They shouldn't rebuild after the LA fires, amirite?

So....where are we relocating these folks to? Also, where are we relocating the state of Florida to? Will the gulf coast region in general get relocation assistance? We want to include the Eastern Seaboard too?

by Anonymous 6 days ago

These are wealthy individuals who did not build densely in an area with limited resources. The mismanagement of land and housing in LA specifically has caused many of its problems. The people living in Florida aren't causing hurricanes by living there (at least not any more than you or I are) so it makes sense to take whatever action can be taken against the SFH nightmare that is LA while there are opportunities to do so.

by kayryan 6 days ago

No amount of mismanagement of land and housing causes massive wildfires any more than people in Florida causing hurricanes.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

You're missing the point. The other guy is saying if LA got assistance, EVERY threatened area would want the same assistance, which would be impossible. The east and west coasts are the most threatened areas and also the most heavily populated areas in the US.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

They are going to spend money to rebuild the houses that just burned down. I'm saying that they should use that money to build houses in a safer area instead. If you're suggesting its too expensive to do that, then I assume you think everyone is just permanently homeless after a disaster strikes?

by Doylelucio 6 days ago

please don't send them to indiana/illinois

by Anonymous 6 days ago

Oh you're right, lets just rebuild everyone in the city where a 1400 sq. foot home costs $1.5 million, they are literally draining the Colorado river dry, suffer from mudslides and wildfires, and if that weren't enough they're build on one of the biggest fault lines in the US. Great plan.

by Doylelucio 6 days ago

Your idea is to just have people live in tornado country?

by Last-Broccoli 6 days ago

Tornado Alley is South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and texas, and I left them off the list.

by Doylelucio 6 days ago

Missouri and Kentucky get them

by Last-Broccoli 6 days ago

That's a them problem.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

Increasing the density of downtown is not a bad idea, drought is still a big concern though

by Doylelucio 6 days ago

Well your opinion isn't actually that unpopular with insurance companies. That will curtail growth in flood and fire prone regions

by Anonymous 6 days ago

Yeah let's not rebuild one of the most desired places to live in the country. That makes sense.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

Every future wildfire would drive housing prices higher. Perhaps investors might even consider starting fires themselves.

by muellerava 6 days ago

So should we not rebuild when a tornado takes out a city in Kansas or Oklahoma? They're in tornado alley.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

I did in fact misunderstand you

by Anonymous 6 days ago

Then when it floods or burns, that's on you.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

If it remains vulnerable to natural disasters how long are you gonna make excuses for them? Oh boo hoo, some rich people will have to move somewhere else.

by InterestingOkra 6 days ago

If this was a flood zone and the houses were destroyed by flooding, I would agree with you. In the short term, the fire hazard is going to be less in this area that it has been the last few years.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

It's been fine for many decades and it will be fine again if they clear out eucalyptus trees, dead brush and properly maintained the foliage/water supply

by Anonymous 6 days ago

There's very few completely disaster safe areas on the planet, and climate change means that even less areas are safe. There's not enough places on the planet which are gonna be safe from disasters long term, and wildfires are a type of disaster that can pop up in most places anyway. So really rebuilding on those spots isn't much different to rebuilding anywhere else.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

Central PA. It's boring, cold, rainy and grey skies almost all year round, but no disasters.

by Nice-Dimension 6 days ago

No place is 100% disaster free, but it would be a good idea to move people out of an area where a disaster just happened and is likely to happen again.

by Doylelucio 6 days ago

Agreed, how many times must we pay for the same home to get rebuilt only to be destroyed again. At some point, you gotta move.

by Anonymous 6 days ago

There's disasters everywhere

by Last-Broccoli 6 days ago

This makes no sense whatsoever. It's cyclical in many ways. If you don't rebuild, you get brush fires instead. And then there's the slope stability and erosion problems, too. Floods. Landslides/mudslides. Lots of things.

by Anonymous 6 days ago