliberately set. Two people have been caught so far. Last week a historical home in a California state park was burned to the ground by an arsonist.
California has always had a battle for water. Sometimes, there were new construction building moratoriums during drought seasons. Every year, how to manage water was always on the political ballots. The farmers were getting less and less allocations to grow food because of overpopulation and wild life wet lands were getting drying and dryer. Some City Residents and businesses were given incentives to dig up their grass lawns to decrease water consumption.
When the flat valleys were consumed by people, they like idiots, Developers started building where the fire danger was higher. But what choice did they have? People have to live somewhere.
Fires in the mountains is nothing new, as a young student in the 1970"s I would be returning from classes and the hills would be ablaze for days.
For high population areas, who will be funding those Billions of dollars mass transit systems. How, many homes and businesses will be torn down due to eminent domain to build the transit system. Would you be in line if one of your properties was in the way of progress to be taken away? Attempts in Northern California for a rail system has costs billions and years of taxing people to pay for it. It is still not finished. Unfortunately, where most of the fires occurred, the blank slate is tons of toxic fire debris and the area is not a good place for a transit system anyway.
When Paradise burned to the ground in a fire stom, as small as that community was, it is still not rebuilt.
- Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Steve K.:
Quote from @Eric Bilderback:
What started the fires? Negligent forest management, drug addicts, or illegals? DEI policies along with environmental, immigration policies is not sustainable for a non 3rd world country (my guess that is the point). I read an article I thought articulated this very well, we are seeing the collapse of a very complex system and this the fruit.
Or it could be an arsonist/ arsonists.
It is chaos and it has been bread purposefully in my humble opinion.
- Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yYou may have a point there, I never believed COVID came from a Chinese bat or that taking an experimental vaccine was a particularly good idea either. LOL
Quote from @John Clark:
DEI policies? Immigration policies? I think your tin foil hat is on too tight. The firefighters are capable. They are simply overwhelmed.Quote from @Eric Bilderback:
What started the fires? Negligent forest management, drug addicts, or illegals? DEI policies along with environmental, immigration policies is not sustainable for a non 3rd world country (my guess that is the point). I read an article I thought articulated this very well, we are seeing the collapse of a very complex system and this the fruit.
The only stupid government policy was letting people build in difficult to defend areas right up against tinderbox natural settings. Even not allowing that development might not have helped, given how intense and fast the fire is. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Nothing is going to be torn down because everything is burned down now anyway. As for the blank slate being a toxic dump, the toxic refuse is going to have to be removed anyway. The only question is what will rise in its place.
Now is the time to plan and rezone intelligently. Stop the sprawl. Build big condos and apartments. Turn fire-indefensible areas into parks. Forbid construction in those areas.
As for Northern California not building mass transit, it’s very built up. These fire areas — they’re no longer built up.
Dense and defensible should be our watchword. - Investor · Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2013 · 146 posts · 93 votes1y
I’m already hearing rumblings of the ag industry being blamed for lack of water. The truth is we have plenty of water with the highest mountains in the lower 48 with massive snowpack most years yet most of the water is dumped out the Sacramento River delta into the ocean due to politics. No idea why hydrants weren’t working but it wasn’t because trees in the Central Valley needed to be irrigated that day. There’s a failure of leadership at the state and local government level as they mismanage water, forest, their own infrastructure, tax revenue, crisis response and who knows what else.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
- 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
OK I do have a little expertise in CA on these issues.. I was on a senate committee way back in the 80s to deal with these antiquated subdivisions and lots of record which of course many of these areas are. And LA County already has laws dealing with any lot created prior I think to 1924 or 34.. They have to meet modern codes and SEQUA requirements.. this is what stops building on lots that would not be buildable with modern subdivisions map act standards or modern zoning. in the hilly areas road widths and slopes will not meet Sequa so they stop building on those lots there are thousands of the lots scattered around LA county and these are the lots you see going to tax sale all the time.
The reality now is govmit in my mind is going to be highly pressured to allow folks to rebuild on their LOT they OWN.. Biggest question in my mind will be the Ocean front.. I suspect a lot of those with current regulations CANNOT be rebuilt if they are destroyed but we will see..
I also wonder how this is going to work.. you cant tax a parcel that has lost a 5 mil dollar improvement ??? Also think about the down stream affects not only to the fire victims but those in contract to buy or sell.. Going to be some of that.. IE someone sold there house in Minneapolis to move to LA but the house they are in contract to buy just got destroyed ? and now they are houseless.. I think you may have a run on Vegas props and Vegas furnished rentals Just sayin. - Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
OK I do have a little expertise in CA on these issues.. I was on a senate committee way back in the 80s to deal with these antiquated subdivisions and lots of record which of course many of these areas are. And LA County already has laws dealing with any lot created prior I think to 1924 or 34.. They have to meet modern codes and SEQUA requirements.. this is what stops building on lots that would not be buildable with modern subdivisions map act standards or modern zoning. in the hilly areas road widths and slopes will not meet Sequa so they stop building on those lots there are thousands of the lots scattered around LA county and these are the lots you see going to tax sale all the time.
The reality now is govmit in my mind is going to be highly pressured to allow folks to rebuild on their LOT they OWN.. Biggest question in my mind will be the Ocean front.. I suspect a lot of those with current regulations CANNOT be rebuilt if they are destroyed but we will see..
I also wonder how this is going to work.. you cant tax a parcel that has lost a 5 mil dollar improvement ??? Also think about the down stream affects not only to the fire victims but those in contract to buy or sell.. Going to be some of that.. IE someone sold there house in Minneapolis to move to LA but the house they are in contract to buy just got destroyed ? and now they are houseless.. I think you may have a run on Vegas props and Vegas furnished rentals Just sayin.Oh yeah, there is soooo many trailing effects not mentioned that I think isn't in minds yet, understandably so, fires are still ongoing.
How about the local business's. For example say a Starbucks, one of those little drive thru ones, can rapidly rebuild. Well, for what? For who?
Who's coming in to work and with area in ashes and homes taking 10X longer to slowly rebuild and persons come back, how many of the community business's are non-viable until a certain density is reached.
How about the jobs lost of persons who worked at those places.
Or city being under staffed for certain added works now, and possibly over-staffed during down cycle portions of it all.
And don't get me started on clean-up, what hazmat landfill has the space for all that????? Will it be declared a super-sight? It has to, because it is. And than we have all those requirements to meet to get clean designation. people forget the age of many of these homes; lead, mercury and asbestos.
This things is a spaghetti road map of issues.
- 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
OK I do have a little expertise in CA on these issues.. I was on a senate committee way back in the 80s to deal with these antiquated subdivisions and lots of record which of course many of these areas are. And LA County already has laws dealing with any lot created prior I think to 1924 or 34.. They have to meet modern codes and SEQUA requirements.. this is what stops building on lots that would not be buildable with modern subdivisions map act standards or modern zoning. in the hilly areas road widths and slopes will not meet Sequa so they stop building on those lots there are thousands of the lots scattered around LA county and these are the lots you see going to tax sale all the time.
The reality now is govmit in my mind is going to be highly pressured to allow folks to rebuild on their LOT they OWN.. Biggest question in my mind will be the Ocean front.. I suspect a lot of those with current regulations CANNOT be rebuilt if they are destroyed but we will see..
I also wonder how this is going to work.. you cant tax a parcel that has lost a 5 mil dollar improvement ??? Also think about the down stream affects not only to the fire victims but those in contract to buy or sell.. Going to be some of that.. IE someone sold there house in Minneapolis to move to LA but the house they are in contract to buy just got destroyed ? and now they are houseless.. I think you may have a run on Vegas props and Vegas furnished rentals Just sayin.Oh yeah, there is soooo many trailing effects not mentioned that I think isn't in minds yet, understandably so, fires are still ongoing.
How about the local business's. For example say a Starbucks, one of those little drive thru ones, can rapidly rebuild. Well, for what? For who?
Who's coming in to work and with area in ashes and homes taking 10X longer to slowly rebuild and persons come back, how many of the community business's are non-viable until a certain density is reached.
How about the jobs lost of persons who worked at those places.
Or city being under staffed for certain added works now, and possibly over-staffed during down cycle portions of it all.
And don't get me started on clean-up, what hazmat landfill has the space for all that????? Will it be declared a super-sight? It has to, because it is. And than we have all those requirements to meet to get clean designation.
This things is a spaghetti road map of issues.
just think about all the diamonds and other gems . Gold got melted I know friends of mine that lost their homes in the Atlas Peak fire in Napa that lived in my old hood Silverado country club they were back sifting through looking for all their diamonds. - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
It's more feasible than you think. Most states have "quick take" procedures for eminent domain if there are time constraints (and given the need to house people and clean up, there are time constraints). Essentially the government grabs title and sees you in court to determine just compensation after the fact, for the value of the land at the time of the take. This way some hold outs can't bring the government to a screeching halt.
Remember, there's no seizure without just compensation. Nothing says that the compensation cannot be determined after the fact.
So what is your land worth if you have to pay for the toxic waste clean up (or have the government clean it up and then put a lien on your property for services rendered)? Or -- lawfully -- tells you you cannot build on the lot because it's too difficult to defend in a fire and therefore you're not going to get fire or police services, so no, you cannot build. We'll offer you some money so we can clean it up and put a park there. Yeah, you lost money on your investment, but you're not risking our first responders for your views and retirement nest egg. Life sucks, then you die.
So will the compensation payouts take decades? Sure, but the reclamation and redevelopment as defensible condos and apartments -- complete with less urban sprawl -- can occur faster than you think.
As for financing, the governments can plan and design, sell bonds against the proceeds to come from the sale of property for condos and apartments, and pay current owners from that. Not to mention that current owners will have taxes go up on their toxic vacant lots due to the cost of buying people out (so sell to us now). Those tens of billions in valuation depended on pre-fire conditions. Those conditions don't exist any more, and the government has the right to regulate land use to try to prevent the current conditions from repeating. - Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
It's more feasible than you think. Most states have "quick take" procedures for eminent domain if there are time constraints (and given the need to house people and clean up, there are time constraints). Essentially the government grabs title and sees you in court to determine just compensation after the fact, for the value of the land at the time of the take. This way some hold outs can't bring the government to a screeching halt.
Remember, there's no seizure without just compensation. Nothing says that the compensation cannot be determined after the fact.
So what is your land worth if you have to pay for the toxic waste clean up (or have the government clean it up and then put a lien on your property for services rendered)? Or -- lawfully -- tells you you cannot build on the lot because it's too difficult to defend in a fire and therefore you're not going to get fire or police services, so no, you cannot build. We'll offer you some money so we can clean it up and put a park there. Yeah, you lost money on your investment, but you're not risking our first responders for your views and retirement nest egg. Life sucks, then you die.
So will the compensation payouts take decades? Sure, but the reclamation and redevelopment as defensible condos and apartments -- complete with less urban sprawl -- can occur faster than you think.
As for financing, the governments can plan and design, sell bonds against the proceeds to come from the sale of property for condos and apartments, and pay current owners from that. Not to mention that current owners will have taxes go up on their toxic vacant lots due to the cost of buying people out (so sell to us now). Those tens of billions in valuation depended on pre-fire conditions. Those conditions don't exist any more, and the government has the right to regulate land use to try to prevent the current conditions from repeating.First off, no, I am not an attorney. Not legal advice. Although YES, I have been on legal council as consultant to some sizable case law setting suites. What I share comes from my experiences in court room and mind numbing hours of study and research in a law library on contract law and interstate compact.
Eminent domain does not work that easily or simply.
A government can not swoop in, say hours or days after a tornado tears through an area, say "wow, look at this mess, well it sure ain't worth a dang" and tell people it's "taking" there stuff and giving it just the price of the then current mess.
That's not how it works.
Eminent Domain has to be "for the public good". That's a fundamental requirement. Even I the non-attorney would have a rather easy time getting the people of, say Pacific Palisades together to state in mass that E.D. here not only does NOT do "public good" but inversely does HARM.
That to exercise E.D. in this manner causes HARM to the people, the makeup of area, fundamentally alters the area etc..
I could go on to argue it's a form of "Blockbusting" and with that illegal and discriminatory.
I could argue it impedes there legal right to being made whole by there insurance carriers.
On and on and on.
