I wonder if the rest of the US is subsidizing the CA insurers who are forced to cover people who choose to build and live too close to the seaside cliffs and in fire zones? Are they just passing along those costs to others because they are forced to be in markets that are not profitable? Why doesn't the CA state government subsidize the insurers who are mandated to provide coverage which they would otherwise not offer?
What is the "good governor" doing about increased homelessness in his state, or is that not his problem and more of a local problem for the big cities to tackle on their own? I don't know the answers, I'm just asking from the right coast.
I wonder if the rest of the US is subsidizing the CA insurers who are forced to cover people who choose to build and live too close to the seaside cliffs and in fire zones? Are they just passing along those costs to others because they are forced to be in markets that are not profitable?
Yes, that nonsense needs to stop. People who especially want to build there new from now on should be heavily penalized by insurance premiums. There has been lots of new settlement in wooded fire hazard areas the last few decades.
I wonder if the rest of the US is subsidizing the CA insurers who are forced to cover people who choose to build and live too close to the seaside cliffs and in fire zones? Are they just passing along those costs to others because they are forced to be in markets that are not profitable? Why doesn't the CA state government subsidize the insurers who are mandated to provide coverage which they would otherwise not offer?
What is the "good governor" doing about increased homelessness in his state, or is that not his problem and more of a local problem for the big cities to tackle on their own? I don't know the answers, I'm just asking from the right coast.
For us where I Iive that is a very good thing as new home buyers to our area have been rejected by the underwriters for fire insurance so if (and even if not) you are carrying a home mortgage you're out of luck
Do you know if Chubb is one of the companies who has rejected new homebuyers? (My understanding is that Chubb’s business model has been different than other insurers, in that you pay to Chubb an outrageous annual premium but the company really stands behind you (i.e., writes you a big check without a big hassle) if you have a claim.)
It is not a welcome change to the insurance company clients who do not live in fire hazard areas who are now going to be paying higher premiums to subsidize people who choose to buy homes in fire hazard areas.
I agree, Jeff. I know about this issue because I was for a time a beneficiary of the federal flood insurance program when I owned a beachfront property in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
All taxpayers subsidize the flood insurance of people who own oceanfront homes. If the owners of oceanfront homes experienced the full private insurance cost of flood insurance the prices of their homes would decline because the cost of insuring those homes would increase significantly.
These numbers are from 20 years ago, so don’t quote me, but I remember that I was paying about $1,600 per year to participate in the federal flood insurance program, and I paid another $4,000 or so to increase my coverage. But even this additional coverage was some mutualized program, run by the State of North Carolina, I think.
But I remember learning at the time that purely private flood insurance would cost something like $16,000 per year.
Now that I live about 950 feet above sea level I don’t want to be subsidizing oceanfront homes.
Mike, that specific decision he made was the correct one, in this circumstance. IMHO
And you sound like your wife.
"The new policy imposes a one-year moratorium preventing insurers from dropping customers in or alongside ZIP codes struck by recent wildfires. The moratorium covers at least 800,000 homes around the state. The state has also asked insurers to voluntarily stop dropping customers anywhere in California because of fire risk for one year."
Stay in school, study hard, don't have many kids, take personal responsibility for your actions, help others. Behavior needs to change if we are to progress. Sorry for getting political, Ron.
Part of our evening news last night showed the decimation of Australia with the ongoing wild fires. For a second I thought I was watching the fires in California. I didn't realize how bad it is in Australia. There is not a person there who hasn't been affected in some way by these wild fires in Australia. Ours are hopefully gone until next year as our temperature has cooled considerably and we are now having a lot of rain. Here in California, the downside of having a rainy season follow a hot summer filled that was filled with fires all over the state is now the threat of devastating mudslides as there is nothing growing on the scorched hillsides which then give way to deadly mudslides. It's a terrible vicious circle
It is not a welcome change to the insurance company clients who do not live in fire hazard areas who are now going to be paying higher premiums to subsidize people who choose to buy homes in fire hazard areas.
I would bet Ron that the higher state wide premiums about which you worry won't be as high as those policy holders of Chubb Insurance. Sure Chubb will insure anything.....but only "for the right price"
'Where I live there are homes that cannot sell because of where they are located and/or homes that have been sold but the new buyer cannot obtain fire insurance in his homeowners' policy and the house falls out of escrow as no mortgage underwriter will approve funding without fire insurance.
I am not a fan of our governor here in California but I do feel his move to do what he did was the right thing to do regarding insurance companies and fire insurance
Of course it's achieved nothing so far. An unholy alliance that makes up the radical right will do anything to stop change. You have Evangelicals that believe God will fix everything, industrialists like the Koch brothers that like their money too much, the no-nothing wing of the Republican party that denies all science, and the Greatest and Baby Boomer generations that can't conceive that their actions brought on this disaster.
Sadly, the climate crisis will only begin to be solved in 15-20 years when all of these people die.
Of course it's achieved nothing so far. An unholy alliance that makes up the radical right will do anything to stop change. You have Evangelicals that believe God will fix everything, industrialists like the Koch brothers that like their money too much, the no-nothing wing of the Republican party that denies all science, and the Greatest and Baby Boomer generations that can't conceive that their actions brought on this disaster.
Well you got that right. Wonder how much she’s making for being the puppet she is? They say Al Gore made $200M on his scam and fear tactics. With her starting so young she really has the potential to rake it in. I suppose her challenge will be maintaining her marketing appeal as she ages.
