Malibu in flames again

[strupgolf]

Well, I knew there were some fruitcakes out in California, and you guys are proff positive. You dont get it do you?

[Moneyguy1]

strup:

Get what? I think most folks are waiting for a cogent answer. I see a number of thoughtful responses here. I am not aware of massive gov't subsidies for insured residential homes out west. Please enlighten me.

I can understand anger at those who bilk the system. I canot understand lumping those in need such as children and the elderly being lumped in with the neer-do-wells.

Sammy: Here it is....a sincere "thank you"!!

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Won't anyone think about the children?!?!?

Dude, if I was drinking anything, it would have gone right through my nose. Thank you.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by strupgolf

Well, I knew there were some fruitcakes out in California, and you guys are proff positive. You dont get it do you?

well maybe you can explain your crystal-clear midwest reasoning.

You said all the homes were castles. Others who actually know said they weren't.

You said that the taxpayers were going to foot the bill for rebuilding here. Where was there mention of that by anyone else? Or even an expectation?

Next time a tornado hits Indiana, I suppose you'll say the same thing...people shouldn't build in such an area, and the govt shouldn't lift a finger to help them rebuild.

Not really clear what your point was except for perhaps some schadenfreude...

[artplumber]

Originally Posted by techweenie

And, BTW, Flea's house didn't burn down.

Another resident who lost his home was Flea, the bassist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, whose real name is Michael Balzary, property records showed.

Balzary had bought another home in Malibu last year, but the one destroyed was for sale for $4.8 million, the Los Angeles Times reported.

from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_on_re_us/california_wildfires

Originally Posted by techweenie

Interesting litmus test here. Class envy, knee-jerk assumptions...

.....
No mansions there. These are among Malibu's lowest income neighborhoods.

I'm not aware of anyone asking for Federal assistance, but maybe there's some special knowledge at work here?

As to this being lowest income neighborhoods; the definition of a low income household is nowhere near one that could afford an 800K house.

Finally, what Strup may be trying to say, is that although a number of these people have insurance, the state and fed largely pay to fight the fire, and if the area gets disaster funding (FEMA), then in fact, the Fed is subsidizing the housing in this fire prone area. (All of California might fit too). Perhaps, this is meant as somewhat a sarcastic reminder to all those who wrote negatively about allowing building along hurricane-prone regions, or flood plains of the Missouri river, that now the shoe may be on the other foot. Or not. Who knows...

[nostatic]

I'd be interested to know the number of structure fires in a typical urban area over the course of a year (resulting in sunstantial fire insurance claims) as opposed to the number lost to wildfires in LA county.

And Malibu is an upscale neighborhood...so $800K is at the lower end. He didn't say it was "low income" housing. The reality is that $800K is not all that expensive in this town.

The reality is that "the gov" subsidizes pretty much everybody no matter where you live. You have services that you call on that are paid by taxes. And we pay an assload of taxes out here. So it is ironic for someone in the midwest to be complaining that the rich CA fruitcakes are sucking on his tax money. As Sam pointed out, CA puts in way more than takes out.

[sammyg2]

Strup if you make just one reasonable, accurate point I will consider it. You haven't done that yet.
Instead you suggested that the victims of these fires are looking for a handout, you suggested that these houses are castles and that you are paying for them, you suggested that the taxpayers are going to foot the bill but haven't explained what bill you are talking about, you said that they need to make the houses that won't burn, and when your silliness is pointed out you are calling names. You have been asked several direct and reasonable questions about your posts but you don't answer, you call us fruitcakes. What grade are you in?

How about for once, just once, you make a logical accurate point that is based on reality and fact?

[nostatic]

warning....sam and i in agreement....warning....danger, will robinson, danger

the world must be coming to an end

[artplumber]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I'd be interested to know the number of structure fires in a typical urban area over the course of a year (resulting in sunstantial fire insurance claims) as opposed to the number lost to wildfires in LA county.

