Re:The Case for Letting Malibu Burn (1995)
by dataflow on Monday January 13, 2025 @04:26AM
(#42681619)
> I think it's pretty clear that they're going to have California tax payers bailout the system so that people living in the best real estate all of CA rebuild their homes in a place where people probably shouldn't be building in the first place
Fascinating (and thanks for sharing all that info), but I still don't see how this money would be coming from Montana residents.
Re:The Case for Letting Malibu Burn (1995)
by scoofy on Monday January 13, 2025 @04:50AM
(#42681766)
My understanding is that it entirely possible that the FAIR plan might be bailed out by the Feds.
Re:The Case for Letting Malibu Burn (1995)
by potato3732842 on Monday January 13, 2025 @01:44PM
(#42686969)
God I hope not. That would set a terrible president. Every other state insurance plan would eventually start running itself in a "obviously insolvent but it looks sane if you squint and market it with the morals of a used car salesman" manner but they'd be fools not to if the feds are in the business of picking up the tab.
Re:The Case for Letting Malibu Burn (1995)
by scoofy on Monday January 13, 2025 @02:09PM
(#42687333)
>That would set a terrible precedent.
The existing precedent is the National Flood Insurance Program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_FAIR_Plan
However if you look at the "Key Statistics" fact sheet, you'll see that, guess what:
>The FAIR Plan’s Highest Wildfire Exposures
>This map shows the five areas with the highest wildfire exposure concentrations each in Northern and Southern California. Each quarter circle represents a 7-mile radius where risk is concentrated.
https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/
Pacific Palisades is one of many cities where a wildfire would bankrupt the entire system, because the plan didn't actually charge people what the actual cost of replacement value of the homes is. The system apparently has about $700M in assets, and it is predicted to have over $7B in exposure right now.
I think it's pretty clear that they're going to have California tax payers bailout the system so that people living in the best real estate all of CA rebuild their homes in a place where people probably shouldn't be building in the first place, and continue to have their insurance subsidized by normal folks who could never afford to live in places that valuable.