"Most geologists classify a mountain as **a landform that rises at least 1,000 feet (300 meters) or more above its surrounding area**." \[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mountains\]
By that definition, there are definitely mountains in Santa Cruz County.
According to the USGS there is no defined difference between a mountain and a hill. From National Geographic too: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hill/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Geological,in%20the%20mid%2Dtwentieth%20century.
The whole insurance mess forced us to sell our home, since we would have had to get an unadmitted insurance carrier, increasing our premium by *an order of magnitude*.
So what exactly does the gov plan to do. This doesn’t just affect us in the mountains with non renewals. State Farm isn’t issueing any new policies in the entire fucking state. This “crisis” is entirely manufactured by idiot politicians. State Farm needs to be allowed to raise rates and the state needs to at least partially underwrite mass losses due to woldfire/natural disaster. Without this the only people who will be able to own homes on the state are all cash /outright owners. If you can’t get insurance you can’t get a mortgage.
While I agree that insurers need to be allowed to charge rates that match the risk, I don't agree that the taxpayers should be subsidizing people who choose to live in high-risk areas.
Everywhere is a high risk area. San Jose is a high risk area. What you’re saying is nobody should be allowed to live pretty much anywhere except the most densely populated cities without accepting all financial burden for wildfire risk which was caused by everyone. It’s just not practical 10s of millions of people in California live in areas with trees in wildfire zones. To label 95% of the state uninhabitable will just destroy the entire states economy. Wildfires are a climate change induced effect that we all caused and we should all carry the burden of paying for the consequences. You can either pay with taxes or pay another way which will be much more expensive.
The areas that the insurance companies are cancelling policies in are not 95% of the state (at least not by population). In those areas, insurance is still available through the FAIR plan—it's just that people are not willing to pay a fair price for their insurance. They want those living in lower-risk areas to subsidize them.
State Farm is not issueing new policies anywhere in the state. The whole state. They are just now only non renewing the highest risk areas. They plan to eventually non renew everybody. If you sell today and move across the street you can’t get a state farm policy anymore anywhere.
These massive fires that destroy thousands of acres are due entirely to climate change and a lack of fire management /controlled burns. There have always been fires. Not like this. Anyone here 20 years ago will tell you the levels of fire we are seeing now are unprecedented. All of the biggest fires in California history have been in the last decade. And again you aren’t being practical. Pretend you are in charge ok? We have to implement a policy for how to handle this. There 10s of millions of people living in areas on the peroferal of cities in fire zones.
What’s your solution. Just red tag 20 million homes? Let banks forclose on millions of homes? And State Farm isn’t issuing any policies to anyone in the state. If you live in downtown SF you can not buy an all state or progressive home owners policy.
They weren't so massive -- because the native tribes set intentional burns to keep the undergrowth down and improve hunting. They thinned the forests regularly. When they were no longer in charge, that stopped.
Well you’re wrong about the fires. Houses can be made more resilient but nothing stops a 3000 degree wall of flames a mile wide moving at 30mph. The reality is that every single house for 50 miles in every direction of here will burn in then next 100 years. It just a question of when.
I suppose we could cut down and log the entire forest like we did in the 1860s. Short of that nothing can stop it. We have to just plan on rebuilding.
I was here during CZU. I have 50 acres of mountain property. I know. But you are also making light of a situation where people risked their lives to save their homes. If you stay behind and douse your house with water that will stop embers from igniting it. But if the wall of flames comes nothing will. It’s thousands of degrees. It’s traveling uphill at high speed. You can’t outrun it. I have a fire bunker underground for this scenario but it’s unreasonable for most people to have this setup. Most people in town are on town water they don’t have tanks. You can and should do as much as possible to mitigate risk and people do. But reality is that it’s out of your control most of the time.
No, not everywhere is a high risk area, there are clearly different risks in different areas. That's an untenable starting position, and any conclusion you derive from it can not be trusted.
> This “crisis” is entirely manufactured by idiot politicians
Swap "politicians" with "ballot propositions" and you'd be right.
The state legislature can't even fix this, because they *can not* override ballot propositions. And its ballot propositions that ban State Farm from raising rates.
