So Cal Fires (8 Viewers)

[Yo Mama]

Can’t believe there are now evacuations in Encino. The size of this Palisades fire is insane.

 

[rockaction]

For all those that are wondering about uninsured places, I can attest to the local news just beginning to cover this phenomenon. To many people, their notices probably feel like weeks ago. I know when they cancelled our auto last January (because Farmer’s and then State Farm were both pulling out of California for very political reasons, which I know because I called an agent my brother knew from State Farm and he gave me the straight dope), I got a few months notice, but time flies and it feels like two weeks ago.

Anybody saying that insurers leaving California is due solely to climate change and not the regulatory apparatus of the state is— I think—incorrect in that assessment. I don’t know exactly how or why, but I did watch two separate long-ish videos on it and a lot had to do with the regulatory state here.

And I’m not looking to get political, but chalking this up to climate change and climate change alone (and there is indeed a large component of climate change that goes into the new prices and coverage) is erroneous.

Because if it is just climate change, there needs to be a policy change in how we regulate insurance. Telling people simply “tough ****—you’re now uninsurable and at risk” is not acceptable in any society, even the one with the most dynamist capitalistic outlook you can have. Your government will collapse if you attempt to do that because now you’re trying to tell people to live in theory rather than in practice, which has analogous cousins I don’t want to mention for fear of red meat and red herrings. But you can’t have a system predicated and based on totally uprooting people constantly while declaring their best investment null and void.

I just want to make sure my free market friends aren’t adopting this posture. The government will collapse (even if another reason is stated) if you do that. That’s my sincerely held belief that’s probably not too far off.

I have State Farm. Had it for 24 years at my current residence. My agent was my friend before I got insurance with her. When there were fires across the street from me, I called her and she said you’re good. Don’t worry about it. Then there was another fire across the canyon. Multiple 10M plus houses burned. Over the years there are more isolated incidents. Some huge fires. So far so good. I’m grandfathered in, in her words. No chance they drop me. I’ll be calling her in the next few weeks to ensure this is still the case.

Good luck, man. I’m also wondering what the fallout from this will be. This is going to have a huge ripple effect even to those who are seemingly unaffected for the time being. My heart goes out to all the people who lost their homes, are displaced, and have lost fortunes. It also goes out to all of us because all of us in the Southwest (not just California) are going to be dealing with the ramifications of this for quite some time. It’s tragic.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

No rain in forecast for remainder of 10 days and seemingly thru Jan. Red flag winds next week again. Will get worse before it gets better

Maybe. This was an anomaly. Been here for 50+ years. I’ve never seen this before. the 93 Laguna beach fire whipped through a neighborhood like these fires.. There was a small one a couple years ago across the canyon from me. 10-20 huge homes burned. The insane winds and super dry landscape just created the perfect conditions. Unreal.

This is an anomaly??? You lived in Cali 50 years, you should know better.

100+ mph winds in LA are an anomaly. I do know better.

Of course, depending on semantics I guess. But long-time Cali residents will say the weather has changed over time, no question. I think it's silly to dispute as much or paint this is a one-time event. This particular situation sticks out, sure, but attempting to pin this as some sort of one-time occurrence or freak event is short-sighted. In this ONE area, um, okay. But the ongoing fire issues in Cali are far from some anomaly.

There's a reason insurance companies want no part of Cali, many having pulled the plug.

He's silly for saying the truth, but not saying anything about the point you're trying to make and then calling him silly about it. Cool. Seems like the right place and time to win that argument against yourself.

He's silly for saying what "truth", exactly? That this is an anomaly? First of all, do tell, what disaster isn't some form of an "anomaly", or "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected."

I disagree and I simply pointed to insurance companies knowing full-well what has (and will) be going on for some time now. I've lived here longer, who cares, so save that part. You tried to get homeowners insurance here lately? You don't think that speaks volumes? You want to dispute as much, go for it. We can hang up and listen to the New Yorker tell us all about California.

There was a point in his post, to what degree can be disputed I suppose, but the part about this disaster being a sort of one-off anomaly is nothing but a convenient way to cloak an ongoing problem with a nice little blanket.

But hey, take care of your internet clique-bro, it's super important, speaking of "cool" and "right time and place". A time and place I doubt you've ever experienced.

I'll start by saying your initial and subsequent posts rubbed me the wrong way- in combatively arguing the point not made about insurance and semantics of anomaly that ignored the tragic moment and events. I don't like people taking moments like these to push any agenda against people trying to discuss other lhings. Yes- absolutely time and place matters. It's disappointing to me that you or others with their own axes to grind, can't somehow see that.

I've always respected and liked you and your posts, as far as I recall. Same with the OP. I don't consider myself part of any clique here- you're all equally pretty to me. I make these posts because I see something I don't like and am responding to that, not the people involved.

Your insurance agenda is clearly and terribly valid. I'm literally having to deal with it myself right now... In California, and unsure what's going to happen. This is a discussion I'd be very interested in continuing in another time and thread. I'll defer to your residency - I only lived there 20+ years.

Your copied definition of anomaly is what this is though. Historic, by definition, is unprecedented and deviating from the norm. Growing up there, I know that fires are also the norm. Fire season gives way to wet/mudslide season. So If the heavily populated areas of SoCal keep getting caught in windswept infernos like this, I'll happily (or sadly) revisit the new norm.

There is so much here, and I can appreciate the effort, thanks. I did not come back to this forum for two days simply because I didn't want to read more about it (zero offense to you but some of which is predictable and depressing, to me).

With that said, I'll try and cut to the chase. I have been through this disaster. And in every way imaginable and will end this part at that. I would like to have the balls it takes for guys like capella to express thoughts of despair and the like but I am not there.

So yeah, calling it some sort of an anomaly touches a nerve with me....or whatever you two would like to call it. But what you can't call it, unless you've actually really been through a tragedy like this, is trying to be "cool". Or, acting like you have a clue. You want a "copied definition", do ya? The insurance reference was nothing more than proof of the much bigger picture/issue than your convenient anomalies.


Go, try going through it, and then tell us how it all pans out.


Your simplified thoughts from afar weigh as heavy as a feather.

 

[Navin Johnson]

For all those that are wondering about uninsured places, I can attest to the local news just beginning to cover this phenomenon. To many people, their notices probably feel like weeks ago. I know when they cancelled our auto last January (because Farmer’s and then State Farm were both pulling out of California for very political reasons, which I know because I called an agent my brother knew from State Farm and he gave me the straight dope), I got a few months notice, but time flies and it feels like two weeks ago.

Anybody saying that insurers leaving California is due solely to climate change and not the regulatory apparatus of the state is— I think—incorrect in that assessment. I don’t know exactly how or why, but I did watch two separate long-ish videos on it and a lot had to do with the regulatory state here.

And I’m not looking to get political, but chalking this up to climate change and climate change alone (and there is indeed a large component of climate change that goes into the new prices and coverage) is erroneous.

Because if it is just climate change, there needs to be a policy change in how we regulate insurance. Telling people simply “tough ****—you’re now uninsurable and at risk” is not acceptable in any society, even the one with the most dynamist capitalistic outlook you can have. Your government will collapse if you attempt to do that because now you’re trying to tell people to live in theory rather than in practice, which has analogous cousins I don’t want to mention for fear of red meat and red herrings. But you can’t have a system predicated and based on totally uprooting people constantly while declaring their best investment null and void.

I just want to make sure my free market friends aren’t adopting this posture. The government will collapse (even if another reason is stated) if you do that. That’s my sincerely held belief that’s probably not too far off.

I have State Farm. Had it for 24 years at my current residence. My agent was my friend before I got insurance with her. When there were fires across the street from me, I called her and she said you’re good. Don’t worry about it. Then there was another fire across the canyon. Multiple 10M plus houses burned. Over the years there are more isolated incidents. Some huge fires. So far so good. I’m grandfathered in, in her words. No chance they drop me. I’ll be calling her in the next few weeks to ensure this is still the case.

In the grand scheme of things, your agent will have minimal input on whether you are dropped or not.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

The internet is full of lemmings. It’s frightening.

Be more cool to you fellow posters.

Given how much the public has been lied to it’s not crazy to question terrorism or Ineptitude.

There is nothing inherently wrong brining up ideas even if unfounded and having a discussion. Shutting down people for their thoughts and calling them lemmings = very uncool.

 

[BobbyLayne]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

 

[Chaos34]

hard to find good details, and it shouldn't be, but it's certain at least the top of the southwestern ridge above mandeville canyon has burned is burning down towards some very cool sort of hidden homes there. if it gets to those homes in the bottom of the canyon, as mentioned a couple days ago, it's a steep brush and long grass fuel filled climb to the 405. beautiful mountaingate, where I used to live, is the only thing in its path. if god forbid it hops the 405, that's bel-air. that's to the east. to the south brentwood is being evacuated and the pics i've seen look pretty ominous. to the north, the luxury hills part of encino is being evacuated and being threatened by the same kind of geography and fuel as mountaingate. i heard a helicopter pilot say they'd put down enough retardant to save encino from mulholland to the valley. hope he's right. along the 405 connecting these places the exits for sunset, getty center and skirball have been closed.

