Malibu in flames again

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Much worse than last month. 35 homes lost as of 10AM today.

Winds are less, so shouldn't be as hard to contain...

scottmandue · 11-24-2007, 10:37 AM

This would explain the large strange looking brownish cloud I saw over the ocean this morning when leaving for work.

I hope the winds stay down so they can knock this one out quick.

sammyg2 · 11-24-2007, 12:09 PM

They suspect some kids were camping near there and started the fire but it's just speculation at this point.

strupgolf · 11-24-2007, 03:16 PM

Its hard to understand the damage. When I heard 35 homes destroyed, these weren't just homes, they were castles. The TV footage showed homes burning, and the size was fantastic. This area is full of upscale homes that must have been 10,000 sf. But if you live in a area where fires are common, then you have to take the good and the bad.We, as taxpayers, should not have to subsidize the rebuilding of these homes. If they have insurance, fine, but dont call on the rest of us to bail them out.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by strupgolf

Its hard to understand the damage. When I heard 35 homes destroyed, these weren't just homes, they were castles. The TV footage showed homes burning, and the size was fantastic. This area is full of upscale homes that must have been 10,000 sf. But if you live in a area where fires are common, then you have to take the good and the bad.We, as taxpayers, should not have to subsidize the rebuilding of these homes. If they have insurance, fine, but dont call on the rest of us to bail them out.

Not sure where you get your information, but most of the homes were in the 1,000-1,200 square foot range. These are the 'affordable' neighborhoods of the 'bu. Contractors and schoolteachers and working stiffs, mostly.

strupgolf · 11-24-2007, 04:29 PM

I got my info from TV, showing homes that were hugh, to say the least. If that area is the "affordable" one, I'm living in the hood. Maybe I should be a teacher.

Hugh R · 11-24-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strupgolf

I got my info from TV, showing homes that were hugh, to say the least.

Hey!! Leave me out of this

I have friends who live in the area, and yes, most were 1,200 to 2,000 sq. ft. The news shows the Castles, because that gets peoples attention. I live in brush area, and I'm very well insured, and have spent lots cutting dead wood and clearing brush. It wouldn't dawn on me to go for public monies. But on the other hand, if the gubmit is stupid enough to give it to me, I might just take it.

Racerbvd · Racerbvd's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Hey!! Leave me out of this

I have friends who live in the area, and yes, most were 1,200 to 2,000 sq. ft. The news shows the Castles, because that gets peoples attention. I live in brush area, and I'm very well insured, and have spent lots cutting dead wood and clearing brush. It wouldn't dawn on me to go for public monies. But on the other hand, if the gubmit is stupid enough to give it to me, I might just take it.

Well, one thing that people forget about when a high dollar home goes out (in FL we have people not wanting to maintain/protect beachs & homes from erosion) is that if you (again, I'm going on the beach erostion bit, as I have friends who are paying $30-50K in property taxes) is that if you kick the guy who is down, and then the guy doesn't rebuild, the state has just lost $30K a year in taxes. I'm not versed on the fire bit, but it hasn't been that big of a problem, and most people I know are like Hugh, they have insurance.

dd74 · 11-25-2007, 12:01 AM

49 houses lost...

campbellcj · 11-25-2007, 10:46 AM

It is scary stuff considering the miles and miles of fuel (brush) all around. This is what I saw from my front yard around 2pm yesterday.

Fortunately (for us) the wind was blowing in the other direction, like last month.

sammyg2 · 11-25-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strupgolf

Its hard to understand the damage. When I heard 35 homes destroyed, these weren't just homes, they were castles. The TV footage showed homes burning, and the size was fantastic. This area is full of upscale homes that must have been 10,000 sf. But if you live in a area where fires are common, then you have to take the good and the bad.We, as taxpayers, should not have to subsidize the rebuilding of these homes. If they have insurance, fine, but dont call on the rest of us to bail them out.

Wow, off the wall at least. Uninformed is more like it.

Ever stop to think how much taxes they pay on those $5 million homes? Lots more than you do. Ever stop to think how much income taxes those wealthier people pay? Lots more than you do.
Yes they have insurance and will pay to rebuild their own homes, but you are seriously messed up by thinking that you support them in any way, shape, or form. The opposite is true. They are supporting YOU. The wealthy pay more than their fair share and you should be thanking them, not condeming them.
The top 5% of the nation as far as income pay HALF of all the taxes collected. HALF!
What we are doing is to help to pay for the fire-fighting effort. That would be no different if the house was 500 square feet or 5,000.
So unless you are the top 4% you have no room to b!tch.

Sonic dB · Sonic dB's Garage

I agree with you sammy on the tax issue. The wealthy pull more than their share of weight in this country.