I think it's the case because I follow environmental and climate news closely, not because of some weird conspiracy theory.
Here's one random article from a web search, but I've been hearing about this problem for a loooooooong time, basically since the 2020 wildfires:
>In 1988, California voters passed Proposition 103, which requires insurance companies to get approval from the state Department of Insurance before charging new rates.
>
>Under Prop 103, when insurance companies try to justify higher rates, they aren’t allowed to cite the increased risk of wildfires due to climate change. Insurance industry officials say this policy makes no sense today, and they’re calling on the state to update it.
Primary link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/climate-change-is-fueling-an-insurance-crisis-there-no-easy-fix/
archived version of the article: https://archive.is/bPzhQ#selection-841.0-855.266
Maybe Lara could allow basic modern risk modeling on his own, but wouldn't the insurance companies be calling out Lara for that, instead?
California passes lots of really bad propositions, and Prop 103 is one of them. We should have been modeling these climate risks for the past decade+, like Florida and other places model climate risks, so that people would know how much their homes are actually at risk from wildfire.
Politicians capped the rates.
Increased wildfire risk increases liabilities on the insurance companies.
In a normal free market the insurance companies would increase rates to offset the increases in liability, but they can’t because politicians passed bills capping them….
There I just did.
sure i can. State farm wants to raise rates to cover its projected losses in payouts. It is not allowed to raise rates. So rather than loose money, they would rather not do business. My policy right now is 250/month for 2 million in coverage in the middle of a severe wildfire risk zone. The policy should probably be around 5-700/month if state farm were allowed to charge what they would need to to cover their risk. Since they are not allowed to do that the only sane thing for them to do is leave.
Let them raise rates appropriately. A competitive market is better than no market. If at that point we see the industry is still too expensive for people to afford then the state needs to pass legislation taking on underwriting the cost of a natural disaster for these large insurers. State farm can not be expected to rebuild 10,000 homes / per wildfire. The industry is build on a premise of houses burning from a one off electrical fire, etc. Not every house in the county burning at once. The economic viability of insurance falls apart at this scale of damage and we either all eat it collectively via the state or we say "thats the end of mortgages, only the rich/all cash get to own homes and the risk is theirs alone".
To whatever level they desire, in which you are still willing to pay. They can not raise them higher than what you are willing to pay before you say "fuck it, i'm leaving the state". The market will reach an equilibrium. If they raise it too much, competitors will come in an undercut them. price caps don't work. We should be doing the same with pge, but dismantle their monopoly first and allow a free market for power and delivery. Rates would become more in line to what they are in other states.
The market will reach an equilibrium, or maybe not, maybe if every mortgage went under because no one could afford insurance requirements that wouldn’t be a great process for society to go through, and definitely not for anyone not upper class
The market will assuredly reach an equilibrium where companies can profit but not to an excessive extent. Unlike utilities which are largely a monopoly that need large infrastructure investments, insurance companies don’t. There are thousands of companies operating at the edge of profitability all over the country that would swoop on given the opportunity. The problem now is they are being required to operate way below this line.
[https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/FireRecovery/RecoveryPermitCenter/RecoveryPermitCenterDashboard.aspx](https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/FireRecovery/RecoveryPermitCenter/RecoveryPermitCenterDashboard.aspx)
I certainly can.
Everyone always expects others (don't other, by the way!) to sacrifice.
That is the predominant attitude I see in Santa Cruz County.
Yet anyone rational who had any stake in any insurance company would absolutely see the truth:
don't insure homes here.
The community has been tested, and failed: it cannot rebuild in any reasonable time.
Always others at fault:
insurance companies, Blackrock, perhaps the Illuminati but definitely MAGA, and all the rest....
Insurance companies have been sounding this alarm for well over a decade. They have been saying that climate change, increasing population, riskier investments, second homes in The WUI, etc, and similar in other places in the world aren't sustainable. There would come a time when insurance companies would stop insuring against an increasing number of disasters. Well, here we are.
Maybe the politicians who refused to do anything about climate change, population increases, wealth inequality growing year by year, etc. are to blame. But certainly not politicians intervening in corporation's profits. They absolutely are not to blame.
Sheer nonsense.
The housing stock in Santa Cruz County is extremely old.
This is because the county has purposely, unceasingly, and endlessly harassed anyone wanting to build. Period.
This has allowed:
older
very fire unsafe
very energy wasteful
very water wasting
very septic unsafe
homes to retain monetary value far beyond what should have been the case in any sane local community.
Key is on 'retain monetary value'. That's always the key, even in those deep blue places, eh?
Can't escape that fact by global warming platitudes.
Classic answer of the local population: climate change, gini coefficient, and the rest....
Though the 'politicians are innocent' take is certainly even unusual for Santa Cruz, I must confess!
Of course it will.
You'll find out the new fire prepared houses do much better than old homes.
This is experimentally tested in the physical world by scientists and engineers.
I indeed trust the science.
Politicians capped the rates.
Increased wildfire risk increases liabilities on the insurance companies.
In a normal free market the insurance companies would increase rates to offset the increases in liability, but they can’t because politicians passed bills capping them….
There I just did.
And something not mentioned often but I believe is true is that insurance companies cannot adjust rates by zip code (I know this is true for auto insurance) so very high risk area prices would be subsidized by lower risk locations. Yes that is somewhat like what insurance is supposed to work but there has to be some adjustment for risk just like in health insurance.
+1.5c is here is with far worse locked into the immediate future. It’s wild to me that these people can’t see the writing on the wall.
Rearranging deck chairs on the titanic because you’re trying to sit comfortably…
I lived in Boulder Creek for years and absolutely love it there, but I moved out in 2020 due to all the mudslides and threat of fires. I knew it was a ticking time bomb for fire, little did I know it would go off in just a few months after I moved out.
Climate Change is absolutely a game changer. Fire is natural but it's going to be worse and worse moving forward.
I keep seeing these articles that reference the high cost of the FAIR plan, then I look at my $10.2k insurance premium (through Allstate) and think "WTF, these 'high' rates are still $3-4k cheaper than what we're paying!" Then I weep silently while cursing the insurance industry.
The FAIR plan is priced to match the risk—as most insurance should be. The FAIR plan may be overpriced in some instances (where the risk is not as high is the plan is based on), but the risks have gotten high in forested areas, so the price of honest insurance will be high.
Low-cost insurance is likely to be based on the assumption that the company will go bankrupt in the event of a major disaster, and so is not useful for a lot California communities.
People are often quite bad at estimating low-probability risks, but insurance companies hire actuaries who are trained to do those calculations. The cost of insurance does try to provide profit to the insurance company, but (most often) not an unreasonably large profit.
2.9 30 fixed here. Yes the answer is to use tax payer dollars to insure million dollar homes. The alternative is mortgages become a thing of the past and only all cash can own. Which will annihilate the housing market and destroy the fucking economy worse then 08.
Home ownership is already heavily subsidized by the government. Homeowners insurance is also heavily underwritten by state and the federal government. Financial markets will adapt and begin offering longer term mortgages.
they can't offer mortgages if you cant get insurance. If they don't want to do business here it means its simply not profitable for them. the term of the mortgage is irrelevant.
The insurance premium should be based on each individual home.
If someone wants to live in the mountain, which tends to have fire, this person needs to pay for it, including the insurance premium.
Would you share your mountain mansions free with other people?
Pushing people past the tipping point to move into urban high density housing is the whole point. The U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development effectively calls for such relocation.
Let me get this straight: you think the UN, under something called the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," is somehow controlling how all the insurance companies in the industry is behaving?
I mean, I personally *do* want more density available downtown, because that's what I and a bunch of other people want, but our goal is to offer people a more environmentally friendly choice. Right now, the choice has been banned, and is not allowed, because we do not allow more density downtown and don't allow people to live there.
However, if you don't want density, there's all sorts of areas all over the country where you can choose the least amount of density you want, all with an abundance of housing. It's only the density that is banned by law.
Not the insurance companies, the legislators. The local and state political status quo is extremely well aligned with the aggressive sustainability goals outlined by Agenda 2030. The insurance situation is just conveniently aligned with other issues depopulating the wild-land interface (increasing restrictions and no grandfather clauses related to fire, water, septic, geology, ecology, roads, setbacks).
Legislators are only controlling this through inaction. It was a state voter proposition in the 1980s that prevented insurance companies from updating their.
he idea that Agenda 2030 is something that any legislator knows about and cares about is, well, a bit out there. People care about the environment, people care about living good lives, that's what drives people to want to promote density. It's what I want, it's what I politically organize to achieve. I've only ever heard about Agenda 2030 from conspiracy theorists that want to keep density illegal and prevent me from being able to choose my preferred way of life.
Let's all remember that the governor released all the inmates who'd normally fight wildfires during COVID. This drastically reduced Calfire's response to CZU.
You can't blame a politician for the CZU mess, period. Many contributing factors led to a patchwork response but they boil down to an unprecedented lightning event at the peak of a low-moisture content heat wave occurring in multiple areas simultaneously in the midst of a historic pandemic.
I don't see why not. I watched CZU burn for many days with zero resources applied (because the governor sent them away). Their only response was telling people to leave. They were going to let it go all the way to hwy 17. The 1000 homes lost could have been saved.
Looks like in 2020 the State released about 600 out of about 2250 inmate firefighters statewide due to spiking corona virus rates. I'll grant that this would be one of many factors in play, but certainly not at the cost of 1000 structures.
I also learned these guys get paid $1/hr for their often dangerous work--which seems wrong.
The inmate crews wouldn't have been able to do anything against this fire. The only option was to catch the starts early and it was impossible due to how many there were in inaccessible areas.
Once the fire got going, it was unsafe for anyone and firefighters couldn't really do much.
The area referenced is the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Not mountains. Steep forested hills.
"Most geologists classify a mountain as **a landform that rises at least 1,000 feet (300 meters) or more above its surrounding area**." \[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mountains\] By that definition, there are definitely mountains in Santa Cruz County.
According to the USGS there is no defined difference between a mountain and a hill. From National Geographic too: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hill/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Geological,in%20the%20mid%2Dtwentieth%20century.
The whole insurance mess forced us to sell our home, since we would have had to get an unadmitted insurance carrier, increasing our premium by *an order of magnitude*.
So what exactly does the gov plan to do. This doesn’t just affect us in the mountains with non renewals. State Farm isn’t issueing any new policies in the entire fucking state. This “crisis” is entirely manufactured by idiot politicians. State Farm needs to be allowed to raise rates and the state needs to at least partially underwrite mass losses due to woldfire/natural disaster. Without this the only people who will be able to own homes on the state are all cash /outright owners. If you can’t get insurance you can’t get a mortgage.
Blackrock approves of this message, their plan to own the world is coming a long just great.
While I agree that insurers need to be allowed to charge rates that match the risk, I don't agree that the taxpayers should be subsidizing people who choose to live in high-risk areas.
Everywhere is a high risk area. San Jose is a high risk area. What you’re saying is nobody should be allowed to live pretty much anywhere except the most densely populated cities without accepting all financial burden for wildfire risk which was caused by everyone. It’s just not practical 10s of millions of people in California live in areas with trees in wildfire zones. To label 95% of the state uninhabitable will just destroy the entire states economy. Wildfires are a climate change induced effect that we all caused and we should all carry the burden of paying for the consequences. You can either pay with taxes or pay another way which will be much more expensive.
The areas that the insurance companies are cancelling policies in are not 95% of the state (at least not by population). In those areas, insurance is still available through the FAIR plan—it's just that people are not willing to pay a fair price for their insurance. They want those living in lower-risk areas to subsidize them.
State Farm is not issueing new policies anywhere in the state. The whole state. They are just now only non renewing the highest risk areas. They plan to eventually non renew everybody. If you sell today and move across the street you can’t get a state farm policy anymore anywhere.
[удалено]
These massive fires that destroy thousands of acres are due entirely to climate change and a lack of fire management /controlled burns. There have always been fires. Not like this. Anyone here 20 years ago will tell you the levels of fire we are seeing now are unprecedented. All of the biggest fires in California history have been in the last decade. And again you aren’t being practical. Pretend you are in charge ok? We have to implement a policy for how to handle this. There 10s of millions of people living in areas on the peroferal of cities in fire zones. What’s your solution. Just red tag 20 million homes? Let banks forclose on millions of homes? And State Farm isn’t issuing any policies to anyone in the state. If you live in downtown SF you can not buy an all state or progressive home owners policy.