And Malibu is an upscale neighborhood...so $800K is at the lower end. He didn't say it was "low income" housing. The reality is that $800K is not all that expensive in this town.

The reality is that "the gov" subsidizes pretty much everybody no matter where you live. You have services that you call on that are paid by taxes. And we pay an assload of taxes out here. So it is ironic for someone in the midwest to be complaining that the rich CA fruitcakes are sucking on his tax money. As Sam pointed out, CA puts in way more than takes out.

Todd, I agree he didn't say low income, but the statement appears to have been intended to arouse pity for Malibu's less fortunate. My point is that less fortunate in Malibu is not = to less fortunate in the country.

As to fire claims, I don't know where they keep that stat, but I think one would be hard pressed to believe that the average firefighting cost for the state of Alabama anywhere approaches CA, OR, WA, MT, ID. Don't forget to include water/chemical drops, aircraft rental, fuel, etc. Urban fires come out of city/state coffers. I believe any of these big operations comes State/Fed the latter from disaster funds.

Third, I do not believe that FEMA money etc, is included in that collection/disbursement model just from a personal WAG. I believe that it is based on budgeted estimates (ie X% of people live below the poverty line, state A has Y% below the poverty line, vs state B has Z% below the poverty line)

Fourth, the Fed takes the same amount where ever you live. The extra taxes are all CA/local.

Fifth, I'm still waiting to hear how the natural disasters in CA are in any way different from the expected natural disasters in TX, AR, FL, LA, ND (remember the big floods up there in the '90s) and how people shouldn't be allowed to build where one knows that natural disaster, type Q, is likely to happen.

[Zeke]

All this where there's misfortune? It doesn't matter whose house, it's a travesty if it's mobile home or a 5 million job. Inside is where someone's life used to be. Now it's ashes. Family photos and the like cost the same for the rich and the poor. But there's no replacement value.

[sammyg2]

LOL come on Todd, there have been at least 3 times when we agreed on something.
Each time I looked for the four horsemen

Seriously, I did some homework and we're not going to be able to send people to Indiana until they can make all their houses completely flood-proof.
Seems they had a pretty good sized flood in 2003. They lost over 1300 homes and the federal government coughed up over $15 million in just the first six weeks! 5380 indiana residents applied for federal disaster assistance, over $9 million in housing assistance grants, and about $6 mil in low interest disaster loans. And ..... get this .... it wasn't the first flood. Seems they've had a whole bunch of floods over the years, not to mention the tornados. I guess there just isn't a place that's completely free of natural disasters.

Now here's the really scary part:
In a small way I also agree with Strup.
I think So Cal needs to get a grip on the building codes and expansion of our cities. I'd like to see a minimum 1/8th mile green belt between every new subdivision and the surrounding brush.
Of course no one will listen to me and it wouldn't do a darned thing about the existing subdivisions, people won't like the idea of giving up their close-up view of nature, it wouldn't work where people live in the hills away from other houses, it won't prevent all fires (maybe a few), and it would make houses even more unaffordable because that very expensive land would make it non-cost effective. They could build a whole bunch of houses on an 1/8 mile wide strip of land.
lots of reasons why it wouldn't work but I'd still like to see it.

As it is I live smack dab in the city (actually suburbs but that's what the cities are here).
I'd like to live on top of a hill, or on the edge of nature, or on the beach, but it's too expensive AND I don't like the idea of being first in line for a disaster. I live where I live partly because it's safer.

There was one guy on the news in Malibu that had me shaking my head. He explained that he lost his house in the 1992 Malibu fire and lost another yesterday and he intends to re-build, again.
I wonder how these people can get insurance? If I was an insurance company I'd be really reluctant to issue a policy.
So yes, in a way they are asking for it. But fires happen everywhere. in the city, in the country, I've seen houses burn down in a rain storm.
I don't want to build there but if they do and can afford it and can get insurance and a permit, then it's their decision and their right. As much as it is to rebuild in a flood plain or hurricane zone or in tornado alley. Basically anywhere in this country. As long as it isn't below sea level (little fuel for Mule's fire)

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by artplumber

Todd, I agree he didn't say low income, but the statement appears to have been intended to arouse pity for Malibu's less fortunate. My point is that less fortunate in Malibu is not = to less fortunate in the country.

