I’m a paranoid tin foil hatter and, while you are right that California puts homeowners at elevated risk of these highly adverse events, something seems fishy, like the fire trucks not being available.DeezerShoove » 09 Jan 2025, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑ So, insurance companies being very good usually at predicting risk, decided not to insure an over priced tinderbox.
As one of the commenters after the article said:
Insurance companies can stop writing policies anytime. But cancelling existing policies is really bad.
Personally, I think they've poorly managed the deadwood in California in every way possible.
As other commenter said: Vote for clowns; enjoy the circus.
LowIQTrash » 10 Jan 2025, 12:16 am » wrote: ↑ I’m a paranoid tin foil hatter and, while you are right that California puts homeowners at elevated risk of these highly adverse events, something seems fishy, like the fire trucks not being available.
It’s like they WANT these places to go up in fire.
O_O
Their crown jewel, the tech industry, is leaving the state slowly / gradually.DeezerShoove » 10 Jan 2025, 12:32 am » wrote: ↑ Turning off any hydrants purposely during a high risk time is also very **** up.
Is their wonderful economy actually showing that many signs of decay?
LowIQTrash » 10 Jan 2025, 1:01 am » wrote: ↑ Their crown jewel, the tech industry, is leaving the state slowly / gradually.
All that’s left is overpriced RE.
Their economy is in trouble.
Let's say that you have one of the few houses unharmed in the Pacific Palisades. How much do you think LA county, California and that community will tax you and your property to pay for all of their mistakes? You couldn't pay me to own a piece of property there!!!LowIQTrash » 08 Jan 2025, 7:34 pm » wrote: ↑ Ya know, land value and all…
https://www.zillow.com/pacific-palisade ... 22%3A12%7D