The insurance industry flak actually nails it, spot on: "It’s a choice to live in riskier areas, and does everybody else have to subsidize it?"
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @mateosfo
Take that logic to the next level. The electricity grid that we ALL use and rely on traverses highly fire prone parts of the state. Who should pay for the fires it causes? or for the liability insurance it will eventually necessitate?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattRegan10
Since we all benefit from reliable electricity, we should all pay for the costs of its delivery. But we don't all get benefits of living in pastoral splendor, in fact most of us subsidize those lifestyles w/ negative benefits (traffic violence, air pollution, etc) only reward.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mateosfo
But the argument can also be made that exclusionary planning and permitting practices in our less fire prone urban areas have forced people to the exurbs. You can't exclude people from San Francisco and then wag your finger at them when they move to Fairfield.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MattRegan10
If it were a just world, SF's NIMBYs would be micro-targeted & forced to pay premiums/relocation costs of workers they displaced. I obviously have no idea how to actually solve that part of it. But the Berkeley/Oakland/Marin hills are not where I'd direct my sympathy.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mateosfo
Cities must pay a carbon tax for every unit of housing they deny within half a mile of transit, for every incommuter, and for every VMT created by their exclusionary practices. Right now Chevron pays the tax for refining the crude, but are they creating the 2hr commutes each way?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MattRegan10
I've been thinking about this & think you're on to something. Under current state rules, VMT calculations apply to city's residents, but should really apply to residents AND workers. This is how Marin claims low GHGs from transport - 70% of its workers live in other counties!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mateosfo @MattRegan10
If we can figure out how to properly assign GHGs to the cities that are actually causing them (direct AND indirect) I think we could really get somewhere with this ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mateosfo @MattRegan10
The only solution to this problem is community level non-voluntary regs on home hardening and defensible space that are backed up by vigorous enforcement (using nuisance as a stick - see Ventura Co. FDs program).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Mill Valley just tried to move from unenforced voluntary stds to mandatory and got shouted down by aggrieved residents at the City Council Mtg. Folks shouldnt complain when insurance won’t underwrite their neighborhood if unwilling to take known effective steps to cut risk.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Too bad @SophieHahnBerk punted on this question the other week at the evacuation drill.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.