Jump to content

Southern CA Fires- Extreme Santa Ana Winds


Wilcox Cummingtonite

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, C-Man said:

Correct. The insured value on EVERY insurance policy covers the improvements only. The dirt is not insured. In California, the dirt is worth a substantial portion of the overall value of real estate. If you've been following the last few days, my second example of the a prospect we worked on in Montecito -- the actual value to rebuild his home is probably $5.5M or so give or take. However, if he were to sell that house/property he could probably get more than $10M. The insured value is only the value to rebuild the home. We fight with mortgage companies all the time because they don't understand this. They want coverage to at least match the amount of the loan -- well, that loan also includes the dirt and you don't insure the dirt because it isn't going anywhere.


ummm…

IMG_2135.jpeg.d3fe33c7c65c897373e48453e76d45a3.jpeg

 

SoCal has mudslides. I suspect those affect pre and post event surveys and the viability of rebuilding.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Samson's Wig said:

How out of tune does one's crying have to be for this to rise to the level of an actionable tort?

far greater than my situation. But for the small amount of money involved, a threat of litigation usually means some supervisor will finally be notified, and Chase will drop it. 

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GenXer said:


ummm…

IMG_2135.jpeg.d3fe33c7c65c897373e48453e76d45a3.jpeg

 

SoCal has mudslides. I suspect those affect pre and post event surveys and the viability of rebuilding.

 

That stuff is happening more frequently in California and the state isn't allowing residents to rebuild the seawall.

Eroding bluffs could send California homes tumbling into the ocean. What can be done?

Mackenzie Shuman, John Lynch
Wed, March 13, 2024 at 10:17 AM CDT
10 min read
 
 
Generate Key Takeaways

Over the past 30 years, Tony and Marilee Hyman have enjoyed the fruits of what they describe as “10 years of doing three jobs” to retire in their Shell Beach dream home.

Their home on Indio Drive just north of Pismo Beach proper is perched on a bluff more than 25 feet above sea level, with a lush garden backyard standing between their living room and the open ocean.

But even as little as 10 years ago, the Hymans had more backyard than they do today. The property has been victim to pounding ocean waves and storm runoff that have eaten away at the coastline over the past few years, Tony said.

They and other oceanfront homeowners have found themselves on the front lines of a fight against the worst of Mother Nature’s appetite, and in many cases, state regulators are siding with nature on whether it’s better to protect valuable property by armoring the coast or give way to the inexorable forces of the sea.

Luckily, the Hymans already have a seawall protecting their backyard — but their neighbor to the north, John Okerblom, was denied permits to similarly armor his property. This unprotected property has allowed the crashing waves to work their way around the back of the Hyman’s seawall and erode the bluff once protecting the side of their home.

“As this erodes, it’s getting closer and closer to us,” Tony said of the neighbor’s property. “It’s now down to 26 feet, where at one time it was more than 50 (feet).”

The Hymans’ property was equipped with a seawall when they purchased the property for around $1.16 million in the early 1990s, Marilee said.

She said they partnered with Okerblom about five years ago to apply for the necessary permits to extend their seawall and build one in their neighbor’s backyard but have been denied by the California Coastal Commission at seemingly every turn.

On Jan. 10, the Coastal Commission sent a letter to the Hymans making clear that any future armoring of the coastline along their neighbor’s backyard would be prohibited — even if it means leaving their home at risk.

“In light of the dangers to development at this site, we advise that you pursue courses of action associated with this site that do not include shoreline armoring, and that you start planning for next steps that might be necessary in light of such dangers at this location, including potential removal of any threatened development before it falls to the beach below and creates public hazards,” the letter read.

The commission’s hard-line stance against seawalls has displeased some in the Shell Beach community. Homeowners want to protect their homes from falling into the ocean while the Coastal Commission says such armoring is too harmful to the environment to justify.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

That stuff is happening more frequently in California and the state isn't allowing residents to rebuild the seawall.

Eroding bluffs could send California homes tumbling into the ocean. What can be done?

Mackenzie Shuman, John Lynch
Wed, March 13, 2024 at 10:17 AM CDT
10 min read
 
 
Generate Key Takeaways

Over the past 30 years, Tony and Marilee Hyman have enjoyed the fruits of what they describe as “10 years of doing three jobs” to retire in their Shell Beach dream home.