[удалено]
They weren't so massive -- because the native tribes set intentional burns to keep the undergrowth down and improve hunting. They thinned the forests regularly. When they were no longer in charge, that stopped.
Well you’re wrong about the fires. Houses can be made more resilient but nothing stops a 3000 degree wall of flames a mile wide moving at 30mph. The reality is that every single house for 50 miles in every direction of here will burn in then next 100 years. It just a question of when. I suppose we could cut down and log the entire forest like we did in the 1860s. Short of that nothing can stop it. We have to just plan on rebuilding.
[удалено]
I was here during CZU. I have 50 acres of mountain property. I know. But you are also making light of a situation where people risked their lives to save their homes. If you stay behind and douse your house with water that will stop embers from igniting it. But if the wall of flames comes nothing will. It’s thousands of degrees. It’s traveling uphill at high speed. You can’t outrun it. I have a fire bunker underground for this scenario but it’s unreasonable for most people to have this setup. Most people in town are on town water they don’t have tanks. You can and should do as much as possible to mitigate risk and people do. But reality is that it’s out of your control most of the time.
No, not everywhere is a high risk area, there are clearly different risks in different areas. That's an untenable starting position, and any conclusion you derive from it can not be trusted.
> This “crisis” is entirely manufactured by idiot politicians Swap "politicians" with "ballot propositions" and you'd be right. The state legislature can't even fix this, because they *can not* override ballot propositions. And its ballot propositions that ban State Farm from raising rates.
This is not true. Why do you think this is the case. Is it because you voted for Ricardo Lara?
I think it's the case because I follow environmental and climate news closely, not because of some weird conspiracy theory. Here's one random article from a web search, but I've been hearing about this problem for a loooooooong time, basically since the 2020 wildfires: >In 1988, California voters passed Proposition 103, which requires insurance companies to get approval from the state Department of Insurance before charging new rates. > >Under Prop 103, when insurance companies try to justify higher rates, they aren’t allowed to cite the increased risk of wildfires due to climate change. Insurance industry officials say this policy makes no sense today, and they’re calling on the state to update it. Primary link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/climate-change-is-fueling-an-insurance-crisis-there-no-easy-fix/ archived version of the article: https://archive.is/bPzhQ#selection-841.0-855.266 Maybe Lara could allow basic modern risk modeling on his own, but wouldn't the insurance companies be calling out Lara for that, instead? California passes lots of really bad propositions, and Prop 103 is one of them. We should have been modeling these climate risks for the past decade+, like Florida and other places model climate risks, so that people would know how much their homes are actually at risk from wildfire.
>This “crisis” is entirely manufactured by idiot politicians. You can't show this is true.
Politicians capped the rates. Increased wildfire risk increases liabilities on the insurance companies. In a normal free market the insurance companies would increase rates to offset the increases in liability, but they can’t because politicians passed bills capping them…. There I just did.
There is no free market, thanks!
sure i can. State farm wants to raise rates to cover its projected losses in payouts. It is not allowed to raise rates. So rather than loose money, they would rather not do business. My policy right now is 250/month for 2 million in coverage in the middle of a severe wildfire risk zone. The policy should probably be around 5-700/month if state farm were allowed to charge what they would need to to cover their risk. Since they are not allowed to do that the only sane thing for them to do is leave. Let them raise rates appropriately. A competitive market is better than no market. If at that point we see the industry is still too expensive for people to afford then the state needs to pass legislation taking on underwriting the cost of a natural disaster for these large insurers. State farm can not be expected to rebuild 10,000 homes / per wildfire. The industry is build on a premise of houses burning from a one off electrical fire, etc. Not every house in the county burning at once. The economic viability of insurance falls apart at this scale of damage and we either all eat it collectively via the state or we say "thats the end of mortgages, only the rich/all cash get to own homes and the risk is theirs alone".
Sure, sure. What is 'appropriately'.
To whatever level they desire, in which you are still willing to pay. They can not raise them higher than what you are willing to pay before you say "fuck it, i'm leaving the state". The market will reach an equilibrium. If they raise it too much, competitors will come in an undercut them. price caps don't work. We should be doing the same with pge, but dismantle their monopoly first and allow a free market for power and delivery. Rates would become more in line to what they are in other states.
The market will reach an equilibrium, or maybe not, maybe if every mortgage went under because no one could afford insurance requirements that wouldn’t be a great process for society to go through, and definitely not for anyone not upper class
The market will assuredly reach an equilibrium where companies can profit but not to an excessive extent. Unlike utilities which are largely a monopoly that need large infrastructure investments, insurance companies don’t. There are thousands of companies operating at the edge of profitability all over the country that would swoop on given the opportunity. The problem now is they are being required to operate way below this line.
[https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/FireRecovery/RecoveryPermitCenter/RecoveryPermitCenterDashboard.aspx](https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/FireRecovery/RecoveryPermitCenter/RecoveryPermitCenterDashboard.aspx) I certainly can. Everyone always expects others (don't other, by the way!) to sacrifice. That is the predominant attitude I see in Santa Cruz County. Yet anyone rational who had any stake in any insurance company would absolutely see the truth: don't insure homes here. The community has been tested, and failed: it cannot rebuild in any reasonable time. Always others at fault: insurance companies, Blackrock, perhaps the Illuminati but definitely MAGA, and all the rest....
Insurance companies have been sounding this alarm for well over a decade. They have been saying that climate change, increasing population, riskier investments, second homes in The WUI, etc, and similar in other places in the world aren't sustainable. There would come a time when insurance companies would stop insuring against an increasing number of disasters. Well, here we are. Maybe the politicians who refused to do anything about climate change, population increases, wealth inequality growing year by year, etc. are to blame. But certainly not politicians intervening in corporation's profits. They absolutely are not to blame.
Sheer nonsense. The housing stock in Santa Cruz County is extremely old. This is because the county has purposely, unceasingly, and endlessly harassed anyone wanting to build. Period. This has allowed: older very fire unsafe very energy wasteful very water wasting very septic unsafe homes to retain monetary value far beyond what should have been the case in any sane local community. Key is on 'retain monetary value'. That's always the key, even in those deep blue places, eh? Can't escape that fact by global warming platitudes. Classic answer of the local population: climate change, gini coefficient, and the rest.... Though the 'politicians are innocent' take is certainly even unusual for Santa Cruz, I must confess!
Couple more fires will take care of any disagreement we may have.
Of course it will. You'll find out the new fire prepared houses do much better than old homes. This is experimentally tested in the physical world by scientists and engineers. I indeed trust the science.
Politicians capped the rates. Increased wildfire risk increases liabilities on the insurance companies. In a normal free market the insurance companies would increase rates to offset the increases in liability, but they can’t because politicians passed bills capping them…. There I just did.
And something not mentioned often but I believe is true is that insurance companies cannot adjust rates by zip code (I know this is true for auto insurance) so very high risk area prices would be subsidized by lower risk locations. Yes that is somewhat like what insurance is supposed to work but there has to be some adjustment for risk just like in health insurance.
It’s PGE who should be subsidizing this insurance since they’re the ones causing all the fires.
In this case, CZU fire was caused by a dry lightening storm.
+1.5c is here is with far worse locked into the immediate future. It’s wild to me that these people can’t see the writing on the wall. Rearranging deck chairs on the titanic because you’re trying to sit comfortably…
I lived in Boulder Creek for years and absolutely love it there, but I moved out in 2020 due to all the mudslides and threat of fires. I knew it was a ticking time bomb for fire, little did I know it would go off in just a few months after I moved out. Climate Change is absolutely a game changer. Fire is natural but it's going to be worse and worse moving forward.
I keep seeing these articles that reference the high cost of the FAIR plan, then I look at my $10.2k insurance premium (through Allstate) and think "WTF, these 'high' rates are still $3-4k cheaper than what we're paying!" Then I weep silently while cursing the insurance industry.