So, only chance in hell it has is via the BIGGEST action of it's kind EVER in US history, with coordination between the insurance carriers, and home owners. An action that gives enough financial incentive and relief that it DOES adhere "for public good", and makes the entire thing a net positive for the thousands upon thousands of dislocated persons AND don't forget, business's.
That means "$$$$making-it-rain$$$", so the 30/40 billion with a B, now turns into 40/50 Billion in payouts.
Raise the $ with some bonds you say...... Really, $50 Billion. Who's gonna buy them? How does the already deep in debt CA afford to tack on $50 BILLION in debt service? So now your causing "harm" to the entire state of CA with such added debt load.
And don't forget, states don't have 4-profit business to create wealth, no money-tree out in a yard to shake, states $ is from THE PEOPLE, so that $50 Billion is all Californians paying for it.
Hey Californians, how do ya feel about kicking out $50 billion to turn L.A. area neighborhoods into parks and high-rise condo's????
Sorry John, Californians said to get Fu#!ed.
Ok, well Uncle Sammy what do you sa..... oh, ok, oh I see, not your problem, ah, oh, Fed Funds are not for redeveloping neighborhoods, ok got it. Yeah Uncle Sammy said it's now T-town and that a dog-scat deal so to kick-rocks.
Maybe Blackrock wants to drop the $ to do..... Oh, nope, they said they won't touch that with a 10' poll.
Any way you spin it, there is no VIABLE way to get it done.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1yOh, I never said it would be easy, but it can be done. The public good is the saving of wear, tear, and expense on our first responders. Plans will have to be drawn up, but that can be done while people are cleaning up (which we as private citizens will have to do anyway).
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
It's more feasible than you think. Most states have "quick take" procedures for eminent domain if there are time constraints (and given the need to house people and clean up, there are time constraints). Essentially the government grabs title and sees you in court to determine just compensation after the fact, for the value of the land at the time of the take. This way some hold outs can't bring the government to a screeching halt.
Remember, there's no seizure without just compensation. Nothing says that the compensation cannot be determined after the fact.
So what is your land worth if you have to pay for the toxic waste clean up (or have the government clean it up and then put a lien on your property for services rendered)? Or -- lawfully -- tells you you cannot build on the lot because it's too difficult to defend in a fire and therefore you're not going to get fire or police services, so no, you cannot build. We'll offer you some money so we can clean it up and put a park there. Yeah, you lost money on your investment, but you're not risking our first responders for your views and retirement nest egg. Life sucks, then you die.
So will the compensation payouts take decades? Sure, but the reclamation and redevelopment as defensible condos and apartments -- complete with less urban sprawl -- can occur faster than you think.
As for financing, the governments can plan and design, sell bonds against the proceeds to come from the sale of property for condos and apartments, and pay current owners from that. Not to mention that current owners will have taxes go up on their toxic vacant lots due to the cost of buying people out (so sell to us now). Those tens of billions in valuation depended on pre-fire conditions. Those conditions don't exist any more, and the government has the right to regulate land use to try to prevent the current conditions from repeating.First off, no, I am not an attorney. Not legal advice. Although YES, I have been on legal council as consultant to some sizable case law setting suites. What I share comes from my experiences in court room and mind numbing hours of study and research in a law library on contract law and interstate compact.
Eminent domain does not work that easily or simply.
A government can not swoop in, say hours or days after a tornado tears through an area, say "wow, look at this mess, well it sure ain't worth a dang" and tell people it's "taking" there stuff and giving it just the price of the then current mess.
That's not how it works.
Eminent Domain has to be "for the public good". That's a fundamental requirement. Even I the non-attorney would have a rather easy time getting the people of, say Pacific Palisades together to state in mass that E.D. here not only does NOT do "public good" but inversely does HARM.
That to exercise E.D. in this manner causes HARM to the people, the makeup of area, fundamentally alters the area etc..
I could go on to argue it's a form of "Blockbusting" and with that illegal and discriminatory.
I could argue it impedes there legal right to being made whole by there insurance carriers.
On and on and on.
So, only chance in hell it has is via the BIGGEST action of it's kind EVER in US history, with coordination between the insurance carriers, and home owners. An action that gives enough financial incentive and relief that it DOES adhere "for public good", and makes the entire thing a net positive for the thousands upon thousands of dislocated persons AND don't forget, business's.
That means "$$$$making-it-rain$$$", so the 30/40 billion with a B, now turns into 40/50 Billion in payouts.
Raise the $ with some bonds you say...... Really, $50 Billion. Who's gonna buy them? How does the already deep in debt CA afford to tack on $50 BILLION in debt service? So now your causing "harm" to the entire state of CA with such added debt load.
And don't forget, states don't have 4-profit business to create wealth, no money-tree out in a yard to shake, states $ is from THE PEOPLE, so that $50 Billion is all Californians paying for it.
Hey Californians, how do ya feel about kicking out $50 billion to turn L.A. area neighborhoods into parks and high-rise condo's????
Sorry John, Californians said to get Fu#!ed.
Ok, well Uncle Sammy what do you sa..... oh, ok, oh I see, not your problem, ah, oh, Fed Funds are not for redeveloping neighborhoods, ok got it. Yeah Uncle Sammy said it's now T-town and that a dog-scat deal so to kick-rocks.
Maybe Blackrock wants to drop the $ to do..... Oh, nope, they said they won't touch that with a 10' poll.
Any way you spin it, there is no VIABLE way to get it done.
Sing and dance all you want, the land will be redeveloped, and no government will allow it to be redeveloped in a way that could repeat the current situation.
And yes, the owners will be scewered but that’s irrelevant. They can’t be allowed to build in areas that can’t be easily defended. - Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Oh, I never said it would be easy, but it can be done. The public good is the saving of wear, tear, and expense on our first responders. Plans will have to be drawn up, but that can be done while people are cleaning up (which we as private citizens will have to do anyway).Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
It's more feasible than you think. Most states have "quick take" procedures for eminent domain if there are time constraints (and given the need to house people and clean up, there are time constraints). Essentially the government grabs title and sees you in court to determine just compensation after the fact, for the value of the land at the time of the take. This way some hold outs can't bring the government to a screeching halt.
Remember, there's no seizure without just compensation. Nothing says that the compensation cannot be determined after the fact.