As to fire claims, I don't know where they keep that stat, but I think one would be hard pressed to believe that the average firefighting cost for the state of Alabama anywhere approaches CA, OR, WA, MT, ID. Don't forget to include water/chemical drops, aircraft rental, fuel, etc. Urban fires come out of city/state coffers. I believe any of these big operations comes State/Fed the latter from disaster funds.

Third, I do not believe that FEMA money etc, is included in that collection/disbursement model just from a personal WAG. I believe that it is based on budgeted estimates (ie X% of people live below the poverty line, state A has Y% below the poverty line, vs state B has Z% below the poverty line)

Fourth, the Fed takes the same amount where ever you live. The extra taxes are all CA/local.

Fifth, I'm still waiting to hear how the natural disasters in CA are in any way different from the expected natural disasters in TX, AR, FL, LA, ND (remember the big floods up there in the '90s) and how people shouldn't be allowed to build where one knows that natural disaster, type Q, is likely to happen.

I don't think tech was trying to get pity, but rather counter the argument that these were all rich people in mansions. Just correcting a mistaken assumption.

I believe that most of the firefighting is CA fire service, so that is state funds. They have cooperative agreements with other states. Not sure how much fed money is in that equation. As for money in (taxes), the percentages might be similar, but on the whole salaries are higher here so we pay more.

I don't see where anyone here mentioned other states, so that is an argument that wasn't brought up by anyone other than you and *maybe* strup. Not fair to take me to task for something I'm not saying.

I think that areas that are prone to more "incidents" should have higher insurance rates. And they do, at least for fire out here. If people want to build in a flood plain they should be able to do so. But their flood insurance costs should reflect that increased risk. That is basic actuary stuff. imho the feds should get involved when it is something cataclysmic...like Katrina, a huge firestorm, major earthquake, etc.

[sammyg2]

I thi

nk that areas that are prone to more "incidents" should have higher insurance rates. And they do, at least for fire out here. If people want to build in a flood plain they should be able to do so. But their flood insurance costs should reflect that increased risk.

Check it out, Todd and I agreed on something, again! Twice in one day. Too weird.

[strupgolf]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Strup if you make just one reasonable, accurate point I will consider it. You haven't done that yet.
Instead you suggested that the victims of these fires are looking for a handout, you suggested that these houses are castles and that you are paying for them, you suggested that the taxpayers are going to foot the bill but haven't explained what bill you are talking about, you said that they need to make the houses that won't burn, and when your silliness is pointed out you are calling names. You have been asked several direct and reasonable questions about your posts but you don't answer, you call us fruitcakes. What grade are you in?

How about for once, just once, you make a logical accurate point that is based on reality and fact?

sammyg2, I've made my points clearly and accurately in 2 differeent responses, but I guess you just dont get it. If you or anyone else can find errors in anything I stated, then please do. I stand by my comments.

[artplumber]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I don't think tech was trying to get pity, but rather counter the argument that these were all rich people in mansions. Just correcting a mistaken assumption.

OK, but the idea that there were no expensive homes there (I'd imagine this could be true of a 2000sf house there) is probably overstated....Just look at Flea's $4.7mill house...

Originally Posted by nostatic

I believe that most of the firefighting is CA fire service, so that is state funds. They have cooperative agreements with other states. Not sure how much fed money is in that equation.

No disagreement, but you'll almost always see fed money if you have mult companies/mult homes down/aircraft.

Originally Posted by nostatic

I don't see where anyone here mentioned other states, so that is an argument that wasn't brought up by anyone other than you and *maybe* strup. Not fair to take me to task for something I'm not saying.

I think that areas that are prone to more "incidents" should have higher insurance rates. And they do, at least for fire out here. If people want to build in a flood plain they should be able to do so. But their flood insurance costs should reflect that increased risk. That is basic actuary stuff. imho the feds should get involved when it is something cataclysmic...like Katrina, a huge firestorm, major earthquake, etc.

No Strup didn't make this statement. It was an inference (did I get that right?). I guess there have been a number of people here suggesting the gubmint stop FEMA insurance/expense for hurricanes et al. BTW Sammy, if the levees in the central valley ever let go (eg/earthquake), there's gonna be a lot of people/agri underwater in the wonder state of Cali.

[techweenie]

Flea's manager stated that Flea's house had not burned. I suspect he meant that the house Flea lives in did not burn.
Edit to add link: http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/24/fleas-malibu-home-lost-to-fire/

49 houses burned. The Malibu Bowl area had the lowest priced homes in Malibu, even cheaper than the mobile homes of Paradise Cove. The media will focus on 'known' names, but there are a lot of ordinary folks who lost their homes.

Having lived in Malibu from '02-05, I know many people all over the town, including a couple of 'our own' who have very nice early S cars. Like most people who live in 'the wild,' Malibu folks tend to be very self-reliant and would be unlikely to ask for sympathy -- sorry to disappoint. The trade-off is clear to everyone I know who lives there. It's a great place to live, and to them, the risk is worth it. I have plans to buy a particular lot and build on in in the next five years, when I have a successful 'exit' from the business I've built.

We all live where there is a certain amount of risk. I've been through a major earthquake and was grateful for a small ($15K) FEMA loan at 3.2% to put things right. I paid the loan back. Maybe some people got grants, I don't know. But I think applying money to put people back to being productive, earning money and contributing to the GDP is a responsible investment (as opposed, for example, to dumping a trillion dollars in a middle eastern country where we are not wanted).

[john70t]

Berm houses don't burn.
They require less, and sometimes none, additional heating/cooling because it's around a constant 55deg, year-round, 4ft below the frost line.


The impact of regional overpopulation upon other regions is another story altogether......

[dd74]

For the sake of argument, I've heard of some very derelict dealings on FEMA's part, and some deep dishonesty within the Malibu area. For instance, when past fires occurred in areas similar to the Corral Canyon part of Malibu, FEMA has simply declared the entire area a disaster without physically going in to see first hand how many structures were damaged. Why? Simply because these areas are quite difficult to access, particularly after a fire or landslide, and the FEMA rep. was just too wimpy, lazy or whatever to go in and note addresses.

Conversely, in these same areas FEMA blanketed as destroyed, there have been a few houses that were not "destroyed," but rather slightly damaged or untouched. Still, in some cases, that did not prevent those residents from collecting a nice six-figure check for - who knows - redecorating.

Of course, this doesn't happen just in Malibu. New Orleans and the surrounding parishes were wrought with this sort of fraud. So if one is going to spread hate to the rich of Malibu, don't forget to include the poor south of Lafayette, La.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by john70t

Berm houses don't burn.
They require less, and sometimes none, additional heating/cooling because it's around a constant 55deg, year-round, 4ft below the frost line.


The impact of regional overpopulation upon other regions is another story altogether......

True, but the stuff inside WILL burn. There's also (often) an issue with air stagnation and/or being trapped in a fire due to lack of alternate egress paths. They can be built well to address these issues, but frequently aren't.

It's also difficult to construct them in this area due to soil conditions. Lots of rock, not a lot of dirt piles. If you're interested in sustainable design, PM me I'd love to discuss with you. I find this area very interesting and have a few really good books I could recommend.

Funny how the media plays stuff like this - naturally they interviewed the stupidest-sounding person imaginable who was lamenting having to move her horses to another part of the area and concerned that one of her guest houses might burn down. . .

I mean, could you find someone to interview that it would be LESS easy to sympathize with?

[Mule]

I wonder how many times CA burns up for every one flood in New Orleans?