 

[culdeus]

Well our close family friends for sure lost their house. And their school burned to the ground too. She's going to Harvard so I mean I don't even know if they care if she finishes out the year, but ok.

I offered to take their daughter in to finish out her HS Sr. year here. Sounds like it will happen.

Damn, sorry to hear it. Palisades or Altadena?

Palisades. They are like 4 blocks off the beach. They evac before I had even seen this in the news.

 

[culdeus]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

 

[BobbyLayne]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

I was trying to express the why some keep asking about arson or terrorism. It's not my perspective, but I've run into it a lot this week.

When you are talking to folks who keep talking about arson or terrorism, what often (eventually) comes out is they're don't believe climate change is a serious problem.

 

[BobbyLayne]

is there a good YouTube live news stream? the one i usually use isn't working

LiveNow from Fox News (on a lot of smart tvs also) has been on it exclusive from Fox 11 LA.

I have ~ fifty local Fox channels on my Sling app, and have been watching Fox 11 on the regular since you posted this. Really great coverage, and free of any speculation or deviating from the main topic - just straight coverage of here's what's happening where since when.

 

[The Z Machine]

Damn, this thing still going? I heard from my parents that the wind was significantly lower on Thursday and yesterday. I figured they'd get it contained during that lull.

 

[Sammy3469]

is there a good YouTube live news stream? the one i usually use isn't working

LiveNow from Fox News (on a lot of smart tvs also) has been on it exclusive from Fox 11 LA.

I have ~ fifty local Fox channels on my Sling app, and have been watching Fox 11 on the regular since you posted this. Really great coverage, and free of any speculation or deviating from the main topic - just straight coverage of here's what's happening where since when.

The local media coverage has been absolutely fantastic during this and keeps saving lives.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

I was trying to express the why some keep asking about arson or terrorism. It's not my perspective, but I've run into it a lot this week.

When you are talking to folks who keep talking about arson or terrorism, what often (eventually) comes out is they're don't believe climate change is a serious problem.

Climate change makes wildfires worse. Also, wildfires are often caused by arson.

Both of those statements are just true and in no way contradict one another.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

For all those that are wondering about uninsured places, I can attest to the local news just beginning to cover this phenomenon. To many people, their notices probably feel like weeks ago. I know when they cancelled our auto last January (because Farmer’s and then State Farm were both pulling out of California for very political reasons, which I know because I called an agent my brother knew from State Farm and he gave me the straight dope), I got a few months notice, but time flies and it feels like two weeks ago.

Anybody saying that insurers leaving California is due solely to climate change and not the regulatory apparatus of the state is— I think—incorrect in that assessment. I don’t know exactly how or why, but I did watch two separate long-ish videos on it and a lot had to do with the regulatory state here.

And I’m not looking to get political, but chalking this up to climate change and climate change alone (and there is indeed a large component of climate change that goes into the new prices and coverage) is erroneous.

Because if it is just climate change, there needs to be a policy change in how we regulate insurance. Telling people simply “tough ****—you’re now uninsurable and at risk” is not acceptable in any society, even the one with the most dynamist capitalistic outlook you can have. Your government will collapse if you attempt to do that because now you’re trying to tell people to live in theory rather than in practice, which has analogous cousins I don’t want to mention for fear of red meat and red herrings. But you can’t have a system predicated and based on totally uprooting people constantly while declaring their best investment null and void.

I just want to make sure my free market friends aren’t adopting this posture. The government will collapse (even if another reason is stated) if you do that. That’s my sincerely held belief that’s probably not too far off.

I have State Farm. Had it for 24 years at my current residence. My agent was my friend before I got insurance with her. When there were fires across the street from me, I called her and she said you’re good. Don’t worry about it. Then there was another fire across the canyon. Multiple 10M plus houses burned. Over the years there are more isolated incidents. Some huge fires. So far so good. I’m grandfathered in, in her words. No chance they drop me. I’ll be calling her in the next few weeks to ensure this is still the case.

In the grand scheme of things, your agent will have minimal input on whether you are dropped or not.

True. But as a 30 year friend, she will at least tell me the truth.

 

[djmich]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

I was trying to express the why some keep asking about arson or terrorism. It's not my perspective, but I've run into it a lot this week.

When you are talking to folks who keep talking about arson or terrorism, what often (eventually) comes out is they're don't believe climate change is a serious problem.

Climate change makes wildfires worse. Also, wildfires are often caused by arson.

