Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    There was a wildfire in the area last month. A couple years ago, a wildfire burned down a bunch of Malibu, a few miles away. I would be very surprised if wildfires in the area stop happening.

    I think that maybe the most-reasonable solution is for insurers to just ramp rates way up unless a home is built to be extremely fire-resistant – just assume that there are going to be wildfires that dump embers in the area sooner or later, and that if your home isn’t constrained such that it is able to withstand being showered with embers without going up in flames, that it’s going to be insanely costly to insure, because it’s likely to burn sooner or later.

    • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Insurance companies wanted to raise rates… The insurance commissioner said no. So a lot are leaving.

      Same for cars, getting a lot harder to find car insurance in Cali was well.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even if one specific house is a concrete bunker, if it’s in the middle of normal homes, the bunker still faces potentially 1000 degree temperatures from surrounding homes, and shit’s going to burn.

      You could pave everything; put in some 100-yard paved firebreaks; who know what else. Or you could just accept that there’s going to be a lot of climate refugees fleeing high risk US states. All the heads-in-sand people thinking it was just Tuvalu and Kiribati at risk going to wake up and find out it’s LA and Miami, too.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        and shit’s going to burn.

        Having a house next door burn doesn’t entail that your house burns. You can see video from this fire of people walking around next to houses on fire – they aren’t spontaneously combusting. Heck, I had a relative who had exactly the not-burn thing happen to them in this fire – the house next door burned down, but theirs didn’t. And it’s not hard to see that that has to be the case, or once one house in a city burns, the whole rest of the city would too. That didn’t happen even in this fire, or there wouldn’t be a Los Angeles left.

        You can constrain how your house is built. You can have one of those counter-wildfire systems that has large tanks of water kept on-site and a generator-driven system that sprays it out over the property in a fire. I’m sure that there are others. They aren’t necessarily cheap and some aren’t pretty, but you can do buildings that can pull though fires.

        • tburkhol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, one house on fire next to you is probably fine, although I’ve seen that melt the siding off neighbors. All the houses on your block, especially when those houses are only separated by 6 feet, is a completely different situation.

    • TomSelleck@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      The problem is that it just makes more financial sense to just not insure the area. The property itself is wildly expensive and then the owners are sure to lawyer up if they don’t get exactly what they want. Makes more sense to just not issue policies.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The problem is that it just makes more financial sense to just not insure the area.

        There is always going to be some price at which it makes sense for an insurer to insure a property, as long as they are not restricted in what price they can charge.

        • Jarvis2323@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          They are restricted. California has an insurance commissioner who has to approve any rate increases. It’s probably easier to stop insuring then to get the rates up to the profitability margin their risk models are suggesting are appropriate.