With all due respect, living that close to what looks like the ocean without insurance is an interesting choice…
Discussion
She is probably talking about fire insurance …
I’m aware. I’m just commenting on choosing to live in an extra risky location without insurance.
Much of Southern California is like this - hard to get fire insurance or it’s just very expensive. Sometimes no one will insure you even if you’re willing to pay ungodly amounts.
Sounds like they knowingly accept the risk 🤷🏻
Much of the world has some sort of natural disaster risk - it’s just a matter of how much you’re willing to tolerate.
True. Some areas are much more statistically likely to suffer something than others. Obviously it’s impossible to guess correctly.
I live in Japan where most cities are coastal and prone to tsunamis. A “right” kind of earthquake can generate a tsunami that will wipe out a good portion of a city. They happen at least once every 100 or so years. The question is should I worry about a potential earthquake of this magnitude in my lifetime or can I go about my life as normal? Probably both … but to a point I should move elsewhere? I don’t know. Easy to say yes, and very reasonable reaction but much harder to do in practice when your life is tied to one location in more ways than one.
I appreciate the perspective. It’s easy for me to comment without my life deeply tied up in a location.
Yeah. Live where it makes sense. If insurers won’t insure you for hurricanes, wildfires, buffalo stampedes, then you should take a hint and live elsewhere, because you’re about to just support their statistician’s findings. These guys calculate risk for a living. Listen to their inclinations.
Dude, getting home insurance is super hard anywhere anymore, and pricey. You have ONE problem and they try to NOT cover you. I know people here in Arizona who can hardly get home insurance over past water leaks.
Insurance is a casino, the house always wins.
Good point that I wasn’t fully aware of. I was just commenting on choosing to live in an extra risky location without insurance.
My guess is it wasn’t her choice. Not that it’s any of our business. I feel for anyone who’s lost everything in a fire.
I don’t buy that with what her household income looks like. She very likely had a choice.
I agree it definitely sucks.
As someone who has lost a loved one in a fire, i would sure rather lost every material thing and all my money than bury someone again.
Income doesn’t matter. Insurance is crooked.
That’s terrible, my condolences.
I’m saying income matters regarding her choice where she lives.
Oh I gotcha. It’s the dream, right? Live in gorgeous California with „perfect”
Weather… people forget how much of the state burns up and the liberal policies that don’t help.
With all things considered, SoCal is very far from a dream IMO. Moreso a nightmare. Even before these fires.
Obviously some people still think it’s justifiable, and that’s their right 🤷🏻.
Agreed. High taxes, expensive everything, a ton of traffic… not fun. I grew up in the Bay Area and it’s much the same. Idyllic places to live until you drill down on quality of life.
Many insurance companies have stopped offering new policies in SoCal. There are a lot of reasons, but it’s mostly the state government’s fault.
That sucks. I was also hearing about that. It’s hard for me to emphasize with those with significant resources who choose to remain in SoCal. 
Some people like to raw dog and say fuck it.
I guess it all depends on the value of the home, how much risk there is, how much money you have in your savings, and how many fucks you have to give.
That’s fair. Everyone makes their own risk reward decisions. I would kind of get it if you owned the appreciating property = high reward. But I don’t get the renting.
Renting properties is always a trap of convenience. You need a place to live, but you can't afford to buy a property, so you rent instead. Then the costs are too high so you can never afford to save up enough money to buy a property. Leaving you stuck in a logic loop of never being able to escape this form of slavery for most renters.
The better alternative is to rough it for awhile and work your ass off. Either by living out of an RV that you can afford to lease, or get for free on craigslist to restore. If you don't mind the wilderness building a non-permanent structure under the size limits out in a safe state, or national park under the guise of "camping" works too.
Then save up enough money to buy a piece of land, put a tiny home on it, or save up longer to build your dream home. Sure this choice is not fucking easy, but it is worth it in the end to escape the cycle of rental slavery.
I’m surprised she was given a lease without proof of getting renters insurance. Kind of wild renting a place and getting no insurance tbh. She should see if the homeowner had a policy that can be claimed.