So what is your land worth if you have to pay for the toxic waste clean up (or have the government clean it up and then put a lien on your property for services rendered)? Or -- lawfully -- tells you you cannot build on the lot because it's too difficult to defend in a fire and therefore you're not going to get fire or police services, so no, you cannot build. We'll offer you some money so we can clean it up and put a park there. Yeah, you lost money on your investment, but you're not risking our first responders for your views and retirement nest egg. Life sucks, then you die.
So will the compensation payouts take decades? Sure, but the reclamation and redevelopment as defensible condos and apartments -- complete with less urban sprawl -- can occur faster than you think.
As for financing, the governments can plan and design, sell bonds against the proceeds to come from the sale of property for condos and apartments, and pay current owners from that. Not to mention that current owners will have taxes go up on their toxic vacant lots due to the cost of buying people out (so sell to us now). Those tens of billions in valuation depended on pre-fire conditions. Those conditions don't exist any more, and the government has the right to regulate land use to try to prevent the current conditions from repeating.First off, no, I am not an attorney. Not legal advice. Although YES, I have been on legal council as consultant to some sizable case law setting suites. What I share comes from my experiences in court room and mind numbing hours of study and research in a law library on contract law and interstate compact.
Eminent domain does not work that easily or simply.
A government can not swoop in, say hours or days after a tornado tears through an area, say "wow, look at this mess, well it sure ain't worth a dang" and tell people it's "taking" there stuff and giving it just the price of the then current mess.
That's not how it works.
Eminent Domain has to be "for the public good". That's a fundamental requirement. Even I the non-attorney would have a rather easy time getting the people of, say Pacific Palisades together to state in mass that E.D. here not only does NOT do "public good" but inversely does HARM.
That to exercise E.D. in this manner causes HARM to the people, the makeup of area, fundamentally alters the area etc..
I could go on to argue it's a form of "Blockbusting" and with that illegal and discriminatory.
I could argue it impedes there legal right to being made whole by there insurance carriers.
On and on and on.
So, only chance in hell it has is via the BIGGEST action of it's kind EVER in US history, with coordination between the insurance carriers, and home owners. An action that gives enough financial incentive and relief that it DOES adhere "for public good", and makes the entire thing a net positive for the thousands upon thousands of dislocated persons AND don't forget, business's.
That means "$$$$making-it-rain$$$", so the 30/40 billion with a B, now turns into 40/50 Billion in payouts.
Raise the $ with some bonds you say...... Really, $50 Billion. Who's gonna buy them? How does the already deep in debt CA afford to tack on $50 BILLION in debt service? So now your causing "harm" to the entire state of CA with such added debt load.
And don't forget, states don't have 4-profit business to create wealth, no money-tree out in a yard to shake, states $ is from THE PEOPLE, so that $50 Billion is all Californians paying for it.
Hey Californians, how do ya feel about kicking out $50 billion to turn L.A. area neighborhoods into parks and high-rise condo's????
Sorry John, Californians said to get Fu#!ed.
Ok, well Uncle Sammy what do you sa..... oh, ok, oh I see, not your problem, ah, oh, Fed Funds are not for redeveloping neighborhoods, ok got it. Yeah Uncle Sammy said it's now T-town and that a dog-scat deal so to kick-rocks.
Maybe Blackrock wants to drop the $ to do..... Oh, nope, they said they won't touch that with a 10' poll.
Any way you spin it, there is no VIABLE way to get it done.
Sing and dance all you want, the land will be redeveloped, and no government will allow it to be redeveloped in a way that could repeat the current situation.
And yes, the owners will be scewered but that’s irrelevant. They can’t be allowed to build in areas that can’t be easily defended.You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here.
And "big Government" doing extensive PREVENTATIVE proactive actions.
Yeah, betting on "Big Gov" becoming proactive, that's a bet I sure won't take. Kind of like betting on Vegas having a snowy Christmas.
- 1yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Quote from @John Clark:
Oh, I never said it would be easy, but it can be done. The public good is the saving of wear, tear, and expense on our first responders. Plans will have to be drawn up, but that can be done while people are cleaning up (which we as private citizens will have to do anyway).Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
It's more feasible than you think. Most states have "quick take" procedures for eminent domain if there are time constraints (and given the need to house people and clean up, there are time constraints). Essentially the government grabs title and sees you in court to determine just compensation after the fact, for the value of the land at the time of the take. This way some hold outs can't bring the government to a screeching halt.
Remember, there's no seizure without just compensation. Nothing says that the compensation cannot be determined after the fact.
So what is your land worth if you have to pay for the toxic waste clean up (or have the government clean it up and then put a lien on your property for services rendered)? Or -- lawfully -- tells you you cannot build on the lot because it's too difficult to defend in a fire and therefore you're not going to get fire or police services, so no, you cannot build. We'll offer you some money so we can clean it up and put a park there. Yeah, you lost money on your investment, but you're not risking our first responders for your views and retirement nest egg. Life sucks, then you die.
So will the compensation payouts take decades? Sure, but the reclamation and redevelopment as defensible condos and apartments -- complete with less urban sprawl -- can occur faster than you think.
As for financing, the governments can plan and design, sell bonds against the proceeds to come from the sale of property for condos and apartments, and pay current owners from that. Not to mention that current owners will have taxes go up on their toxic vacant lots due to the cost of buying people out (so sell to us now). Those tens of billions in valuation depended on pre-fire conditions. Those conditions don't exist any more, and the government has the right to regulate land use to try to prevent the current conditions from repeating.First off, no, I am not an attorney. Not legal advice. Although YES, I have been on legal council as consultant to some sizable case law setting suites. What I share comes from my experiences in court room and mind numbing hours of study and research in a law library on contract law and interstate compact.
Eminent domain does not work that easily or simply.
A government can not swoop in, say hours or days after a tornado tears through an area, say "wow, look at this mess, well it sure ain't worth a dang" and tell people it's "taking" there stuff and giving it just the price of the then current mess.
That's not how it works.
Eminent Domain has to be "for the public good". That's a fundamental requirement. Even I the non-attorney would have a rather easy time getting the people of, say Pacific Palisades together to state in mass that E.D. here not only does NOT do "public good" but inversely does HARM.