Both of those statements are just true and in no way contradict one another.

Another true statement would be whether its arson, climate change, or a dude looking to smoke out a bees nest...all of those are supporting reasons why localities need to be extra prepared for catastrophic vulnerabilities.

 

[SoBeDad]

There are many volunteer efforts to help displaced people. My daughter and her BF will be at one this weekend where they sort though donated items such as food, clothing, baby supplies to give to evacuees and first responders.

Regarding the rebuilding and insurance crisis there are similarities and differences between what happened during Hurricane Andrew south of Miami in 1992. About 25,000 to 50,000 homes were destroyed, 80,000 damaged, along with many schools and businesses. My sister's home lost much of its roof, many windows and doors. She stayed with family until a FEMA trailer was placed behind her home during a rebuild that took about a year. I think she had a generator in the beginning, because the power grid took a long time to fix. Right after the hurricane the government response was too slow in some people's mind, so the phrase "where is the calvary" became popular. The area of greatest impact was middle class homes south of Miami, many in newer developments, so most had mortgages and the required insurance. Not like the LA fires, where most of the damage is in exclusive and older neighborhoods.

Eventually, my sister's home was rebuilt, including a new pool with $ left-over from the insurance payout. It's well documented that insurance companies were too generous and there were many fraudulent claims. That led to huge increases in the cost of insurance, at one time around 2000 I was paying 8K for a house a block away from Biscayne Bay with a value of about 300k. Insurance companies became more creative with their policies, so my insurance went down to about 4k 10 years later, but with huge deductibles and no coverage for contents. Half of the premium was for windstorm, a good portion for flood. Now, I'm reading that the average cost to insure a house in Miami-Dade is north of 10k, and that includes many homes far away from the coast including this modest one on a ridge about 4 miles inland from Biscayne Bay. Florida's state-run insurance company of last resort, Citizens, is in better shape than California's, FAIR. FL got luckly that the last few hurricanes missed heavily populated areas. A CAT 5 direct hit on Miami, FL, or Tampa could create a worse insurance crisis. Low insurance payouts after Ian in 2022 have been challenged by many, the insurance pendulum may have swung too far in favor of Insurance Companies ( Florida insurers deny nearly half of hurricane claims, ratings agency says).

After Andrew, building codes required better roofs (nails instead of staples, plywood instead of particle board which is crazy that it was even allowed, better wind resistant design) and impact windows or shutters. I imagine LA/CA will require fire resistant homes in the rebuilding, which will make homes even more expensive, but could have a positive impact on the cost of insurance.

The economic recovery was slow, but in the end the rebuilding after Andrew had a big positive impact on the economy. I hope the same happens in LA, but I'm not sure as I think many will choose not to rebuild and move to safer areas of CA or lower cost states. CA has great weather and natural beauty, but has been losing population for several years, mostly due to the high cost of housing and high taxes.

 

[tommyGunZ]

10-15% of wildfires are the result of arson according to CAL Fire.

 

[tommyGunZ]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

I was trying to express the why some keep asking about arson or terrorism. It's not my perspective, but I've run into it a lot this week.

When you are talking to folks who keep talking about arson or terrorism, what often (eventually) comes out is they're don't believe climate change is a serious problem.

Climate change makes wildfires worse. Also, wildfires are often caused by arson.

Both of those statements are just true and in no way contradict one another.

Another true statement would be whether its arson, climate change, or a dude looking to smoke out a bees nest...all of those are supporting reasons why localities need to be extra prepared for catastrophic vulnerabilities.

Even if climate change played zero role in the start of the fire, it’s almost always part of what results.

Agree 100% that we have to be better prepared to fight these fires. It’s going to cost a lot of money to do that. Do you think US taxpayers are ready to pay for it?

 

[djmich]

10-15% of wildfires are the result of arson according to CAL Fire.

Do you know if a homeless guy starting a fire to stay warm or me blowtorching a hornets nest are considered arson...or does arson require malintent.

 

[djmich]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

I was trying to express the why some keep asking about arson or terrorism. It's not my perspective, but I've run into it a lot this week.

When you are talking to folks who keep talking about arson or terrorism, what often (eventually) comes out is they're don't believe climate change is a serious problem.

Climate change makes wildfires worse. Also, wildfires are often caused by arson.

Both of those statements are just true and in no way contradict one another.

Another true statement would be whether its arson, climate change, or a dude looking to smoke out a bees nest...all of those are supporting reasons why localities need to be extra prepared for catastrophic vulnerabilities.

Even if climate change played zero role in the start of the fire, it’s almost always part of what results.

