A surprisingly well balanced article given the source. The claim that the Feds are responsible for managing the land is bogus - local and state authorities have a say and refuse to allow logging, grazing, access roads, etc. Other than that fairly well written.
Check out CA’s projected deficit.
If the NYT wants you to set up an account try changing browsers.
Mr. Kotler cited one case in the Pasadena area in which an insurer said that it would not insure a property until a wildfire was completely contained. And in Santa Barbara, a prospective buyer of a $1.5 million property found that fire insurance for the home would cost them between $40,000 and $50,000 per year. Ultimately, they walked from the deal.
“It’s going to have a material and profound impact on our state, and on virtually every property type,” said Eric Sussman, professor at the UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate. “People think that if they don’t live in at-risk areas, they’re not going to be affected, but that’s wrong. Insurance works from all of us collectively sharing risks.
The decision has reverted to ok.
Easy to verify here. Who staying in CA needs to renew fire insurance soon? Better still, has renewed recently.
Has premium increase significantly?
Fremont 10-15% increase.
1 Like
If the house is payed off so no mortgage company is on you for insurance just clear defensible space. No ladder fuels; nothing flammable under the deck. I’m in a mix of pine and chaparral. You think I kick back and say “it’s all good; I’m insured?”