Their home on Indio Drive just north of Pismo Beach proper is perched on a bluff more than 25 feet above sea level, with a lush garden backyard standing between their living room and the open ocean.

But even as little as 10 years ago, the Hymans had more backyard than they do today. The property has been victim to pounding ocean waves and storm runoff that have eaten away at the coastline over the past few years, Tony said.

They and other oceanfront homeowners have found themselves on the front lines of a fight against the worst of Mother Nature’s appetite, and in many cases, state regulators are siding with nature on whether it’s better to protect valuable property by armoring the coast or give way to the inexorable forces of the sea.

Luckily, the Hymans already have a seawall protecting their backyard — but their neighbor to the north, John Okerblom, was denied permits to similarly armor his property. This unprotected property has allowed the crashing waves to work their way around the back of the Hyman’s seawall and erode the bluff once protecting the side of their home.

“As this erodes, it’s getting closer and closer to us,” Tony said of the neighbor’s property. “It’s now down to 26 feet, where at one time it was more than 50 (feet).”

The Hymans’ property was equipped with a seawall when they purchased the property for around $1.16 million in the early 1990s, Marilee said.

She said they partnered with Okerblom about five years ago to apply for the necessary permits to extend their seawall and build one in their neighbor’s backyard but have been denied by the California Coastal Commission at seemingly every turn.

On Jan. 10, the Coastal Commission sent a letter to the Hymans making clear that any future armoring of the coastline along their neighbor’s backyard would be prohibited — even if it means leaving their home at risk.

“In light of the dangers to development at this site, we advise that you pursue courses of action associated with this site that do not include shoreline armoring, and that you start planning for next steps that might be necessary in light of such dangers at this location, including potential removal of any threatened development before it falls to the beach below and creates public hazards,” the letter read.

The commission’s hard-line stance against seawalls has displeased some in the Shell Beach community. Homeowners want to protect their homes from falling into the ocean while the Coastal Commission says such armoring is too harmful to the environment to justify.

 

 

 

I am cool with residential rights, but sorry, you build on a dirt cliff facing one of the strongest forces of nature that is pounding you daily like a you are a cheap hooker? Sorry, don't feel bad for you.

How big of a fucking wall would they have to build?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://pasadenanow.com/main/the-moment-the-eaton-fire-ignited

Origins of Eaton fire 

And here's a really good read on why Altadena is such a special place. Includes an embedded video of a family singing a Catholic hymn together as they stand on the ruins of their home in the smoke. Worth watching 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-11/eaton-fire-destroys-much-of-old-altadena-an-eclectic-foothill-enclave

Edited by Foosters
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Foosters said:

My daughter's school held a potluck dinner and gathering last night for our community. 19 families lost their homes. Watching children console other children was beautiful and heartbreaking 

On a more practical level, can any of you insurance folks give me an opinion on whether it's worth involving insurance on addressing smoke and soot damage inside the house? Or is that asking for higher rates and/or getting dropped (assuming that's not happening anyway.)

I went by again yesterday and there's a fine layer of black soot on everything. Already snagged an appointment with one of those disaster cleaning crews for later in the week. Planning on moving back in today and doing basic cleaning - all bedding, wipe down surfaces, etc.

every state has different laws which gives their insurance commissioners different powers to control things like premium prices and ability to cancel policies.   My gut reaction is to make a claim because that is exactly what you’ve been paying for - to compensate you when an event like this happened.    And as a practical matter, if your insurer is thinking of bailing, you might as well make your claim before they do as you would need to find a policy with another company anyway.  But on the main, your insurer cannot cancel you because you made a legitimate claim with an undeniably recognized insurable threat and no fraud was involved.

Plus, I would just assume that California has more consumer laws than other states. 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Again, the conservatives I follow are beating the “DEI means you DIE!” drum relentlessly. Nevermind that nobody can state any connection between such policies and a negative impact on the response.
It is indeed a ridiculous beating, but we live in ridiculous times.

Yep. That's what I was telling my boys last night. There is no such connection. Some of the best and toughest firefighters I ever worked with were people that those folks would call 'DEI hires', and some of the weakest ones were not people who'd be termed DEI hires.  Bottom line is that there are stronger FF and weaker FF in every subset. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

My daughter's school held a potluck dinner and gathering last night for our community. 19 families lost their homes. Watching children console other children was beautiful and heartbreaking 

On a more practical level, can any of you insurance folks give me an opinion on whether it's worth involving insurance on addressing smoke and soot damage inside the house? Or is that asking for higher rates and/or getting dropped (assuming that's not happening anyway.)

I went by again yesterday and there's a fine layer of black soot on everything. Already snagged an appointment with one of those disaster cleaning crews for later in the week. Planning on moving back in today and doing basic cleaning - all bedding, wipe down surfaces, etc.

Smoke and soot damage is a thing. Without knowing too many specifics in your case, I'd probably pursue a claim -- unless the remediation cost is under say $10K out of pocket. This *should* be coded as a cat loss (I think) which doesn't count as much (it's not supposed to count at all but let's be honest, it's on your claim report so carriers are going to base decisions on this).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

I am cool with residential rights, but sorry, you build on a dirt cliff facing one of the strongest forces of nature that is pounding you daily like a you are a cheap hooker? Sorry, don't feel bad for you.

How big of a fucking wall would they have to build?

A lot of these houses were built before the 80s. Then permitting rules changed and environmental rules changed. All of these homes are now valued at $3M plus - no idea what the prices were when they were originally built. The state is saying (generally), "sorry but if you can't move your house, it is your loss - We won't allow you to install a new seawall or reinforce the old seawall". So, basically they are telling the homeowner that their $3M+ investment is now worth zero. And I assume that the erosion will continue until it reaches the street. Then the city will put in a seawall. Either that or the state will give in and allow homeowners to save their homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bevo said:

A lot of these houses were built before the 80s. Then permitting rules changed and environmental rules changed. All of these homes are now valued at $3M plus - no idea what the prices were when they were originally built. The state is saying (generally), "sorry but if you can't move your house, it is your loss - We won't allow you to install a new seawall or reinforce the old seawall". So, basically they are telling the homeowner that their $3M+ investment is now worth zero. And I assume that the erosion will continue until it reaches the street. Then the city will put in a seawall. Either that or the state will give in and allow homeowners to save their homes.

Oh well. What they did not think shit would change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

I am cool with residential rights, but sorry, you build on a dirt cliff facing one of the strongest forces of nature that is pounding you daily like a you are a cheap hooker? Sorry, don't feel bad for you.

How big of a fucking wall would they have to build?

This is my attitude towards Houston.

Build shit on a swamp. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bevo said:

A lot of these houses were built before the 80s. Then permitting rules changed and environmental rules changed. All of these homes are now valued at $3M plus - no idea what the prices were when they were originally built. The state is saying (generally), "sorry but if you can't move your house, it is your loss - We won't allow you to install a new seawall or reinforce the old seawall". So, basically they are telling the homeowner that their $3M+ investment is now worth zero. And I assume that the erosion will continue until it reaches the street. Then the city will put in a seawall. Either that or the state will give in and allow homeowners to save their homes.

What would you like to happen? The Governor to magically pronounce that all building regulations that have become law since 1970 will not apply to anyone who's home was impacted by fire? What's leading you to scream in your own head and then commit to typing here argument after argument about completely hypothtetical problems anyway? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chopper said:

What would you like to happen? The Governor to magically pronounce that all building regulations that have become law since 1970 will not apply to anyone who's home was impacted by fire? What's leading you to scream in your own head and then commit to typing here argument after argument about completely hypothtetical problems anyway? 

He seems to think people who build in environmentally fucked places should be able to do what they want cuz value.

Yeah, nah... You build on a caldera for the views and the volcano erupts, well shit on you. Same with trying to "stop" erosion caused by, wait for it, a fucking ocean.

Super glue fault lines in next.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

He seems to think people who build in environmentally fucked places should be able to do what they want cuz value.

Yeah, nah... You build on a caldera for the views and the volcano erupts, well shit on you. Same with trying to "stop" erosion caused by, wait for it, a fucking ocean.

Super glue fault lines in next.

It's weird how every major news story these days becomes weaponized, aimless, stupid rage about absolutely nothing factual. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that California will be active enforcing laws and policies.

Here in Texas, I lost a beachfront lot and house to Ike. A shoe box sized hunk of concrete was the only evidence remaining. When the LIDAR map was set, we lost half the lot to the beach and so the state bought us out, and we took the insurance money and did not rebuild.

Our neighbor, a not inconsequential trial attorney, sold his lot to a guy who overbuilt about 30’ on our former property, now owned by the state. When he pointed it out to the guy his reply was “fuck off, I'm friends with half the Texas general land office, so unless you're planning on filing a lawsuit shut up.”