Agree 100% that we have to be better prepared to fight these fires. It’s going to cost a lot of money to do that. Do you think US taxpayers are ready to pay for it?

I'd replace taxpayers with citizens, not sure why a taxpayer living in Georgia should subsidize the cost of living for someone in Florida or California. Citizens should need to be prepared to pay to protect their homes, otherwise they should purchase their homes elsewhere. And the answer is someone is paying for it whether its insurance or the damage and repair.

 

[Gr00vus]

Well now it's threatening to cross Mulholland Drive. I'm just north of the Balboa/Woodley Park so Wednesday morning the fire there was closer smoke but not as elevated so didn't see any orange. Now the hills I can see on the horizon have flames.

I hope they can get it cut down before it gets closer. Just in case, start prepping to go. I know it sucks (we had to evac Tues night), but be ready.

Your family safe? Your home?

All good here so far. Super fortunate. Have family and friends throughout the area not so fortunate. Rough times ahead around here. Trying to figure out how to help.

How are things north of the border?

Thanks for the kind thoughts.

 

[culdeus]

Containment updates from Calfire as of this AM:
Palisades 11%
Eaton 15%
Kenneth 80%
Hurst 76%
Lidia 100%
Archer 0%

 

[tommyGunZ]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

I was trying to express the why some keep asking about arson or terrorism. It's not my perspective, but I've run into it a lot this week.

When you are talking to folks who keep talking about arson or terrorism, what often (eventually) comes out is they're don't believe climate change is a serious problem.

Climate change makes wildfires worse. Also, wildfires are often caused by arson.

Both of those statements are just true and in no way contradict one another.

Another true statement would be whether its arson, climate change, or a dude looking to smoke out a bees nest...all of those are supporting reasons why localities need to be extra prepared for catastrophic vulnerabilities.

Even if climate change played zero role in the start of the fire, it’s almost always part of what results.

Agree 100% that we have to be better prepared to fight these fires. It’s going to cost a lot of money to do that. Do you think US taxpayers are ready to pay for it?

I'd replace taxpayers with citizens, not sure why a taxpayer living in Georgia should subsidize the cost of living for someone in Florida or California. Citizens should need to be prepared to pay to protect their homes, otherwise they should purchase their homes elsewhere. And the answer is someone is paying for it whether it’s insurance or the damage and repair.

Perhaps because on net, taxpayers in Florida and California subsidize taxpayers Georgia every year?

 

[Gr00vus]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

I was trying to express the why some keep asking about arson or terrorism. It's not my perspective, but I've run into it a lot this week.

When you are talking to folks who keep talking about arson or terrorism, what often (eventually) comes out is they're don't believe climate change is a serious problem.

Climate change makes wildfires worse. Also, wildfires are often caused by arson.

Both of those statements are just true and in no way contradict one another.

Another true statement would be whether its arson, climate change, or a dude looking to smoke out a bees nest...all of those are supporting reasons why localities need to be extra prepared for catastrophic vulnerabilities.

Even if climate change played zero role in the start of the fire, it’s almost always part of what results.

Agree 100% that we have to be better prepared to fight these fires. It’s going to cost a lot of money to do that. Do you think US taxpayers are ready to pay for it?

I'd replace taxpayers with citizens, not sure why a taxpayer living in Georgia should subsidize the cost of living for someone in Florida or California. Citizens should need to be prepared to pay to protect their homes, otherwise they should purchase their homes elsewhere. And the answer is someone is paying for it whether its insurance or the damage and repair.

Could be state taxes/taxpayers.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Containment updates from Calfire as of this AM:
Palisades 11%
Eaton 15%
Kenneth 80%
Hurst 76%
Lidia 100%
Archer 0%

+ Sunset 100%?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Still a lot going on but grateful they’ve had something of a respite. I imagine that at least gives them enough of a breather to reorganize & reform.

It’s a widespread catastrophic emergency situation, I suppose there are no breaks, but seems less chaotic.

From afar…

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

Also good to see that Canada can still act like good neighbours even while an incoming president threatens to destabilize our country

Mexico too

Even Texas is sending help.

 

[culdeus]

Containment updates from Calfire as of this AM:
Palisades 11%
Eaton 15%
Kenneth 80%
Hurst 76%
Lidia 100%
Archer 0%

+ Sunset 100%?

Not on the list.

 

[TripItUp]

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

As I explained earlier, these fires are very far apart. It just seems logical that five fires occurring at once is not a coincidence.

Floating embers doesn't explain it for me.

