We don’t need the goddamn DMV in our lives.

[-]

MDLH@reddit

Is that because they want to build in such a way that when this happens again the entire town does not burn down??

Would it be better if they just threw stuff up and it burned down again in 5yrs?

[-]

CanadaMoose47@reddit

How would you rebuild to prevent this happening again?

I suppose you could space the buildings super far apart, but that comes with its own downsides.

[-]

MDLH@reddit

That is what the permitting is about. Yes, there are all sorts of things that make a town more likely to suffer mass fire destruction depending on where the property is located.

It is not like cities that have ZERO permitting are doing better. They end up having buildings collapse, one place catches on fire and everything around it burns etc....

Is there too much permitting going on. I am sure there is. But is the answer ZERO permitting as Libertarians call for. Hell no, what is ever more dangerous.

[-]

CanadaMoose47@reddit

Well there are tradeoffs to everything, that's at the core of libertarian beliefs.

Zero permitting areas probably do have more buildings collapse or burn.

The question is how much more, and what are the tradeoffs.

From my perspective it seems like no permits is like drinking red wine. Red wine doubles your chance of certain cancers...from 1 in 1000, to one in 500.

[-]

It's not that simple. You are going to get more building if the buildings are insurable and less if they are not insurable. If the lack of permitting shows insurers that the risk of another destructive event is higher then your just going to get less building.

Would you build a home or building if you could not insure it?

[-]

CanadaMoose47@reddit

Depends how big/expensive of a home I wanted to build, but yeah, generally you would build what can be insured - which is a type of privatized regulation that libertarians support.

And in a free insurance market, everything is insurable - it's just a question of at what price.

One of the major issues with California was they controlled the rate at which insurers could increase prices. Insurance prices weren't allowed to operate as a proper signal.

[-]

MDLH@reddit

Everything is insurable is a "theory" not a reality. If i buy a property to build a business and the climate changes, thus making that property "uninsurable" then where are my property rights?

Homes and businesses that were burnt in Palisades did not know about the impact of Climate Change that would come in the future.

Who are they going to sue? That is the problem with Theory vs Reality.

Transfer costs are real. I seel cheap gas today, it's not my problem if it harms your property 3, 5, 20yrs from now.

Your unregulated markets sounds great in theory but it does not FUNCTION in the real world.

In the real world, you have to get permits to build so insurance companies will insure you and so your property does not impinge on other property owners.

[-]

CanadaMoose47@reddit

The insurance companies knew the probability of a fire catastrophe in the Palisades, that's why they cancelled thousands of policies, and/or exited the state.

In a free market, Palisades homeowners would have watched their insurance costs rise steeply years ago, and they would have taken action accordingly.

We can't avoid disasters, but we can mitigate them, and the government permitting process clearly failed to prevent disaster here, so maybe we should try a different approach.

[-]

MDLH@reddit

In a free market, Palisades homeowners would have watched their insurance costs rise steeply years ago, and they would have taken action accordingly.

But they did take action. They chose to hold on to the insurance.

What free market is this you are talking about? It has never existed and never will. It is a fantasy.

In a free market Property owners would have been able to SUE oil companies for CAPTURING law makers and forcing their negative costs of cheap oil on property owners.

I think you are living in a fantasy.. Property ownership is far more complex in the real world than in the world of theory.

We can't avoid disasters, but we can mitigate them, and the government permitting process clearly failed to prevent disaster here, so maybe we should try a different approach.

There is more than just the "permitting process" Permits can't stop climate change anymore than they can stop a war say in Ukraine.

Externalities occur. from War to Climate change.

It is impossible for insurance companies to price them properly because markets are not rational. Have you not studied Joseph Stiglitz work on asymmetric markets. Assuming you have, so you don't truly believe that the Insurance industry would have rationally priced in climate change.

On insurance specifically:
Actuarial “rationality” requires stable probabilities and well-behaved tails. Climate change breaks both conditions: the distribution moves while the tail thickens. The theory (fat tails, insurability constraints) and evidence (non-stationary loss data, widening firm-to-firm pricing gaps, withdrawals) converge on the same conclusion: there is no single, durable “rational” premium for many climate-exposed perils—only imperfect, contingent prices that will keep adjusting as the climate and models shift

[-]

MDLH@reddit

If you want to operate like the countries with the most construction and least permitting you are going to look like: Egypt, Philippines and Somalia... I will pass on that as will pretty much every insurance company.

[-]

MDLH@reddit

You rebuild to reduce the damage when it happens again. Because it will absolutely happen again.

[-]

sunbnda@reddit

Just search Greg Chasen house. You'll get a bunch of videos about it.

[-]

CanadaMoose47@reddit

The architect, Greg Chasen, commented on that YouTube video to say "increased building spacing or fire rated separations are required to allow any chance of wildfire prepared homes to survive this sort of event."

So while the house is very well made, it apparently still requires large spacing between houses to prevent disaster.

[-]

sunbnda@reddit

I didn't say that spacing wouldn't help and you're also completely ignoring, or missed, the disjunctive syllogism "or fire rated separations" which means he believes they don't require spacing if there are fire rated separations in place. You might want ask yourself why you did that. If you watch the video and others, as I've suggested, there are other design features that contribute towards fire prevention. This video states the architect himself discusses these features on x. I don't have x but if you do, you can look those up directly since you seem to be more interested in direct quotes from the architect.

[-]

CanadaMoose47@reddit

Sorry, I omitted separations just for brevity.

Obviously the house is very well designed, and if all houses were built as such fire hazard would be lowered, but my point was just that what the building is made of/how it's designed is only one part of preventing fire spread - and spacing or separations is another important aspect.