If you're in Crystal Beach and see a giant white house with a red roof in Singing Sands, that's the guy.

So I'm interested to see how many people in CA decide to do what they want to do and chance litigation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

I would imagine that California will be active enforcing laws and policies.

Here in Texas, I lost a beachfront lot and house to Ike. A shoe box sized hunk of concrete was the only evidence remaining. When the LIDAR map was set, we lost half the lot to the beach and so the state bought us out, and we took the insurance money and did not rebuild.

Our neighbor, a not inconsequential trial attorney, sold his lot to a guy who overbuilt about 30’ on our former property, now owned by the state. When he pointed it out to the guy his reply was “fuck off, I'm friends with half the Texas general land office, so unless you're planning on filing a lawsuit shut up.”

If you're in Crystal Beach and see a giant white house with a red roof in Singing Sands, that's the guy.

So I'm interested to see how many people in CA decide to do what they want to do and chance litigation.

There's already ongoing litigation in CA over seawalls. They're regulated by the CA Coastal Commission. As far as rebuilding houses in Malibu goes, that'll be handed by the City of Malibu which has responsibility for reviewing plans and issuing permits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

It's weird how every major news story these days becomes weaponized, aimless, stupid rage about absolutely nothing factual. 

Don't mean shit to me. Don't build in places where mother nature might say is hers. Now it is interesting for stupid rage you had to come back and quote me twice on this. Did you go look something up for internet rep?

Dude, I know it is the offseason, but relax.

And this board makes fun all the time of people in Florida for building on a coast that gets hit with hurricanes.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chopper said:

What would you like to happen? The Governor to magically pronounce that all building regulations that have become law since 1970 will not apply to anyone who's home was impacted by fire? What's leading you to scream in your own head and then commit to typing here argument after argument about completely hypothtetical problems anyway? 

image.gif.4a0b0c1d994e00136ec0d9d7d1d535e9.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wood said:

Just watching a live local LA news broadcast and a reporter said he had talked to a local professional drone pilot who's pissed off and is on a mission to track all the illegal drone flights into the fire area. I guess he can track their flights online or something. He said there have been at least 12 drones that have operated illegally there, and he's seen some of their videos they've posted online & bragged about. He also thinks he's pinned down which one struck the Canadian plane and thinks he has determined who the pilot is. 

Hope to find out how pudgy little scoff-law drone pilot hands handle

Workin All Day In The

HOT SUN...

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chopper said:

How dim does a person have to be to not understand that seawalls provide a false sense of security and place people other than those who built it at risk? afaf

You should send your ideas to Galveston officials. Don’t know why those ugly jetties were placed.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ngl, I kinda hope the Guard shoots some people looting. I dunno, send a message. But not like a racial thing that people can get all fascist about. Maybe a nice mixed group of looters. Maybe one looter is Asian, one grandms, and another trans. I mean, I don't want trans people dead, but for looter diversity. Like Crash or a commercial for eczema, but looters getting shot. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

He seems to think people who build in environmentally fucked places should be able to do what they want cuz value.

Yeah, nah... You build on a caldera for the views and the volcano erupts, well shit on you. Same with trying to "stop" erosion caused by, wait for it, a fucking ocean.

Super glue fault lines in next.

 Not really. I think overpopulation is an issue worldwide but is a bigger issue in environmentally questionable areas. However, if a home is already there, I think it is fair to be able to do what is necessary to save it. The state of California already doesn’t allow building on lots that don’t already have water rights - that’s why lots are so cheap on the central coast. I’m good with that. But once a house is already there, that’s a problem. And if they apply that logic to individuals, I think the same logic should be applied to areas of fire damage. It won’t because the state doesn’t care about single individuals but it does care about a block of votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

 Not really. I think overpopulation is an issue worldwide but is a bigger issue in environmentally questionable areas. However, if a home is already there, I think it is fair to be able to do what is necessary to save it. The state of California already doesn’t allow building on lots that don’t already have water rights - that’s why lots are so cheap on the central coast. I’m good with that. But once a house is already there, that’s a problem. And if they apply that logic to individuals, I think the same logic should be applied to areas of fire damage. It won’t because the state doesn’t care about single individuals but it does care about a block of votes.

How many houses are you talking about? What about the barnacles that will impacted?

Communities vs. Individuals is where the division lies. I vote for the barnacles.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...