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

I'm just interested in the root cause of 5 or 6 fires all occurring within 24 hours. That doesn't seem like coincidence to me. Maybe it is a coincidence, I just don't think I'd bet on that.

Eventually there will be a report that explains the cause of the fires...utility lines? arson? spontaneous combustion? I just want to understand what actually caused the fires. Dry conditions and wind alone are not causes. They can be contributing factors but they cannot be stand alone causes. Wind can blow down a power line, but wind probably didn't blow down a power line in 5 different places, although at least that's a plausible explanation...which we don't have yet.

 

[Yo Mama]

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

As I explained earlier, these fires are very far apart. It just seems logical that five fires occurring at once is not a coincidence.

Floating embers doesn't explain it for me.

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

I'm just interested in the root cause of 5 or 6 fires all occurring within 24 hours. That doesn't seem like coincidence to me. Maybe it is a coincidence, I just don't think I'd bet on that.

Eventually there will be a report that explains the cause of the fires...utility lines? arson? spontaneous combustion? I just want to understand what actually caused the fires. Dry conditions and wind alone are not causes. They can be contributing factors but they cannot be stand alone causes. Wind can blow down a power line, but wind probably didn't blow down a power line in 5 different places, although at least that's a plausible explanation...which we don't have yet.

When there are larger wind events in Southern CA, lots of times there are multiple fires that aren’t related. The dry and windy conditions are there throughout the area and make these fires more likely everywhere. LA is a massive geographical area and it’s possible to have multiple fires at the same time that weren’t caused by the same incident but are enhanced by the same conditions. Nobody (that I’m aware of) is saying the palisades fire caused the Eaton fire or any of the other fires. It’s not some planned conspiracy.

 

[SFBayDuck]

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

As I explained earlier, these fires are very far apart. It just seems logical that five fires occurring at once is not a coincidence.

Floating embers doesn't explain it for me.

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

I'm just interested in the root cause of 5 or 6 fires all occurring within 24 hours. That doesn't seem like coincidence to me. Maybe it is a coincidence, I just don't think I'd bet on that.

Eventually there will be a report that explains the cause of the fires...utility lines? arson? spontaneous combustion? I just want to understand what actually caused the fires. Dry conditions and wind alone are not causes. They can be contributing factors but they cannot be stand alone causes. Wind can blow down a power line, but wind probably didn't blow down a power line in 5 different places, although at least that's a plausible explanation...which we don't have yet.

There are over 175 fire stations spread all across LA County. Because little fires happen all the time. What doesn't happen all the time - 100 mph winds after 9 months of no rain that can turn a normally harmless backyard turkey fryer overflow or overzealous wasp nest removal into what we're seeing this week.

 

[fatness]

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

What I asked you wasn't political, at least on my end. If you had brought up Peyton Manning multiple times in the topic I would have asked the same thing.

Have you found any news, police, or fire reports saying terrorism is suspected in one or more of these fires?

 

[TripItUp]

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

As I explained earlier, these fires are very far apart. It just seems logical that five fires occurring at once is not a coincidence.

Floating embers doesn't explain it for me.

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

I'm just interested in the root cause of 5 or 6 fires all occurring within 24 hours. That doesn't seem like coincidence to me. Maybe it is a coincidence, I just don't think I'd bet on that.

Eventually there will be a report that explains the cause of the fires...utility lines? arson? spontaneous combustion? I just want to understand what actually caused the fires. Dry conditions and wind alone are not causes. They can be contributing factors but they cannot be stand alone causes. Wind can blow down a power line, but wind probably didn't blow down a power line in 5 different places, although at least that's a plausible explanation...which we don't have yet.

When there are larger wind events in Southern CA, lots of times there are multiple fires that aren’t related. The dry and windy conditions are there throughout the area and make these fires more likely everywhere. LA is a massive geographical area and it’s possible to have multiple fires at the same time that weren’t caused by the same incident but are enhanced by the same conditions. Nobody (that I’m aware of) is saying the palisades fire caused the Eaton fire or any of the other fires. It’s not some planned conspiracy.

Sure, but that does not explain the actual cause.

That’s all I’m trying to understand. I’m surprised the media hasn’t really discussed much.

They are discussing wind…not a cause by itself

They are discussing dry conditions…not a cause by itself

They are discussing water availability issues…not a cause by itself

What they are actually not discussing is what caused the fires. I’m not a conspiracy theorist per se so I’m assuming there is an answer that everybody knows except me?

 

[TripItUp]

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

What I asked you wasn't political, at least on my end. If you had brought up Peyton Manning multiple times in the topic I would have asked the same thing.