That to exercise E.D. in this manner causes HARM to the people, the makeup of area, fundamentally alters the area etc..
I could go on to argue it's a form of "Blockbusting" and with that illegal and discriminatory.
I could argue it impedes there legal right to being made whole by there insurance carriers.
On and on and on.
So, only chance in hell it has is via the BIGGEST action of it's kind EVER in US history, with coordination between the insurance carriers, and home owners. An action that gives enough financial incentive and relief that it DOES adhere "for public good", and makes the entire thing a net positive for the thousands upon thousands of dislocated persons AND don't forget, business's.
That means "$$$$making-it-rain$$$", so the 30/40 billion with a B, now turns into 40/50 Billion in payouts.
Raise the $ with some bonds you say...... Really, $50 Billion. Who's gonna buy them? How does the already deep in debt CA afford to tack on $50 BILLION in debt service? So now your causing "harm" to the entire state of CA with such added debt load.
And don't forget, states don't have 4-profit business to create wealth, no money-tree out in a yard to shake, states $ is from THE PEOPLE, so that $50 Billion is all Californians paying for it.
Hey Californians, how do ya feel about kicking out $50 billion to turn L.A. area neighborhoods into parks and high-rise condo's????
Sorry John, Californians said to get Fu#!ed.
Ok, well Uncle Sammy what do you sa..... oh, ok, oh I see, not your problem, ah, oh, Fed Funds are not for redeveloping neighborhoods, ok got it. Yeah Uncle Sammy said it's now T-town and that a dog-scat deal so to kick-rocks.
Maybe Blackrock wants to drop the $ to do..... Oh, nope, they said they won't touch that with a 10' poll.
Any way you spin it, there is no VIABLE way to get it done.
Sing and dance all you want, the land will be redeveloped, and no government will allow it to be redeveloped in a way that could repeat the current situation.
And yes, the owners will be scewered but that’s irrelevant. They can’t be allowed to build in areas that can’t be easily defended.
My daughter interned in collage for an appraisal company that specialized in government takings and she did the valuations on the property fronting the Napa River. The River flooded for decades so it was a project to stop flooding . that took about 3 years to go through .. and that was just a fraction of what we are talking about and was not a once in a 50 year event like this it was basically annually.. So it was a public project not a private project like this would be. big difference - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
"You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here."
--------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that only "Big Government" can fight fires on the scale California has now, and only "Big Government" can do the clean up necessary so redevelopment can be started afterwards.
You're just going to let those toxic waste lots sit and fester while people next door rebuild?
Ideological bromides are not solutions, Jim. Walk us through a solution that doesn't involve government command and control. Don't forget to include how you are going to force those without insurance, or who don't want to spend the insurance money, on clean up.
Then there's the question of refusing to spend tax dollars on protecting houses impossible to protect, but that's for another day. There's current fire fighting and there's clean up. Tell us how you plan on accomplishing either without "big government." - Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
Oh, I never said it would be easy, but it can be done. The public good is the saving of wear, tear, and expense on our first responders. Plans will have to be drawn up, but that can be done while people are cleaning up (which we as private citizens will have to do anyway).Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
You forget that I also said not to build in places too difficult to defend. That means changing roads and transportation systems, and not allowing building where the terrain is not conducive to firefighting.Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
Quote from @John Clark:
No, Biden said nothing about clean up costs I do believe. He said the federal government would pay fire fighting costs.Quote from @Chris Seveney:
I believe Biden said the federal govt is going to pick up the bill for all the cleanup.
from a lot of reports I read, most of the private insurance companies got out last year and state insurance is where many were insured. I believe once that is exhausted the private ones pick up the tab but they noted it will get passed on to consumers.
where I see the issues are if this is now a one in every 5 or 10 or even 20 year event and it's a $1M home (cost to build not total value with land) then the insurance for these areas is not sustainable. You could see insurance policies in the six figures.
i think the state and local governments should use eminent domain and take the land, rezone it for condos and multi-family, install mass transit and better transportation systems and turn difficult to defend areas into parks. The justification for eminent domain would be the cost of defending the current set up, health costs and environmental cleanup costs.
There is now the proverbial blank slate for redevelopment. The governments should seize the opportunity.
keep in mind all the fuel is now gone.. so wild fire will not be an issue going forward as long as folks do more of a desert style landscaping and dont plant things that burn like Eucalyptus as one poster mentioned those things go up like a roman candle at 4th of July. There is no question that fires in these areas are caused by man developing in what was vacant areas where even if there was a fire ( which there has been over the centuries) But these were not in the thought process's in the 1900 until the 60s before CA recorded the subdivision map act into law.. you just platted and recorded Just look out in the high Deseret there are 1 mil platted lots with virtually no homes but nothing to burn.. One would be amazed at how many cities were platted between 1900 and 1940 in CA then the slow build out started..To do that, to completely re-zone and re-plat the entire area would require, if my history is correct, the largest exercise of eminent domain in US history.
Given the # of people effected, it would probably only take about 50 years to clear court..... And that's if CA want's to flip the $300m/ $400m in legal fee's to keep fighting for it, for decades.
Keep in mind we are talking ten's of billions in real estate. CA doesn't have an extra $30b/$40b laying around to do that, not to mention the additional billion to actually do the project to be build ready.
And how about the loss of tax revenues during that entire time...... I don't know the #'s off hand but I feel safe in saying L.A. would go bankrupt yr2 if not yr1.
It's not remotely feasible.
It's more feasible than you think. Most states have "quick take" procedures for eminent domain if there are time constraints (and given the need to house people and clean up, there are time constraints). Essentially the government grabs title and sees you in court to determine just compensation after the fact, for the value of the land at the time of the take. This way some hold outs can't bring the government to a screeching halt.
Remember, there's no seizure without just compensation. Nothing says that the compensation cannot be determined after the fact.
So what is your land worth if you have to pay for the toxic waste clean up (or have the government clean it up and then put a lien on your property for services rendered)? Or -- lawfully -- tells you you cannot build on the lot because it's too difficult to defend in a fire and therefore you're not going to get fire or police services, so no, you cannot build. We'll offer you some money so we can clean it up and put a park there. Yeah, you lost money on your investment, but you're not risking our first responders for your views and retirement nest egg. Life sucks, then you die.
