133
submitted 3 months ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

(page 4) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tal@lemmy.today 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Risk makes insurance unaffordable or unavailable

Insurance should really always be available at some price if you don't cap prices. It might be ludicrously expensive if insurers consider the area to be extremely risky -- and this area has had serious wildfires in past months and years, and I'm sure is probably considered to be quite risky -- but there's going to be some price at which they should make a return, even if they think that there's a pretty good probability that the house is going to burn in some kind of fire in the next N years.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 3 months ago

i kinda disagree. no business or government should be required to provide insurance just because you built a structure.

some things can just be not insurable.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah. Insurance is for unexpected disasters. Building a house in a wildfire zone, tornado alley, or flood plain, those disasters are expected.

[-] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

The challengee is (at least) two-fold: (1) existing homes that were once not in wildfire zones are now in them due to climate change, (2) some of the reason building is allowed into fire zones is to alleviate housing availability.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 0 points 3 months ago

Man, this thread is reminding me that Lemmy is even worse than Reddit when it comes to being populated by people who have strong opinions about things they don't understand at all.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago
[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 0 points 3 months ago

So many people here are speaking as if real estate insurance companies are doing something evil by pulling out of markets where it's impossible for them to make a profit or even break even. The companies are not reneging on any obligations, just turning away customers they can't afford to insure, and people here are responding by saying things like all insurance is a scam, and the insurance companies abusing their customers to enrich their shareholders.

I get the feeling they're taking their opinions of the private health insurance market and applying them to insurance in general, and in doing so they're demonstrating a lack of understanding of what insurance is for, why it's required for certain purchases, and why people choose to do business with insurance companies even when they don't have to

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MHSJenkins@infosec.pub 0 points 3 months ago

This is starting to feel more and more like a planned property grab.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Maybe? They're not sure if this guy is linked.

Warning: MSN link ahead:

Alleged Arsonist Arrested In Los Angeles Amid Deadly California Wildfires: What We Know

ETA: Also, 3 fires started all at once looks a little wonky in January.

Edit 2:

...though law enforcement officials have said they cannot confirm a connection between the arson suspect and any of the deadly fires currently burning through California.

One of the women involved in the citizen's arrest, Renata Grinshpun, told local news he had a "propane tank or... like a flame thrower" and that someone saw him "behind a van, trying to light something on fire."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
133 points (99.3% liked)

News

28860 readers
1664 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS