I appreciate your wisdom to use ChatGPT's search to verify your facts about the Paradise settlements. If you're asking me, is it a good idea to administer a settlement between PG&E and the Camp Fire victims? No. We agree there. I don't doubt for a second that ratepayers and victims are getting a bad deal! I don't think we should have ever agreed to the settlement, and Sacramento made a huge mistake.
But: the settlement's law traded on the exact empathy you do right now.
Here's where we disagree: what evidence do you need to see to be convinced that nobody should be living in your community? Harsh words right? It's the exact opposite of the empathy you are trying to get through, that I appreciate.
I think smart people struggle with climate science, viewing it as strictly a set of facts, when in fact it is deeply political: it is telling us where we can and cannot live, which is as powerful as violence-protected borders.
We have pretty unequivocal evidence that tells us on the time scales of realizing real estate returns, some communities will be "worth" "$0."
Do you think we should have insurance of last resort in California? Insurers read the same scientific studies and don't protect people's homes from wildfires. It is basically immaterial in the long term which human activity causes the wildfire - as you say, the settlement is in the rear view mirror - it could have been a gender reveal party that started the flame, and then, what would you do, make that person personally liable for billions of dollars? It would be bailout all the same, poorly administered, because it is simply impossible to not "absolutely shaft" someone who says their home is worth $700k when it is actually worth $0.
It costs $42m to just bail out 20 homes in Palos Verdes, a community with very politically powerful people. It's a slow motion crisis in California.
Do you think we should bail out all the home owners in San Francisco, who bought their homes at $40,000, pay tiny Prop 13 dynastically protected rates and therefore pay little taxes to their own community, and have things nominally worth $1.4m, when an earthquake hits? That's not your community, and suddenly, oh man, that sounds expensive, man, you don't have bottomless empathy for that community. Should nobody be living in San Francisco because of the earthquake risk? Tough question.
So what if I spin some narrative that someone somewhere is responsible or liable? It is impossible for any entity to pay off all those people, including the government - it couldn't even compensate the 10x fewer victims of Camp Fire.
The solution to me is simple: don't buy a house, and if you do, don't make it your only means of savings. I can escape a wildfire, and I think I can escape an earthquake, but my life will not be ruined, as long as I do not own an overpriced home. You are talking about leaders in bed with PG&E or whatever, conspiracies, and right in front of you, you are surrounded, in your community, by people who believe their real estate gives market returns risk free.
But: the settlement's law traded on the exact empathy you do right now.
Here's where we disagree: what evidence do you need to see to be convinced that nobody should be living in your community? Harsh words right? It's the exact opposite of the empathy you are trying to get through, that I appreciate.
I think smart people struggle with climate science, viewing it as strictly a set of facts, when in fact it is deeply political: it is telling us where we can and cannot live, which is as powerful as violence-protected borders.
We have pretty unequivocal evidence that tells us on the time scales of realizing real estate returns, some communities will be "worth" "$0."
Do you think we should have insurance of last resort in California? Insurers read the same scientific studies and don't protect people's homes from wildfires. It is basically immaterial in the long term which human activity causes the wildfire - as you say, the settlement is in the rear view mirror - it could have been a gender reveal party that started the flame, and then, what would you do, make that person personally liable for billions of dollars? It would be bailout all the same, poorly administered, because it is simply impossible to not "absolutely shaft" someone who says their home is worth $700k when it is actually worth $0.
It costs $42m to just bail out 20 homes in Palos Verdes, a community with very politically powerful people. It's a slow motion crisis in California.
Do you think we should bail out all the home owners in San Francisco, who bought their homes at $40,000, pay tiny Prop 13 dynastically protected rates and therefore pay little taxes to their own community, and have things nominally worth $1.4m, when an earthquake hits? That's not your community, and suddenly, oh man, that sounds expensive, man, you don't have bottomless empathy for that community. Should nobody be living in San Francisco because of the earthquake risk? Tough question.
So what if I spin some narrative that someone somewhere is responsible or liable? It is impossible for any entity to pay off all those people, including the government - it couldn't even compensate the 10x fewer victims of Camp Fire.
The solution to me is simple: don't buy a house, and if you do, don't make it your only means of savings. I can escape a wildfire, and I think I can escape an earthquake, but my life will not be ruined, as long as I do not own an overpriced home. You are talking about leaders in bed with PG&E or whatever, conspiracies, and right in front of you, you are surrounded, in your community, by people who believe their real estate gives market returns risk free.