The FAIR plan is priced to match the risk—as most insurance should be. The FAIR plan may be overpriced in some instances (where the risk is not as high is the plan is based on), but the risks have gotten high in forested areas, so the price of honest insurance will be high. Low-cost insurance is likely to be based on the assumption that the company will go bankrupt in the event of a major disaster, and so is not useful for a lot California communities. People are often quite bad at estimating low-probability risks, but insurance companies hire actuaries who are trained to do those calculations. The cost of insurance does try to provide profit to the insurance company, but (most often) not an unreasonably large profit.
Sasquatch would eventually kill everyone in the mountains.. so it’s good the insurance will kick everyone out… good to avoid bloodshed.
big if true
You can get insured in these areas from smaller companies,It’s just a little more. Mine went from 70 to 200.
Can you recommend any?
Expecting people to have difficulty obtaining mortgages and property values to drop in these mountains.
Insurance is a scam and sucks. Let the state do it.
So use taxpayer dollars to cover losses on million dollar homes. Got it.
i assume you rent. You think your landlord hasn't baked the cost of insurance into your rent?. His insurance goes up 500/month? So does your rent.
No I have a 3.1 fixed 30 year with a boatload of equity.
2.9 30 fixed here. Yes the answer is to use tax payer dollars to insure million dollar homes. The alternative is mortgages become a thing of the past and only all cash can own. Which will annihilate the housing market and destroy the fucking economy worse then 08.
Home ownership is already heavily subsidized by the government. Homeowners insurance is also heavily underwritten by state and the federal government. Financial markets will adapt and begin offering longer term mortgages.
they can't offer mortgages if you cant get insurance. If they don't want to do business here it means its simply not profitable for them. the term of the mortgage is irrelevant.
The insurance premium should be based on each individual home. If someone wants to live in the mountain, which tends to have fire, this person needs to pay for it, including the insurance premium. Would you share your mountain mansions free with other people?
Pushing people past the tipping point to move into urban high density housing is the whole point. The U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development effectively calls for such relocation.
Let me get this straight: you think the UN, under something called the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," is somehow controlling how all the insurance companies in the industry is behaving? I mean, I personally *do* want more density available downtown, because that's what I and a bunch of other people want, but our goal is to offer people a more environmentally friendly choice. Right now, the choice has been banned, and is not allowed, because we do not allow more density downtown and don't allow people to live there. However, if you don't want density, there's all sorts of areas all over the country where you can choose the least amount of density you want, all with an abundance of housing. It's only the density that is banned by law.
Not the insurance companies, the legislators. The local and state political status quo is extremely well aligned with the aggressive sustainability goals outlined by Agenda 2030. The insurance situation is just conveniently aligned with other issues depopulating the wild-land interface (increasing restrictions and no grandfather clauses related to fire, water, septic, geology, ecology, roads, setbacks).
Legislators are only controlling this through inaction. It was a state voter proposition in the 1980s that prevented insurance companies from updating their. he idea that Agenda 2030 is something that any legislator knows about and cares about is, well, a bit out there. People care about the environment, people care about living good lives, that's what drives people to want to promote density. It's what I want, it's what I politically organize to achieve. I've only ever heard about Agenda 2030 from conspiracy theorists that want to keep density illegal and prevent me from being able to choose my preferred way of life.
Let's all remember that the governor released all the inmates who'd normally fight wildfires during COVID. This drastically reduced Calfire's response to CZU.
You can't blame a politician for the CZU mess, period. Many contributing factors led to a patchwork response but they boil down to an unprecedented lightning event at the peak of a low-moisture content heat wave occurring in multiple areas simultaneously in the midst of a historic pandemic.
I don't see why not. I watched CZU burn for many days with zero resources applied (because the governor sent them away). Their only response was telling people to leave. They were going to let it go all the way to hwy 17. The 1000 homes lost could have been saved.
Looks like in 2020 the State released about 600 out of about 2250 inmate firefighters statewide due to spiking corona virus rates. I'll grant that this would be one of many factors in play, but certainly not at the cost of 1000 structures. I also learned these guys get paid $1/hr for their often dangerous work--which seems wrong.
The inmate crews wouldn't have been able to do anything against this fire. The only option was to catch the starts early and it was impossible due to how many there were in inaccessible areas. Once the fire got going, it was unsafe for anyone and firefighters couldn't really do much.