So will the compensation payouts take decades? Sure, but the reclamation and redevelopment as defensible condos and apartments -- complete with less urban sprawl -- can occur faster than you think.
As for financing, the governments can plan and design, sell bonds against the proceeds to come from the sale of property for condos and apartments, and pay current owners from that. Not to mention that current owners will have taxes go up on their toxic vacant lots due to the cost of buying people out (so sell to us now). Those tens of billions in valuation depended on pre-fire conditions. Those conditions don't exist any more, and the government has the right to regulate land use to try to prevent the current conditions from repeating.First off, no, I am not an attorney. Not legal advice. Although YES, I have been on legal council as consultant to some sizable case law setting suites. What I share comes from my experiences in court room and mind numbing hours of study and research in a law library on contract law and interstate compact.
Eminent domain does not work that easily or simply.
A government can not swoop in, say hours or days after a tornado tears through an area, say "wow, look at this mess, well it sure ain't worth a dang" and tell people it's "taking" there stuff and giving it just the price of the then current mess.
That's not how it works.
Eminent Domain has to be "for the public good". That's a fundamental requirement. Even I the non-attorney would have a rather easy time getting the people of, say Pacific Palisades together to state in mass that E.D. here not only does NOT do "public good" but inversely does HARM.
That to exercise E.D. in this manner causes HARM to the people, the makeup of area, fundamentally alters the area etc..
I could go on to argue it's a form of "Blockbusting" and with that illegal and discriminatory.
I could argue it impedes there legal right to being made whole by there insurance carriers.
On and on and on.
So, only chance in hell it has is via the BIGGEST action of it's kind EVER in US history, with coordination between the insurance carriers, and home owners. An action that gives enough financial incentive and relief that it DOES adhere "for public good", and makes the entire thing a net positive for the thousands upon thousands of dislocated persons AND don't forget, business's.
That means "$$$$making-it-rain$$$", so the 30/40 billion with a B, now turns into 40/50 Billion in payouts.
Raise the $ with some bonds you say...... Really, $50 Billion. Who's gonna buy them? How does the already deep in debt CA afford to tack on $50 BILLION in debt service? So now your causing "harm" to the entire state of CA with such added debt load.
And don't forget, states don't have 4-profit business to create wealth, no money-tree out in a yard to shake, states $ is from THE PEOPLE, so that $50 Billion is all Californians paying for it.
Hey Californians, how do ya feel about kicking out $50 billion to turn L.A. area neighborhoods into parks and high-rise condo's????
Sorry John, Californians said to get Fu#!ed.
Ok, well Uncle Sammy what do you sa..... oh, ok, oh I see, not your problem, ah, oh, Fed Funds are not for redeveloping neighborhoods, ok got it. Yeah Uncle Sammy said it's now T-town and that a dog-scat deal so to kick-rocks.
Maybe Blackrock wants to drop the $ to do..... Oh, nope, they said they won't touch that with a 10' poll.
Any way you spin it, there is no VIABLE way to get it done.
Sing and dance all you want, the land will be redeveloped, and no government will allow it to be redeveloped in a way that could repeat the current situation.
And yes, the owners will be scewered but that’s irrelevant. They can’t be allowed to build in areas that can’t be easily defended.
My daughter interned in collage for an appraisal company that specialized in government takings and she did the valuations on the property fronting the Napa River. The River flooded for decades so it was a project to stop flooding . that took about 3 years to go through .. and that was just a fraction of what we are talking about and was not a once in a 50 year event like this it was basically annually.. So it was a public project not a private project like this would be. big difference"
So it was a public project not a private project like this would be. big difference."----------------------------------------------------------
We cannot believe that clean up would be a private project? Nonsense. Some private owners won't have the money for clean up. Others won't want to spend the money on clean up, and those around them won't be able to rebuild until their lots are cleaned up. Then there's land use. Building right next to flammable vegetation on remote hillsides can be banned as too dangerous.The land can be seized via eminent domain and values assigned later, while planning for better, more appropriate (wildfire-wise) communities is underway.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
"You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here."
--------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that only "Big Government" can fight fires on the scale California has now, and only "Big Government" can do the clean up necessary so redevelopment can be started afterwards.
You're just going to let those toxic waste lots sit and fester while people next door rebuild?
Ideological bromides are not solutions, Jim. Walk us through a solution that doesn't involve government command and control. Don't forget to include how you are going to force those without insurance, or who don't want to spend the insurance money, on clean up.
Then there's the question of refusing to spend tax dollars on protecting houses impossible to protect, but that's for another day. There's current fire fighting and there's clean up. Tell us how you plan on accomplishing either without "big government."Seeing as you brought ideology into things I will point out your Marxist/ Communist ideology is a non-starter.
Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really.
The local governments and utility companies will address all public space clean up's.
And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.
Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole.
Next, fun-fact is "Big Government" is what facilitated this whole disaster in the first place. As bit by bit more and more comes out in media of the myriad of gross mismanagement actions done via, your buddies Comrade John, Big Government.
Government command and control is literally the laughing stock. They are masters at the art of botchery. How well did they handle the recent floods? Oh yeah, that's right, all but ZERO help or assistance. Red-Necks on UTV's were a disaster relief force to the effect of about 100,000x what the "command & Control" capacity of Big Government was.
And the list could go on and on and on.
Even now there already starting to call out for private and non-profit sector to, yet again, clean up and solve everything Big Gov botched, yet again.
But never fear John, Mother Russia is happy to have you and there it is your nirvana as Big Gov rules everything with an iron fist. You won't have to worry about pesky things like private property rights. And all it will cost is your freedom.
Bon voyage Comrade John.
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
"You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here."
--------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that only "Big Government" can fight fires on the scale California has now, and only "Big Government" can do the clean up necessary so redevelopment can be started afterwards.
You're just going to let those toxic waste lots sit and fester while people next door rebuild?
Ideological bromides are not solutions, Jim. Walk us through a solution that doesn't involve government command and control. Don't forget to include how you are going to force those without insurance, or who don't want to spend the insurance money, on clean up.
Then there's the question of refusing to spend tax dollars on protecting houses impossible to protect, but that's for another day. There's current fire fighting and there's clean up. Tell us how you plan on accomplishing either without "big government."Seeing as you brought ideology into things I will point out your Marxist/ Communist ideology is a non-starter.
Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really.
The local governments and utility companies will address all public space clean up's.
And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.
Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole.
Next, fun-fact is "Big Government" is what facilitated this whole disaster in the first place. As bit by bit more and more comes out in media of the myriad of gross mismanagement actions done via, your buddies Comrade John, Big Government.
Government command and control is literally the laughing stock. They are masters at the art of botchery. How well did they handle the recent floods? Oh yeah, that's right, all but ZERO help or assistance. Red-Necks on UTV's were a disaster relief force to the effect of about 100,000x what the "command & Control" capacity of Big Government was.
And the list could go on and on and on.
Even now there already starting to call out for private and non-profit sector to, yet again, clean up and solve everything Big Gov botched, yet again.
But never fear John, Mother Russia is happy to have you and there it is your nirvana as Big Gov rules everything with an iron fist. You won't have to worry about pesky things like private property rights. And all it will cost is your freedom.
Bon voyage Comrade John.
LOL
Let's break this down, shall we. You say:
"And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers."
So, per you, Jim, cleanup for all private property will be done "via local government." That's big government, isn't it? State and feds? It's well beyond local government capacity. Also, how is government doing stuff for private landowners to the extent you need done NOT the "socialism" (and you don't know the meaning of the word) you decry? If it's private property, then you can't justify spending public money on it according to your bromides.
Also, your silence is deafening about the private land owners who don't pay to clean up their properties. Nice try Jim, but your "SOP" for "individual property owners" has no factual basis. Tell us what the basis is for your assurance that individual owners "will" clean up?
Then there is the small matter that your two "SOPs" contradict each other: You state that clean up of ALL private property will take place by government action, and then you immediately say that private property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" and that will take place in concert with their insurance companies.
So you give us contradiction and a deafening silence as to those who are too poor (no, insufficient, insurance) or are unwilling to pay/co-operate.
Woolly thinking on your part, Jim. Woolly thinking. Your solutions are contradictory and are equivalent to clicking your heels three times to solve your problems. Solve the contradictions and then get back to us. Bromides and sound bites are not substitutes for thinking.
Oh, and by the way, fire ruins are toxic waste. No exaggeration there. Stop denying the facts.
- Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes1y
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
"You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here."
--------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that only "Big Government" can fight fires on the scale California has now, and only "Big Government" can do the clean up necessary so redevelopment can be started afterwards.
You're just going to let those toxic waste lots sit and fester while people next door rebuild?
Ideological bromides are not solutions, Jim. Walk us through a solution that doesn't involve government command and control. Don't forget to include how you are going to force those without insurance, or who don't want to spend the insurance money, on clean up.
Then there's the question of refusing to spend tax dollars on protecting houses impossible to protect, but that's for another day. There's current fire fighting and there's clean up. Tell us how you plan on accomplishing either without "big government."Seeing as you brought ideology into things I will point out your Marxist/ Communist ideology is a non-starter.
Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really.
The local governments and utility companies will address all public space clean up's.
And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.
Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole.
Next, fun-fact is "Big Government" is what facilitated this whole disaster in the first place. As bit by bit more and more comes out in media of the myriad of gross mismanagement actions done via, your buddies Comrade John, Big Government.
Government command and control is literally the laughing stock. They are masters at the art of botchery. How well did they handle the recent floods? Oh yeah, that's right, all but ZERO help or assistance. Red-Necks on UTV's were a disaster relief force to the effect of about 100,000x what the "command & Control" capacity of Big Government was.
And the list could go on and on and on.
Even now there already starting to call out for private and non-profit sector to, yet again, clean up and solve everything Big Gov botched, yet again.
But never fear John, Mother Russia is happy to have you and there it is your nirvana as Big Gov rules everything with an iron fist. You won't have to worry about pesky things like private property rights. And all it will cost is your freedom.
Bon voyage Comrade John.
LOL
Let's break this down, shall we. You say:
"And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers."
So, per you, Jim, cleanup for all private property will be done "via local government." That's big government, isn't it? State and feds? It's well beyond local government capacity. Also, how is government doing stuff for private landowners to the extent you need done NOT the "socialism" (and you don't know the meaning of the word) you decry? If it's private property, then you can't justify spending public money on it according to your bromides.
Also, your silence is deafening about the private land owners who don't pay to clean up their properties. Nice try Jim, but your "SOP" for "individual property owners" has no factual basis. Tell us what the basis is for your assurance that individual owners "will" clean up?
Then there is the small matter that your two "SOPs" contradict each other: You state that clean up of ALL private property will take place by government action, and then you immediately say that private property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" and that will take place in concert with their insurance companies.
So you give us contradiction and a deafening silence as to those who are too poor (no, insufficient, insurance) or are unwilling to pay/co-operate.
Woolly thinking on your part, Jim. Woolly thinking. Your solutions are contradictory and are equivalent to clicking your heels three times to solve your problems. Solve the contradictions and then get back to us. Bromides and sound bites are not substitutes for thinking.
Oh, and by the way, fire ruins are toxic waste. No exaggeration there. Stop denying the facts.
So, are you the guy that when teacher ask's what 1+1 equals, you ask for a calculator????
It couldn't have been clearer, or simpler, what I stated yet you some how twisted the hell out of it. Go back, re-read it, google the "hard" words you don't understand like what is "local government".
Now as for what happens if a person who just lost a million+ dollar home just bizarrely says "nah, forget it, being a bum in a tent on the beach seems so much better".... well if ya knew the basics of Real Estate you'd know there is policy in place literally everywhere in the US for exactly that. Soooooo they'd do that.
But as your apparently clueless on Real Estate 102, I will just inform you. Local government get's it done, and an assessment is levied on the property for the expense of such. At a certain point of levied amounts being non-collected, it is sold to recoup the funds.
This happens all over the country, probably every week. It's really not all that rare. It's actually so common that there is entire Real Estate Investment strategies built around it. There is even so much of it, that there are books sold for how-to, guru courses on it, and even this neat place on the internet called Bigger Pockets has info on it if look it up.
