Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What the NY Times has said in its editorial for online readers:

A third day of devastating fires in Los Angeles
The economic cost of wildfires in Los Angeles could exceed $50 billion, after three days of fast-moving fires that have burned tens of thousands of acres and forced tens of thousands of people from their homes. Here’s the latest.

Local officials yesterday hoped that decreased winds would finally give firefighters a chance to control the blazes. Helicopters and planes dropped water from the sky, and firefighters battled on the ground. Despite the subsiding winds, the risk remained for current fires to spread and for other fires to ignite.

At least five people have died in the firestorms, and the Los Angeles County sheriff said he expected the death toll to rise. One of the blazes — the Palisades fire, in one of the city’s most affluent areas — has damaged or destroyed thousands of buildings and has burned more than 17,200 acres.

On the ground: The fires have torn through communities of every socioeconomic status and stripe, affecting mansions as well as ’70s townhouses, ranches and subdivisions. Residents are overwhelmed by the pervasiveness and see themselves as stuck in the middle of a mega-catastrophe.

Aid: President Biden said that the federal government would pay for 100 percent of the firefighting needs in the area for the next 180 days.
Top | New | Old
Midlifemale · 61-69, M
I can see the federal government assisting with the cost so it doesn't bankrupt the state, but to make a statement like that and pay 100 percent is just a president wanting everyone to like him..again trying to buy some credibility before leaving office
MrGoodbar · 51-55, M
Money makes the world go round. Doesn't surprise me at all. Don't worry they will pass the cost on to the little guy as always
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
My gues is that nobody has insurance for this?
Ynotisay · M
@Tastyfrzz Most homeowners have fire insurance like anywhere. But the issue in CA is insurance companies refusing to cover. A whole lot of people in the burn areas got dumped from their plans recently.
The option is utilizing what's called the FAIR plan. That's the only thing available where I live. It disallows insurance companies from not covering homeowners. It's a pooled system so insurance companies share the cost. It's more expensive, and shittier policies, but at least it's something for those who can't get insured. I can't even imagine what it would be like if it didn't exist.
Convivial · 26-30, F
This will affect insurance costs world wide
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
@Convivial it is cheaper for the insurance companies to be sued than to pay.
514Kra · 22-25, F
Is it strange how quickly they arrive at a cost, 💲 even before the fires 🔥 are out!?
pdockal · 56-60, M
@514Kra

That's the world we live in
Actuaries have figured the value of EVERYTHING
Ynotisay · M
@514Kra Some banks, and Accuweather, have formulas for estimating cost. It's all predicated on "could rise" and is supported by images from burn areas.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment