Will People Be Less Apt to Help With the Rebuilding after the LA Fires

[xipotec]

Unpopular opinion, but what need to happen is serious hazard level premiums for building in areas prone to destruction. Hurricane seacoast areas, high fire danger zones, flood zones, should have premiums so prohibitively high that ONLY super wealthy could afford them. And the premiums should be so high as to equal replacement costs in ten years.

The insurance industry is going to pass all these costs on to the people in that areas who are NOT in high risk areas as well....

It's a mess, and as long as we insist on living in these danger zones, it's going to hurt a lot more people that those directly affected.

 

[Minnie1222]

If someone already gave what they could for the hurricane or another area of need (there's never a shortage of need unfortunately) they may not have the means to give more, especially if what they had to give was $10.

I understand your point, but the person whom I replied to never mentioned her financial status. She only stated that she wanted to give to her people first. Somehow you came to the conclusion that she was of limited means.

 

[SirDuff]

I understand your point, but the person whom I replied to never mentioned her financial status. She only stated that she wanted to give to her people first. Somehow you came to the conclusion that she was of limited means.

And, somehow, you came to the conclusion that she was asking for advice on how to spend her money.

 

[Minnie1222]

And, somehow, you came to the conclusion that she was asking for advice on how to spend her money.

Not at all! It was very kind of her to donate to her community. I was hoping she would include California in her generosity.

 

[SirDuff]

Not at all! It was very kind of her to donate to her community. I was hoping she would include California in her generosity.

How is that "not at all" giving her advice on how to spend her money? "Hoping" that she'd spend money the way that you wanted her to do so (i.e. giving to California) is pretty much the definition of giving her advice on how to spend her money (with the added benefit of assuming that she's too dumb to realise, on her own, that she can donate to multiple causes).

 

[xdan0920]

Be careful where you donate. Most of these homes will now be part of LA 2.0, the original owners will be paid off, minimally, and forced to move elsewhere.

 

[Minnie1222]

Wow, people really are less inclined to support LA. A simple suggestion for a donation was met with heavy criticism and now a warning likely based on another conspiracy theory. LOL.

 

[cabanafrau]

I understand your point, but the person whom I replied to never mentioned her financial status. She only stated that she wanted to give to her people first. Somehow you came to the conclusion that she was of limited means.

Not at all! It was very kind of her to donate to her community. I was hoping she would include California in her generosity.

Wow, people really are less inclined to support LA. A simple suggestion for a donation was met with heavy criticism and now a warning likely based on another conspiracy theory. LOL.

Whoa, that flagpole is covering a lot of mileage.

Someone expressed concern that people in their area who have been living for months in serious need with lives upended and still needing support will now be forgotten. They've been attempting to support those in their area for several months now. You are willing to permit them to support locally, but would prefer they now split their giving.

It's been several months. Perhaps they've given as much as they have available. In my experience most people do not have unlimited means. The $10 example originated from your comment.

Oh, here's that elusive flagpole -- it's okay to give support to the folks in the hurricane, but your preference would be to include California in the giving. Supporting LA should be a given in your mind, but those who choose to support NC are somehow on the wrong side of some "issue" you insinuate or under the influence of conspiracy theories?

There's tremendous need in LA. Lots of support will be needed for an extended period of time. It's also just as true and just as valid that there's tremendous need in the NC region and has been for several months already. Why on earth does it matter if Marge, Patel, Luisa, and Devontae send their support to NC and Reggie, Mike, Anita and Yumi send theirs to LA? When did it become a character flaw to see people in need and offer up the support you're able to give? Should all resources people have been donating to feed and house homeless or fund necessary medical needs for people around the country be diverted to prioritize LA above all?

 

[Minnie1222]

Oh, here's that elusive flagpole -- it's okay to give support to the folks in the hurricane, but your preference would be to include California in the giving. Supporting LA should be a given in your mind, but those who choose to support NC are somehow on the wrong side of some "issue" you insinuate or under the influence of conspiracy theories?

There are no wrong sides when it comes to charity. Yes, I do have a preference for CA because their cities are currently burning. If someone is offended because I asked for a donation to California then I'm sorry for their logical fallacy.

 

[cabanafrau]

Whoa, that flagpole is covering a lot of mileage.

Someone expressed concern that people in their area who have been living for months in serious need with lives upended and still needing support will now be forgotten. They've been attempting to support those in their area for several months now. You are willing to permit them to support locally, but would prefer they now split their giving.

It's been several months. Perhaps they've given as much as they have available. In my experience most people do not have unlimited means. The $10 example originated from your comment.

Oh, here's that elusive flagpole -- it's okay to give support to the folks in the hurricane, but your preference would be to include California in the giving. Supporting LA should be a given in your mind, but those who choose to support NC are somehow on the wrong side of some "issue" you insinuate or under the influence of conspiracy theories?

There's tremendous need in LA. Lots of support will be needed for an extended period of time. It's also just as true and just as valid that there's tremendous need in the NC region and has been for several months already. Why on earth does it matter if Marge, Patel, Luisa, and Devontae send their support to NC and Reggie, Mike, Anita and Yumi send theirs to LA? When did it become a character flaw to see people in need and offer up the support you're able to give? Should all resources people have been donating to feed and house homeless or fund necessary medical needs for people around the country be diverted to prioritize LA above all?