Here is an article on the fires from todays detroit news. Note that bass player Flea of the Red Hot Chili Peppers lost his home.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071124/NATION/711240412

Moneyguy1 · 11-25-2007, 12:52 PM

Just a case of square foot envy, guys......

strupgolf · 11-25-2007, 01:12 PM

You are the guys who are "off the wall". I have nothing against the rich and famous, or the poor and helpless, or big houses or small shacks. But I'm like any other taxpaying person. I have insurance on my home, and if it burns down,etc, I would'nt expect ANY help in the form of a handout from the govt. I learned to be responsible for my own actions, and not look to the GOVT to help me out whenever things dont go just like they should. They pay lots of taxes, great. Who does'nt. Thats why the country is going nowhere, because everyone wants the GOVT. to fufill all their wants and needs. If you build your home in the hills that are prone to fire, then build it with materials that wont burn. You always see homes that dont, they were the ones built by someone who took responsibility for their own actions. See ya.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

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

Here are Malibu Bowl homes on the market last week:

http://guests.themls.com/profile_page.cfm?mls=07-213149

http://guests.themls.com/profile_page.cfm?mls=07-173301

http://guests.themls.com/profile_page.cfm?mls=07-182821

http://guests.themls.com/profile_page.cfm?mls=07-188655

http://guests.themls.com/profile_page.cfm?mls=07-176249

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?

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

Rick V · 11-25-2007, 01:27 PM

Man those prices are just insane. No comments about the rich, poor, middle or upper classes here just pointing out that 800,000 would by lots of land with a mantion on it here. And you call that a low income neighborhood? I just don't get it, the weeds don't grow any better there than they do anywhere else. Nutz, IMO

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Those houses were all in the $400K range 5 years ago. That's a function of our R.E. bubble.

Most have lots in the 5500 square foot range.

There's a bit of a premium for living in Malibu. But you'll find similar pricing in West L.A.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by strupgolf

If you build your home in the hills that are prone to fire, then build it with materials that wont burn.

yeah...what he said. Build them out of rock and stone. And make your sheets and pillowcases out of sand. And your furniture out of asbestos.

They're just asking for it. Just like people in tornados...why in the world would you live in any of the states that have tornados? Or hurricanes. Or floods. It is crazy. You should only be allowed to build in "safe" areas.

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

svandamme · svandamme's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic

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

well duh Tod!

if you make a house out of stone and sand pillows , and asbestos furniture,
cause you live in a fire prone enviroment, i'de think you'd simple use a rubber and there won't be any kids that can burn

it's the easiest and cheapest part of fireproofing ones life

sammyg2 · 11-25-2007, 03:56 PM

Lesse, houses built out of materials that don't burn.
Hmmm, well they have fire-resistant roofs made out of materials such as clay tile or composite shingles, no wood shingles or shake are allowed here. They outlawed them along time ago.
Almost all of them have stucco walls, and unless they changed it, stucco doesn't easily burn. It's cement.
We geez, what else can we do?
I should be able to think of something, I've fought fires. I've got diplomas from fire fighting schools (Texas A&M, University of Nevada Reno) and instructed at the dodd beals fire-fighting academy. Why can't we make a house that doesn't burn?

When a house is in a fire storm it can litterally explode from the inside out.
The truth is when a fire gets hot enough any structure will burn. ANY structure. Often a house in a situation like this can start burning on the inside before the outside starts burning. The radiant heat is so great the curtains or drapes or blinds can catch fire beforev the house does. Maybe we should stop using drapes? I'll bring that us and give you full credit of course.

With a few exceptions these houses are more fire-proof than almost any houses anywhere.
There are a few wooden sided houses out there, but they aren't modern. They have been around for a long time. .

I'm a bit confused about your repeated reference to these people asking for handouts or government help. AFAIK it hasn't happened. Maybe you have California confused with Louisiana.

I see that you live in Indiana. Do they ever have floods there? How about tornados? Ice storms? No natural disasters ever? Must be the perfect place. We'll start shipping people there as soon as possible. How many can you take, 10, 15, 20 million?

You said that "they pay lots of taxes, great. Wo doesn't?"
Well, people who make significantly less money don't pay lots of taxes, that's who.
That was my point. People who earn in the top 5% pay Half of all tax revenues collected, and the other 95% of the people pay the other half. Obviously the folk in the 95% group don't pay "lots of taxes" when compared to the top 5%.
Which group are you in?
I know which group I'm in and I'm still waiting for my thank you note

There's another slant to this thing, in 2005 (most recent I can find right now http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html ) for every dollar the people in California pay in federal tax, the US government sent back or spent 78 cents in California.
We paid a dollar and got back 78 cents. New Mexico paid a dollar and got back $2.03. Mississippi got back $2.02, Alaska got back $1.84, Louisiana got back $1.78, why would California only get back 78 cents?
Hmmmmm, maybe I better check to see how Indiana's doing.

Ahhh, here it is: Indiana got back $1.05 for every dollar they paid in. Not bad, your state is almost carrying it's fair share. Not quite, but close. Indiana is ranked 30th. That means that there are 20 states that pay a high percentage of what they got back than Indiana.
California ranked 43rd, so there are only 7 states that paid a higher percentage than California.
Interestingly enough, the two states that got back the least compared to what they paid were New Jersey and Nevada. Don't both those states have legalized gambling?
Kinda skews the curve. People from other states tend to travel there to lose money and that help pay more taxes.