Lotus-eater

Here is an interesting thread on the history, causes, and mitigation measures. Key points: 1) These areas have experienced fires for a long time, but prescribed burns (which residents and environmentalists dislike) have largely been replaced with active fire suppression, which does not reduce fuel. Also, buildings built before 2007 when new regulations went into effect are not as fire resilient. 2) Contrary to those who say that reducing fuel cannot make a significant difference in these type of fires, her case study interprets the Thomas Fire as a success because it significantly limited the potential damage: "Despite the extreme wind conditions and interviewee estimates of potentially hundreds of homes being consumed, only seven primary residences were destroyed by the Thomas Fire, and firefighters indicated that pre-fire mitigation activities played a clear, central role in the outcomes observed." Conclusion: As I said above, people need to hire more goats. @pyrogeog.bsky.social on Bluesky BSKY.APP Here's the reality about the #LAFires this week: this isn't the first time ANY of these places have burned. Not even...

Perhaps they qualify as facts to their baby boomer readership. The story amounts to spin control for the LADWP, which has a sad history of incompetence, inefficiency, and corruption. Not surprisingly, the story ends with the LADWP official wanting more money from ratepayers.

Calling something BS is not an argument. You are clearly not reasoning on the margin, which is what basic microeconomics is all about. It will not take months and months to begin reconstruction of the areas at the edges with the least damage. And I guess the people who would otherwise have been able to rent more quickly from the landlords who will hold out for higher rents will just have to shelter in cardboard boxes for a few months so that your ilk can feel good about themselves. On the demand side, people who do not face as pressing a need and would be discouraged from renting with much higher rental prices will be able to lock in the lower price for at least a year with a standard lease, which in the city of LA is further subject to rent stabilization limits. That is in fact a longer-term consequence. But if price controls are so wonderful, why not extend them indefinitely?

Which, like all price controls, is precisely the problem. It's a short-term, feel-good policy that creates perverse incentives that end up making shortages worse (e.g., "greedy" landlords can refuse to rent until the "price-gouging" limitations expire before increasing rents, which means more people will be unable to find housing in the meantime). It then tends to stimulate more bad government interventions (more price controls, subsidies, etc.) to try to fix the supply problems that it itself has created. While good, the deregulation is limited to the affected areas and the price controls will make it more difficult to attract the labor and materials for faster rebuilding.

\