Have you found any news, police, or fire reports saying terrorism is suspected in one or more of these fires?

I haven’t found any news that explains the actual cause at all, which I find really odd.

 

[BeTheMatch]

The key to identifying the cause of the still-raging Palisades Fire lies on a brush-covered hilltop where the blaze broke out just after 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday.

Fire investigators are still working to determine what sparked the inferno, but experts say it’s easy to rule out one common cause of wildfires: lightning. The region was free of stormy weather this week. The area near the Temescal Ridge Trail also appears to be free of power lines or transformers, which rules out another potential cause.

NBC News

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

As I explained earlier, these fires are very far apart. It just seems logical that five fires occurring at once is not a coincidence.

Floating embers doesn't explain it for me.

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

I'm just interested in the root cause of 5 or 6 fires all occurring within 24 hours. That doesn't seem like coincidence to me. Maybe it is a coincidence, I just don't think I'd bet on that.

Eventually there will be a report that explains the cause of the fires...utility lines? arson? spontaneous combustion? I just want to understand what actually caused the fires. Dry conditions and wind alone are not causes. They can be contributing factors but they cannot be stand alone causes. Wind can blow down a power line, but wind probably didn't blow down a power line in 5 different places, although at least that's a plausible explanation...which we don't have yet.

You’ve ignored every explanation that doesn’t fit your narrative. No one is saying that embers from Altadena started the palisades fire. Embers can and will travel miles in 70-100 mph winds. But I’m not hearing anyone saying one caused the other. I gave you an example from 4 months ago where 3-4 fires were burning at the same time that were much larger but didn’t involve many structures, so got little to no national exposure. This happens in the west every year. Not just in CA. It occurs in OR, WA, ID, MT, canada, etc. it’s not some new phenomenon to have multiple fires in the same geographic region.

Fires start in many different ways. From all the obvious ways, to crazy coincidences like a chain dangling from a truck sparking on the road.

 

[fatness]

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

What I asked you wasn't political, at least on my end. If you had brought up Peyton Manning multiple times in the topic I would have asked the same thing.

Have you found any news, police, or fire reports saying terrorism is suspected in one or more of these fires?

I haven’t found any news that explains the actual cause at all, which I find really odd.

OK. My guess is that there's more effort being put into fighting the fire than finding the cause at the moment, so I'm not surprised at this.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

What I asked you wasn't political, at least on my end. If you had brought up Peyton Manning multiple times in the topic I would have asked the same thing.

Have you found any news, police, or fire reports saying terrorism is suspected in one or more of these fires?

I haven’t found any news that explains the actual cause at all, which I find really odd.

Many times there is no obvious cause. Random dude throws a cigarette. Not provable. Arson without an obvious accelerant. Same. Kid playing with a magnifying glass. Car backfire. Electrical short in a sprinkler box or Ac unit. Etc. etc. etc. we may never be certain. And it often takes weeks or months to find the root cause.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Some moron shot off some fireworks in my neighborhood last night.

 

[Nipsey]

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

As I explained earlier, these fires are very far apart. It just seems logical that five fires occurring at once is not a coincidence.

Floating embers doesn't explain it for me.

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

I'm just interested in the root cause of 5 or 6 fires all occurring within 24 hours. That doesn't seem like coincidence to me. Maybe it is a coincidence, I just don't think I'd bet on that.

Eventually there will be a report that explains the cause of the fires...utility lines? arson? spontaneous combustion? I just want to understand what actually caused the fires. Dry conditions and wind alone are not causes. They can be contributing factors but they cannot be stand alone causes. Wind can blow down a power line, but wind probably didn't blow down a power line in 5 different places, although at least that's a plausible explanation...which we don't have yet.

When there are larger wind events in Southern CA, lots of times there are multiple fires that aren’t related. The dry and windy conditions are there throughout the area and make these fires more likely everywhere. LA is a massive geographical area and it’s possible to have multiple fires at the same time that weren’t caused by the same incident but are enhanced by the same conditions. Nobody (that I’m aware of) is saying the palisades fire caused the Eaton fire or any of the other fires. It’s not some planned conspiracy.

Sure, but that does not explain the actual cause.

That’s all I’m trying to understand. I’m surprised the media hasn’t really discussed much.

They are discussing wind…not a cause by itself

They are discussing dry conditions…not a cause by itself

They are discussing water availability issues…not a cause by itself

What they are actually not discussing is what caused the fires. I’m not a conspiracy theorist per se so I’m assuming there is an answer that everybody knows except me?

The focus is on more immediate concerns right now, such as shifting flames threatening entire neighborhoods. The cause will be thoroughly investigated in due time.

 

[themeanmachine]

Feels like some in this thread are trying to make this political (climate change, blah blah). I actually believe the climate is changing, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to turn this thread political.

What I asked you wasn't political, at least on my end. If you had brought up Peyton Manning multiple times in the topic I would have asked the same thing.

Have you found any news, police, or fire reports saying terrorism is suspected in one or more of these fires?

I haven’t found any news that explains the actual cause at all, which I find really odd.

I don’t think that’s odd. I live in Colorado, where the “Marshall Fire” burned down 1,000 homes just over 3 years ago (and came within 100 feet of taking down mine too). It took almost 2 years of detailed investigation before the initial cause was determined. With the enormous damage comes tremendous legal liability, so they will likely be thorough and cautious with the investigation.

 

[Sand]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

Can you elucidate - how do a hammer and wasp nest cause a fire?

 

[TripItUp]

I don’t think that’s odd. I live in Colorado, where the “Marshall Fire” burned down 1,000 homes just over 3 years ago (and came within 100 feet of taking down mine too). It took almost 2 years of detailed investigation before the initial cause was determined. With the enormous damage comes tremendous legal liability, so they will likely be thorough and cautious with the investigation.

okay makes sense that it takes a while. Thanks for the response.

 

[TripItUp]

The focus is on more immediate concerns right now, such as shifting flames threatening entire neighborhoods. The cause will be thoroughly investigated in due time.

Sure, so for now "we just don't know and will figure it out later."

Although if a form of arson were involved, I'd want to know that sooner than later.

 

[TripItUp]

Many times there is no obvious cause. Random dude throws a cigarette. Not provable. Arson without an obvious accelerant. Same. Kid playing with a magnifying glass. Car backfire. Electrical short in a sprinkler box or Ac unit. Etc. etc. etc. we may never be certain. And it often takes weeks or months to find the root cause.

Thanks for the response.

 

[culdeus]

My biggest concern is that this is an act of terrorism that could again happen in the future. Not just in Los Angeles, but anywhere really.

I think L.A. and California will make the adjustments necessary, that will be expensive, but I'm guess achievable.

But how do you adjust to wildfire terrorism?

I don't understand why you're concerned with terrorism. You've been asking about it, and have been answered about it, multiple times in this thread. But you keep bringing it up, and I don't understand why. What are you reading or hearing (and from who) that says terrorism is a legit concern in these fires?

If it’s arson or terrorism, that rules out climate change as the underlying cause.

It does?

The fact there has been no rain plays zero role in the extent of the fires?

The Mendocino fire was caused by a guy trying to kill a wasp nest. We gonna say climate played no role there because hitting a wasp nest with a hammer isn't a good idea?

Can you elucidate - how do a hammer and wasp nest cause a fire?

Google it

 

[culdeus]

From the [forecast discussion](https://www.weather.gov/wrh/TextProduct?product=afdlox&id=45f460db-a719-4b48-8312-809f3d97c0c6):

> .FIRE WEATHER...11/939 AM.
>
> Significant Fire Weather concerns continue today with gusty north
> to northeast winds 25 to 45 mph increasing tonight and lingering
> into Sunday morning when gusts of 30 to 50 mph will be common for
> the Santa Ana corridor in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Local
> gusts of 50 to 70 mph are possible in some mountains. A Fire
> Weather Watch remains in effect this evening through Sunday
> afternoon. While a brief reprieve from the winds are expected
> Sunday Night, they will form again Monday through Wednesday, with
> a peak around Tuesday of gusts between 40 and 60 mph. With
> humidities plummeting to 5 to 15 percent, there is a high risk for
> Red Flag Warnings during this time period. Low to moderate
> confidence in relief forming by Thursday with a 20 percent of
> light rain with higher chances for improving humidities and light
> winds for the end of next week.

 

[TripItUp]

You’ve ignored every explanation that doesn’t fit your narrative.

A) I don't have a narrative

B) there has been no explanation, that's why I'm asking

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The focus is on more immediate concerns right now, such as shifting flames threatening entire neighborhoods. The cause will be thoroughly investigated in due time.

Sure, so for now "we just don't know and will figure it out later."

Although if a form of arson were involved, I'd want to know that sooner than later.

If it is arson -- and yeah, that's a very real possibility -- it is overwhelmingly more likely to be some random crazy person or a kid or something than terrorism. In fact, I'll go further and say that we would 100% know if it were terrorism, because it would have been coordinated.

Not saying that you're wrong to see the vulnerability, just that it doesn't appear to be the issue here.