And a little update on your grand-plan that CA needs to go hardline communist, take all the property and dictate what if any compensation for such will come, some day..... The new released estimated total of the effected areas is now in excess of $250 Billion. Or roughly 3X the entire income tax collected by CA last year. That is more than 50% of the ENTIRE annual budget of CA for 2024.
So, as I said so many times; the math doesn't math, among a whole slew of other reasons IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
- Severna Park, MD · Member since 2013 · 7k+ posts · 7k+ votes1y
" I am from the government , and I am here to help "
This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .
- Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes1y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @John Clark:
Quote from @James Hamling:
"You do realize this is "Big Government" your talking about here."
--------------------------------------------------------
You do realize that only "Big Government" can fight fires on the scale California has now, and only "Big Government" can do the clean up necessary so redevelopment can be started afterwards.
You're just going to let those toxic waste lots sit and fester while people next door rebuild?
Ideological bromides are not solutions, Jim. Walk us through a solution that doesn't involve government command and control. Don't forget to include how you are going to force those without insurance, or who don't want to spend the insurance money, on clean up.
Then there's the question of refusing to spend tax dollars on protecting houses impossible to protect, but that's for another day. There's current fire fighting and there's clean up. Tell us how you plan on accomplishing either without "big government."Seeing as you brought ideology into things I will point out your Marxist/ Communist ideology is a non-starter.
Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really.
The local governments and utility companies will address all public space clean up's.
And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.
Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.
So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole.
Next, fun-fact is "Big Government" is what facilitated this whole disaster in the first place. As bit by bit more and more comes out in media of the myriad of gross mismanagement actions done via, your buddies Comrade John, Big Government.
Government command and control is literally the laughing stock. They are masters at the art of botchery. How well did they handle the recent floods? Oh yeah, that's right, all but ZERO help or assistance. Red-Necks on UTV's were a disaster relief force to the effect of about 100,000x what the "command & Control" capacity of Big Government was.
And the list could go on and on and on.
Even now there already starting to call out for private and non-profit sector to, yet again, clean up and solve everything Big Gov botched, yet again.
But never fear John, Mother Russia is happy to have you and there it is your nirvana as Big Gov rules everything with an iron fist. You won't have to worry about pesky things like private property rights. And all it will cost is your freedom.
Bon voyage Comrade John.
LOL
Let's break this down, shall we. You say:
"And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers."
So, per you, Jim, cleanup for all private property will be done "via local government." That's big government, isn't it? State and feds? It's well beyond local government capacity. Also, how is government doing stuff for private landowners to the extent you need done NOT the "socialism" (and you don't know the meaning of the word) you decry? If it's private property, then you can't justify spending public money on it according to your bromides.
Also, your silence is deafening about the private land owners who don't pay to clean up their properties. Nice try Jim, but your "SOP" for "individual property owners" has no factual basis. Tell us what the basis is for your assurance that individual owners "will" clean up?
Then there is the small matter that your two "SOPs" contradict each other: You state that clean up of ALL private property will take place by government action, and then you immediately say that private property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" and that will take place in concert with their insurance companies.
So you give us contradiction and a deafening silence as to those who are too poor (no, insufficient, insurance) or are unwilling to pay/co-operate.
Woolly thinking on your part, Jim. Woolly thinking. Your solutions are contradictory and are equivalent to clicking your heels three times to solve your problems. Solve the contradictions and then get back to us. Bromides and sound bites are not substitutes for thinking.
Oh, and by the way, fire ruins are toxic waste. No exaggeration there. Stop denying the facts.
So, are you the guy that when teacher ask's what 1+1 equals, you ask for a calculator????
It couldn't have been clearer, or simpler, what I stated yet you some how twisted the hell out of it. Go back, re-read it, google the "hard" words you don't understand like what is "local government".
Now as for what happens if a person who just lost a million+ dollar home just bizarrely says "nah, forget it, being a bum in a tent on the beach seems so much better".... well if ya knew the basics of Real Estate you'd know there is policy in place literally everywhere in the US for exactly that. Soooooo they'd do that.
But as your apparently clueless on Real Estate 102, I will just inform you. Local government get's it done, and an assessment is levied on the property for the expense of such. At a certain point of levied amounts being non-collected, it is sold to recoup the funds.
This happens all over the country, probably every week. It's really not all that rare. It's actually so common that there is entire Real Estate Investment strategies built around it. There is even so much of it, that there are books sold for how-to, guru courses on it, and even this neat place on the internet called Bigger Pockets has info on it if look it up.
And a little update on your grand-plan that CA needs to go hardline communist, take all the property and dictate what if any compensation for such will come, some day..... The new released estimated total of the effected areas is now in excess of $250 Billion. Or roughly 3X the entire income tax collected by CA last year. That is more than 50% of the ENTIRE annual budget of CA for 2024.
So, as I said so many times; the math doesn't math, among a whole slew of other reasons IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
I notice you skip right over who does the clean up, Jim, and who has to approve building in areas that aren’t defensible.
I also see that now you admit that your fairy-dust belief that people “will” work with insurance companies to clean up is not necessarily true. As I said, some people won’t have the money or insurance to pay for clean up. That means big government to the rescue.
As for the $250 billion in losses, guess what? A substantial portion of that won’t be compensated. Governments have no duty to make sure investments make money. People won’t have money or insurance to clean up or rebuild. The costs of clean up by the “big government” have to be assessed, most likely on those who are cleaned up. The government also doesn’t have to, and won’t, permit rebuilding in areas too difficult to defend.
insurers won’t insure, either.
Sing and dance all you want, but big government is needed for the firefighting now, the clean up later, and the redesign and redevelopment in the end.
The interjection of ideology (this is big government) was by you, not me. You have yet to tell us who can perform, and if necessary, coerce, the clean up, let alone the fire fighting, let alone the redesign, if not big government. Your silence as to people just taking insurance money and leaving is deafening.
Click your heels and sprinkle fairy dust all you want, Jim, but big government is absolutely vital here.
I’m curious, too: where did I say anything about government dictating compensation? The only way you can make your position work is by ginning up stuff about mine. The redesign will affect values, but owners can’t insist on the right to harm the community by building same old same old and then demanding rescues again and again.
By the way, you didn’t reconcile the contradictions in your positions that I pointed out earlier. Would you like us to believe that you simply forgot and will do so now?
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.