Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#51

Post by tropdrop »

paul7986 wrote: post #43
paul7986 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California the land of sky high housing & rent, insane deadly forest fires, homelessness like no other state, landslides, earthquakes... it just doesn't sound very appealing. What are the positives ... chasing and potentially realizing your creative (music/film) or tech dreams there? That can be done in other cities like Nashville or possibly close to here in a few years with Amazon building in Crystal City, VA (othe…

Hmmmm i was seriously asking in a nice way as I don't live in California. I've only been there for vacations, competing on a reality tv show and an unpleasant meeting with Google re: buying one of my apps.

If you're genuinely asking (quite irreverent to ask in this thread, I must say), what keeps me here personally are its people. Californians are a passionate folk who are without a doubt the most non-judgmental Americans I've ever encountered as an immigrant, and I've lived in many states. It feels like here, regardless of your background, gender, etc. you can truly be who you want to be - as long as you love to work!

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#52

Post by paul7986 »

jtmcmc wrote: post #46
paul7986 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmm i was seriously asking in a nice way as I don't live in California. I've only been there for vacations, competing on a reality tv show and an unpleasant meeting with Google re: buying one of my apps.

you were in no way asking in a nice way. You were incredibly condescending in a post about a natural disaster striking the area. Don't be disingenuous.

Sorry you feel that way ... wasn't my intent!

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#54

Post by mikestew »

labster wrote: post #39
olivermarks wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If California was a nation state it would rank 6th in the world https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/american-state-bigger... The media and Hollywood create a pretty weird perception of California, the climate, geography and economy is very varied.

I thought the reason Hollywood was in California is because of the wide range of climates and shooting locations. Beach, farm, desert, and alpine, all just a few hours drive away. We're a bit short on tundra, though.

It was to escape Edison’s patents. No one was going to go all the way to CA to enforce them. Im sure Wikipedia has a page.

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#55

Post by sxates »

jdavis703 wrote: post #41
tathougies wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fire insurance, like earthquake and flood insurance, does not work because of the scope of damages. Insurance works by pooling risk and taking income from low risk areas to pay for high risk ones. Due to the scope of wildfires, fire insurance is untenable. The solution to this fire is absolutely to blame pg and e and its custoners (yes this includes me). This is the logical conclusion. The only thing preventing us fr…

I live just a couple of miles from the Hayward fault which is "scheduled" to unleash an M7 earthquake any day now. My insurance costs (which includes earthquake and fire) is about $25/month with a $500 deductible. If a $25/month charge is "untenable" I think people have bigger financial problems than affording insurance.

I'm in the same area and am paying thousands per year just for basic home owners (no earthquake). Earthquake bids I've seen were thousands more with 15% deductibles (hundreds of thousands of dollars). Who is your insurance provider?

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#56

Post by briffle »

tathougies wrote: post #44
saltedonion wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why wild fire insurance is not tenable? Here in Canada all home insurance include wildfire insurance. All insurers have to do is to pool risk and diversify across geography. No way only California has homes near forests? There’s also reinsurers to pool even more risk.

Why would someone in Oregon (where there is abundant water) or Louisiana purchase wildfire (specific) insurance? Home insurance includes wildfires, but let's limit ourselves to wildfire-specific insurance, which was the issue at hand.

apparently, you haven't been in oregon in a while.. We had hundreds of thousands of acres burn this summer..

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#57

Post by briffle »

dangjc wrote: post #16

If someone pours gasoline over everything, but someone else lights the match, why do we put all the blame on the match lighter? Building flammable homes right next to super dry, brush filled forests is just an invitation for disaster.

And not even the homes, but the defensible perimeters around homes, and especially around the apparently only 3 roads out of Paradise, CA.

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#58

Post by Blackstone4 »

Note that PG&E is being held liable under current law for fires started at the site of it's equipment. Regardless of whether or not PG&E was at fault due to lack of maintenance. So when PG&E is found liable then the public and media often conflate it with being at fault. Two different things.

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#59

Post by plasticchris »

tathougies wrote: post #44
saltedonion wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why wild fire insurance is not tenable? Here in Canada all home insurance include wildfire insurance. All insurers have to do is to pool risk and diversify across geography. No way only California has homes near forests? There’s also reinsurers to pool even more risk.

Why would someone in Oregon (where there is abundant water) or Louisiana purchase wildfire (specific) insurance? Home insurance includes wildfires, but let's limit ourselves to wildfire-specific insurance, which was the issue at hand.

In flood plains you are required to buy insurance, in some parts of the us. It seems reasonable to determine fire risk and require insurance if you are in a 50 year burn zone, though determining that is probably the rub.

Re: PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires

#60

Post by closeparen »

dangjc wrote: post #16

If someone pours gasoline over everything, but someone else lights the match, why do we put all the blame on the match lighter? Building flammable homes right next to super dry, brush filled forests is just an invitation for disaster.

Because homeowners wanting an idyllic, natural respite from the big bad city are such sympathetic characters in our culture.
Post reply on HN