Spacing comes with serious trade-offs, and separations may add cost, but shouldn't slow down building permits much.

[-]

vaswhoolgrower@reddit

Less wood building more ugly cement buildings with metal roofs? Style or safety.

[-]

CanadaMoose47@reddit

Sure, fireproof materials seem to be an obvious choice, but that doesn't need to be a government decision.

Insurance prices will now probably be prohibitive for wood frame homes here.

[-]

gamerjohn61@reddit

TBF the reason that places with high fire risk are being developed is because the state of CA mandates that insurance companies ensure fire prone areas

[-]

MDLH@reddit

Isn't that the purpose of insurance. YOu have everyone pool their money to help the rare case when it occurs.. Insurance companies are not trying to cherry pick where they insure. That defeats the charter if their license to practice. It's like telling the police to only protect the homes where the owners are rich. It brings down the whole system when you cherry pick

[-]

Intelligent_Aerie182@reddit

Building homes has not been profitable for a long time. Construction companies cannot make it worth their whole with the cost of goods to do the basics going up, which in turn throws that extra price at the customer. Wonder if they would just build more apartments, call them "luxury" and charge a crazy high price for it and that's how it will be built again.

[-]

DannyMeatlegs@reddit

A quick Google search says this is not correct.

[-]

gregoriancuriosity@reddit

Also, DMV doesn’t issue any construction permits, unless CA is on some extra wild shit with their permitting.

[-]

SuperDan_x@reddit

Ya, I live in the area and work in the trades. This is nonsense.

[-]

winkman@reddit

Okay, then how many of the homes are being rebuilt?

[-]

SuperDan_x@reddit

A lot. I drive in at area on the regular and tons of work is happening.

[-]

HighIQtoUnderstandE@reddit

yeah neither is anything posted by this idiot but somehow his posts are 90% of the posts i see from this sub

[-]

Frum@reddit

Very genuinely, is there a way to black-list or ignore a specific user?

[-]

AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit

Yeah, block them

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

Encourage them to use their brains insteads:

Bloomberg Article Link

[-]

MakeupWater@reddit

First, it's 11,000 homes destroyed and less than 10% have permits. Then it's 600 homes, in malibu, and only 2 have permits. Malibu is a rich area with a strict permitting process, which is what the residents there have voted for.

It seems pretty clear that about 1,000 building permits have been issued, or they would use a lower percentage. It also doesn't seem unreasonable to require soil condition assessment after a massive fire in a highly active seismic area.

[-]

SuperDan_x@reddit

Maybe the OP thinks people start building the day after a fire. No cleanup or engineered designs to worry about. And how about that road repair, the utilities that were all fried. I live in the area.

This devastation will take years to rebuild, regardless of the permits.

[-]

MakeupWater@reddit

Seriously. I did some back of napkin math, and they're issuing on average 5 permits per working day. I actually think thats pretty aggressively fast. It sounds like they're working as quickly as they can and are expediting permits.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

The 'fire in a crowded theater' case was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court decades ago. Stop using such a flawed and outdated analogy to argue for restrictions on free speech.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

im_jesus_beja@reddit

me when im illiterate and can't read the article I send ^^^^

[-]

jhaluska@reddit

Are there any auto downvote and hide scripts?

[-]

Frum@reddit

How have I never found that? You are a brilliant human. Thank you kind sir or madam!

Also, I had to unblock just to get back here to thank you. Then I'll re-block and the world will be right again.

[-]

Coool_cool_cool_cool@reddit

It's a bot

[-]

t0rnAsundr@reddit

I'm a simple man. I see OP, I downvote OP.

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

Critical thinking and reading comprehension is more important than being a biased tankie.

Bloomberg Article Link

Nice try, commie.

[-]

theshitstormcommeth@reddit

Yet you are still wrong.

https://palibuilds.com/permit-tracker/

I suppose if you say “Malibu has only issue 2 permits” then that might be correct. But either way you are not and you are wrong.

[-]

GiantSweetTV@reddit

Yeah. The real tragedy is that North Carolina Appalacia is still not rebuilt and the palisades happened months after the hurricane devestated NC.

[-]

leyuel@reddit

BOOMER HUMOR BABY: ALWAYS GETS YOU ANGRY BUT NEVER ACTUALLY TRUE

[-]

blklab84@reddit

The government is too big!

[-]

Zaurius1@reddit

Because it was planned... they need that low income housing

[-]

ClanOfCoolKids@reddit

i feel like either you're an idiot for thinking the DMV issues reconstruction permits or i'm idiot for not knowing that. but i'm pretty confident it's the former

[-]

skeptical_spice@reddit

DMV is used as a pejorative for the whole government because in popular culture the DMV is viewed as slow and poorly run. And there's certain libertarian beliefs that don't think Driving should be licensed at all. That there shouldn't be regulations regarding who can drive.

Of course it is entirely subjective and dependent on your state or country. Some places have DMVs that are actually nice.

[-]

kittysparkles@reddit

Source? I mean I wouldn't be surprised, but come on....source?

[-]

Melodic_Arachnid_134@reddit

If it’s a meme it’s gotta be true

[-]

bodhiseppuku@reddit

The related story I've heard is that state government is trying to pass bills to increase low income housing in these burn areas. Does anyone know how that is progressing?

[-]

Korvex3@reddit

Two permits have been issued in Malibu where 600 structures were destroyed, which is terrible. This fire destroyed Malibu, Topanga and other neighborhoods. Overall damage radius for this fire they are below 10% of permits, which is also terrible. That said we are better than misinformation memes.

[-]