There are no wrong sides when it comes to charity. Yes, I do have a preference for CA because their cities are currently burning. If someone is offended because I asked for a donation to California then I'm sorry for their logical fallacy.

Pardon the fact I was not concise, but I did attempt to utilize paragraphs to make my comments somewhat approachable for a reader. Instead of cutting off a portion of what I said in order to leave the impression I suggested LA can pound sand and money should only be given elsewhere, perhaps you might spare just a moment more and read the last paragraph of my response above and tell me how I'm suggesting LA should be neglected?

IMO it smacks of hyperbole to frame the situation as being urgent to give to LA because the city is on fire, when upthread you seemingly turned a blind eye to the fact that it was mentioned that people in NC are still living in tents in the cold months after their homes were ripped away traumatically as well. Giving to LA right now doesn't change the fact the city is on fire, so that's neither here nor there. Giving to LA hopefully helps make sure people have a place to stay, food to eat, clothes to wear -- and begin to take steps on the long road to a new normal. Folks in NC have been on that same long road to their new normal for months as well, the root cause is simply different. It's all people in trauma with very real needs to be met. Plenty of room for any and everybody to belly up to the bar and give support whenever, wherever and however they can.

 

[NotUrsula]

Unpopular opinion, but what need to happen is serious hazard level premiums for building in areas prone to destruction. Hurricane seacoast areas, high fire danger zones, flood zones, should have premiums so prohibitively high that ONLY super wealthy could afford them. And the premiums should be so high as to equal replacement costs in ten years.

The insurance industry is going to pass all these costs on to the people in that areas who are NOT in high risk areas as well....

It's a mess, and as long as we insist on living in these danger zones, it's going to hurt a lot more people that those directly affected.

I disagree with this idea, because most of those places are also places of great natural beauty, and by deliberately pricing out all but the super-wealthy, you're also saying that people who don't have that kind of wealth don't deserve to have a shot at living in such a place. Besides that, if you don't ask the homeowners for more than just money, your claims losses could still be really prohibitively bad.

My preference, especially in a situation where the whole area must be rebuilt from the ground up, is to say that your premiums will be more reasonable if you have taken every possible step to prevent climate- or geologically-related catastrophic damage, and super-high if you have not. If you have a 1000 sq ft home in such an area and are good with your hands, you can probably do it without needing a whole lot of wealth. However, no one with great wealth will be willing to live in a 1,000 sq ft home, so they are going to want to build very large homes on what previously were multiple homesteads, making an expensive area even more unwelcoming to people who are not just like them.

As a nation, we need to enforce zoning and insist that dwellings are built to suit the realities and dangers of the climate & terrain where they are built; not just the budget of those who build them. Homes in Florida need to be elevated and have reinforced roofs and waterproof wallboard; homes in California need to be fire-resistant but also retain some structural flexibility so that they don't crumble in the first temblor. It can be done; there just needs to be sufficient motivation to spend up front to do it.

 

[Minnie1222]

Pardon the fact I was not concise, but I did attempt to utilize paragraphs to make my comments somewhat approachable for a reader. Instead of cutting off a portion of what I said in order to leave the impression I suggested LA can pound sand and money should only be given elsewhere, perhaps you might spare just a moment more and read the last paragraph of my response above and tell me how I'm suggesting LA should be neglected?

IMO it smacks of hyperbole to frame the situation as being urgent to give to LA because the city is on fire, when upthread you seemingly turned a blind eye to the fact that it was mentioned that people in NC are still living in tents in the cold months after their homes were ripped away traumatically as well. Giving to LA right now doesn't change the fact the city is on fire, so that's neither here nor there. Giving to LA hopefully helps make sure people have a place to stay, food to eat, clothes to wear -- and begin to take steps on the long road to a new normal. Folks in NC have been on that same long road to their new normal for months as well, the root cause is simply different. It's all people in trauma with very real needs to be met. Plenty of room for any and everybody to belly up to the bar and give support whenever, wherever and however they can.

I acknowledge that you are showing empathy to both CA and NC, and understood your explanation on why some people can't give more. What I don't understand is why you and others have been trying to silent dissuade me from the topic of donating to CA, on a LA fires forum of all places.

 

[cabanafrau]

I acknowledge that you are showing empathy to both CA and NC, and understood your explanation on why some people can't give more. What I don't understand is why you and others have been trying to silent dissuade me from the topic of donating to CA, on a LA fires forum of all places.

How have I tried to dissuade you? Please point out where. I'm only aware of you trying to divert how others have stated they intend to give.

LA fires forum? This is the Community Board on a Disney forum, is it not? Do you mean on a thread about the LA fires?

Once again, I have absolutely not stated not to give to LA. Go back up into the thread and you will find that I quoted and responded to you initially because you tried to dissuade another poster from supporting the real need in their local area according to your beliefs on what people should do in regard to their giving.

Should I be putting a moratorium to purchasing food for a local food bank and giving that money to LA because LA is "on fire right now"? The food I donate goes to people who need food to eat. How do they get food if all donations go to LA? How long must everyone direct all giving to LA? Make no mistake, people in LA are going to need food as well, among other things, and have even before the fires. The fires are going to create a wide swath of ongoing need in LA for the indefinite long-term. Are you suggesting that every other person in need fend for themselves?

Endless moving of the goal posts with straw man arguments. Reality is there's always going to be more need than there is help and resources, so it makes no sense to try to strong arm anybody who's willing to hold out their hand and help even a single person.

 

[xipotec]

We live in the foothills of North Carolina. We still have people on our mountains living in tents with single digit temperatures or less and snow/ice. Our folks have not received the help they were promised. Most of our area citizens are sending our money there. Not that the LA people don’t need help. We are helping home folks first.

Help promote

I disagree with this idea, because most of those places are also places of great natural beauty, and by deliberately pricing out all but the super-wealthy, you're also saying that people who don't have that kind of wealth don't deserve to have a shot at living in such a place. Besides that, if you don't ask the homeowners for more than just money, your claims losses could still be really prohibitively bad.

My preference, especially in a situation where the whole area must be rebuilt from the ground up, is to say that your premiums will be more reasonable if you have taken every possible step to prevent climate- or geologically-related catastrophic damage, and super-high if you have not. If you have a 1000 sq ft home in such an area and are good with your hands, you can probably do it without needing a whole lot of wealth. However, no one with great wealth will be willing to live in a 1,000 sq ft home, so they are going to want to build very large homes on what previously were multiple homesteads, making an expensive area even more unwelcoming to people who are not just like them.

As a nation, we need to enforce zoning and insist that dwellings are built to suit the realities and dangers of the climate & terrain where they are built; not just the budget of those who build them. Homes in Florida need to be elevated and have reinforced roofs and waterproof wallboard; homes in California need to be fire-resistant but also retain some structural flexibility so that they don't crumble in the first temblor. It can be done; there just needs to be sufficient motivation to spend up front to do it.

see this is America, and that last sentence is an impossibility here.

The only thing we get is punitive actions.

 

[Minnie1222]

Endless moving of the goal posts with straw man arguments. Reality is there's always going to be more need than there is help and resources, so it makes no sense to try to strong arm anybody who's willing to hold out their hand and help even a single person.

What goal posts have I moved? I asked someone to consider donating to CA, you and others disliked my action, someone else heeded a warning about donating to LA. With all that resistance, I came to a conclusion that CA will always be in the back burner for certain people. So, I personally need to ramp up the initial donation and ensure a steady infusion of money into their economy.

THE END.

 

[VandVsmama]

Oh. My. GOSH.

If somebody wants others to donate to LA fire victims....if that individual has a favorite charity or 2, that person could share a link to the charities' websites here and then be like Elsa and let it go.

Conversely, if somebody wants to donate to a different cause (WHATEVER that cause is), that's their decision. Other people's decisions about how to spend their money is none of our business.

I do think that the rebuilding process is going to take a really long time. Longer than most people realize. And that totally sucks. The ~$700 available to LA fire victims isn't going to go very far.

Meanwhile, people in Appalachia hit by the hurricane flooding last fall are still living in tents in the winter. And THAT really sucks, too.

really glad I don't live in hilly parts of LA.

 

[neverlandsky]

After what happened with Red Cross & Haiti scandal, we stopped donating to Red Cross. Red Cross immediately set up for the LA Fires. Wish there was another entity to donate to. So we’re keeping it local to our county fire since they are helping with the LA fires.

With losing a home to fire, it will take up to 3 years to rebuild (could be longer) if they decide to rebuild. Insurance claims, temporarily fencing the property, security around property to prevent theft, engineer (how bad is the land scarred and can it be rebuilt on), will the property be insurable in the future, architect, building permits for everything, new building codes, mandatory fire sprinkler system in all new buildings, HOAs & CC&Rs bylaws/desgins, inspections for everything, contractors, certificate of occupancy. Easier to build on a new property lot vs. a fire impacted property lot.

What truly stinks, is there’s going to be a ton of subpar contractors that will take advantage, mark things up, or run off with money completely.

Any estimate given will end up being double and maybe triple the cost. Insurance claims will barely cover. Took a relative of mine, 3 years to rebuild from an electrical fire that destroyed the house. The only thing left standing was the chimney. Given also new environmental codes, the chimney can no longer be used and is for decor only.

It’s a nightmare scenario for everyone. Income bracket doesn’t matter.

 

[citruscurtis]

National news reporter just said that relief centers are now open to everyone in need

 

[Minnie1222]

I wonder if people will be less inclined to donate towards the fire victims due to this strange narrative....

GoFundMe for LA fire victims had surpassed $200,000,000. That is two hundred million dollars.

LAFD Foundation, which I personally followed, has raised more than $20,000,000 in less than one week.

 

[TippyThomas]

GoFundMe for LA fire victims had surpassed $200,000,000. That is two hundred million dollars.

LAFD Foundation, which I personally followed, has raised more than $20,000,000 in less than one week.

I really hope GoFundMe doesn't take a percentage and does the right thing in cases like this.