All Forum Posts by: John Clark

Because that is when the impacts are most felt of everything one has to do with the now pile of ashes. 90 days to do nothing forces people to engage with staying.

I have a feeling this is designed to maximize retention of now dislocated persons.

Why do I say that? Because I don't see any exceptions in it for those people who want to get out, who want to just sell and run. If it were really for the motive of protecting the people, the people would still have there option and freedom to initiate the action themselves.

I like the notion of protecting peoples privacy to process. What I don't like is seeing the removal of peoples options and freedoms to self select and engage in what they want to do.

"If it were really for the motive of protecting the people, the people would still have there option and freedom to initiate the action themselves."
--------------------------------------
I don't think it prevents you as an owner from initiating the action.

Personally, I wouldn't have any moratoriums on private transactions.

0 Votes

Quote from @Henry Clark:

Quote from @Account Closed:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Eric Bilderback:

What started the fires? Negligent forest management, drug addicts, or illegals? DEI policies along with environmental, immigration policies is not sustainable for a non 3rd world country (my guess that is the point). I read an article I thought articulated this very well, we are seeing the collapse of a very complex system and this the fruit.

Or it could be an arsonist/ arsonists.

OMG it is not arsonists, maybe some of the fires were but I'm right here in the burn scar with my AK. it was wildfires!

Feel for you and your neighbors. Best wishes.

If you do have an AK, hopefully your using hollow points. So, they don't travel as far beyond point of impact.

If you can switch to a 12 gauge with bird shot or OOB. Rifle bullets fly well beyond what you could be legally supported. Also, they can penetrate neighbors' walls easier. 12 Gauges are just a lot scarier, more accurate within 10 to 20 yards- especially during times of stress, do more damage, plus less impact to neighbors.

Will re-post some insurance and fire posts I already did for LA fires.

For home protection I prefer a 20 gauge pump action. I don't have to worry about collateral casualties from a round going through a wall, like with a rifle, and the best thing is the unique sound working the pump makes. Scares the gang members off every time.

Never cared for ARs because they are based on M-16s and M-16A1s. I loathed those things in the service. I like AK-51s though.

Open to ideas for something to get my wife. She can't handle a long gun.

0 Votes

Quote from @Alex Hall:

Hey Lenders. I am reaching out for your expertise regarding a situation involving a seller from who I purchased a property subto an FHA loan in March of last year.

The seller is currently attempting to purchase another property but is facing challenges due to the inability to hold two FHA loans simultaneously. Additionally, his credit is not the best, and he has limited funds for a down payment.

Any potential options or solutions that may be available? Your insights would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Can you refinance?

1 Vote

Houston, Texas

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .

Not an expert here but my Brother is a heavy equipment operator in Northern CA and did a lot of the fire clean up when those fires happened and he mentioned contractor might need hazard waste removal license.. FWIW

Its California , you probably need a permit to do just about anything as long as you pay the fee

That’s no different from any other state. Pay to play.

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

to me if I was insurance now that all the fuel is burned seems to me the fire danger has passed at least for the next 5 too 10 years ( time frame for the brush to grow back.. news keep talking about forest management.. there are no forests in those areas is Brush and scraggly oaks..

I am sure your aware of the antiquated lot of record rules already on the books in LA county that could stop a lot of rebuilding unless they change those laws or codes.. And I am sure your aware of the CA SEQUA laws that stops building on antiquated lots ..

Not being from/in California, I'm not familiar with the specific laws of La La Land. As for the lack of burnable material in the Palisades and other areas now, insurers will want to rebuild reserves and augment reserves for the next time, not to mention not exposing themselves to risk on this scale again.

what I see happening is that the government will simply cut the Gordian Knot by using eminent domain to seize properties and redesign/rezone the whole area so that it's more defensible against natural- and human-caused catastrophe. The plans will probably be developed while the government plans, carries out, or coerces, clean up, and puts liens on the properties being cleaned up.

So, to no surprise, CA is doing exactly none of your private property taking schemes John.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/13/governor-newsom-proposes-b...

CA is doing the only viable option they have, fast tracking reconstruction of what was. There waiving regulations that would have impeded it, and are trying to get additional funding to cover anyone who had any lack of coverage.

So there it is, no exercising eminent domain for a quarter trillion dollars. There doing the simplest thing. Rebuilding as was.

I am not shocked at all.

I'm not shocked either, but it won't last. There will be eminent domain -- lots of it -- and extensive redesign and rezoning. Time will tell.

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .

Jay, please tell that to Jim, whose unicorns and fairy dust response (earlier in the thread) to the problem is as follows:

"Also a non-starter is your hyperbolae; "toxic waste lot's"...... Really John, really."

I do wonder just how many people are going to leave California permanently from all this. It might even wind up losing another seat in the House of Representatives.

How many fire claims you dealt with John?
Me, MULTIPLE.
I actually had a fire MYSELF, yes personally.
I've navigated multiple rental property fires, nearly a dozen over the decades.
And yes, I've done fire restoration projects.

I laid out in detail the details and steps of the clean up. You just keep twisting things John so clearly your here to promote an agenda and not for intelligent discourse.

Your entire "detail and steps of the clean up" are, and I quote:

" And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.

Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.

So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole"

***

No detail there, Jim, just a lot of wishful thinking on your part and two contradictory statements to boot -- that government will handle all the clean up (that's "big government" by the way) and that individual property owners "will" address "total site cleanup" with "[their] insurance providers."

So you agree to big government and are utterly silent as to unwilling/unable/irresponsible land owners and clean ups, and that's just for starters. Stop ignoring your own contradictions.

And of the fires and fire restorations you've dealt with, Jim, how many involved total and absolute destruction of the premises?

"Claims" are an insurance matter. I've dealt with claims. Eminent domain proceedings, too. Comes with the territory of being a litigation/trial attorney for almost 40 years. Property owner, too.

What's your experience with government powers for rezoning property use after a disaster? I'll give you a hint; the powers are very extensive, and for good reason.

Again, read what I actually wrote, the whole thing, it's got every detail.
If you don't understand some facet, ask questions, don't pretend that your feelings will be right because you lack knowledge and fact's on something.

I detailed LOCAL government will be on point. And they will. Supported by assorted support services related to disaster relief for those applicable parts. FEMA does not come in and take over literally everything, FEMA has certain scopes they cover, state covers some etc etc..

So again, as I detailed, there will FIRST be a general cleanup of the general area lead by this mish-mash of disaster relief agencies AND local government.
Local government is NOT "Big Government", there is a distinction between these 2.

Utilities will be among the first in for cleanup actions.

Than AFTER that base-line cleanup action is done which part of it is to establish access for all others, than things get into the next lower level of details.

Odd's are given the scale of it all there will be some level of general cleanup resources made available for private properties. This could be simple as a coordination of who the debris disposal transportation will be that everyone uses, so it's 1 entity vs 40 trying to get in and out cluttering up area.

But NO, TOTAL site cleanup for individual property owners is all but certain NOT to be done via government, be it BIG or local.

So again, there is steps to it all. They don't just roll in with D11's and clear the place.

Private Properties will NOT be made TOTAL cleared as in build ready for people. If you think that's how it works I challenge you to show me an example of when and where that happened.

For example, FL coordinated debris pickups as private property residents stacked things curb side. FL didn't come into homes and clear them out. People had to get that done, either themself, via vendors etc., and it was on private property owners to sort there insurance themself.

Is that enough detail?

First of all, government is government. "Big" government refers to powers, not level.

Second, you left out the fact that owners who don't/didn't clean up -- in Florida or elsewhere -- had their land cleaned up by the government (local ones too) and then the land was seized or liened if the owners/insurers dragged their collective feet. So yes, at one point or another (and fairly soon) the government (local/state/federal, "big" or "small") can coerce clean up.

Your scenario depends on responsible owners/insurers with assets, Jim. That's nice, but magical thinking. You also leave out the fact that the government has a duty to others who don't live in the area, but who have to pay taxes (coercion) for the firefighting and clean up, and the first responders, to mitigate their harms. That means government (big or small, local or Washington DC) redesigns and rezones and seizes land to effectuate the redesign and rezoning.

Sing and dance all you want, but nobody's going to be allowed to build in the hills anymore. Sad, as I am sure I would like the views and the area, but it makes perfect sense practically, financially, and legally.

0 Votes

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

0 Votes

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

" I am from the government , and I am here to help "

This whole mess will be tied up in courts for years , between insurance companies , environmental groups , homeowners , it will just drag on . Anyone with insurance will be smart and take the money , sell the lot and move on .

Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.

You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.

Wrong John, yet again.....

You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?

YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.

Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?

Generally it's a mix between (a) spec builders, the type who specialize in doing in-fill lot's (b) investors, as it is a normalized flip strategy (c) owner occupants, especially in high desire neighborhoods, who are a-ok with taking on the project and even some are excited that they get to build a new home in often old neighborhoods.

Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.

The current property owners take a settlement check from insurance, and vs rebuild they sell. Most often it's in free & clear properties but, in a high enough desire area like these, and with low enough mortgage balance, yup, some can 100% get enough on the sale to have it all make sense because as @Jay Hinrichs has pointed out that in these areas the majority value is in the land not the structures on the land.

So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.

And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.

This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.

I agree. There still has to be clean up -- and you need to get straight on who does it (big government) and there is going to be redesign and rezoning so that fires such as these can be defended against or prevented. A big part of that will be condos and multi-family apartments in place of the single family homes that WERE there. Difficult to defend places -- hillsides with limited transportation options, etc. -- won't be allowed to rebuild at all. Proven to be too dangerous.

So will there be redevelopment? You bet. On condo/MFH terms for a great deal of it, with extensive revamping of transportation systems.

But john do you think the market will accept condos MF in pacific Palisades ??? those owners bought sfr on big nice lots for a reason.. Myself I am not sure that those buyers would go for tight living conditions that are condos and for sure are not going to be renters..

Unfortunately there will be a smaller population. People will move to escape taxes and insurance, and others (me included) only want single-family homes and shudder at the thought of condos and apartments (which, ironically, I have).

So will demand be as high? No. If you want to live in the area, though, then you're going to have to compromise. The days of "I built here, now save me" are over.

You also have the problem that even if you could build a single-family house in the area (and there will be some), your insurance premiums are going to be enormous. Jim's bleating about government being involved. I got news for him: the insurance companies are going to refuse to insure -- period -- or are going to charge premiums that would make Elon Musk wince. That's where the real negative effect on the market will be.

So it's condos in the Palisades. Might help bring prices down for the middle class who never thought they could live there..

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

" I am from the government , and I am here to help "

Can’t sell before clean up, Matthew, no one will buy a toxic waste site.

You are absolutely right, though, the whole thing will take years to play out.

Wrong John, yet again.....

You really don't know a single thing about Real Estate do you John?

YES, a person CAN sell without total site cleanup from a house fire. FACTS.

Oh, they can sell, Jim, just like one can sell "subject to." Who, though, is going to buy, and at what price, before clean up?

Yeah, it's a very normalized thing.

So yes, I guarantee we will see people selling as-is and walking away.

And I also guarantee there is assorted investors right now getting prepped on marketing campaigns to try and market to these people to make purchase offers.

This is some of the highest valued residential land in the country.

0 Votes

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @John Clark:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

@John Clark There isnt much left thats toxic , it all went into the atmosphere .

Your entire "detail and steps of the clean up" are, and I quote:

" And some level of clean-up will most likely be done for all private property via local government, as is SOP for disaster cleanup.

Also SOP for such is individual property owners will, individually, address total site cleanup in concert with there insurance providers.

So the whole leaving toxic waste sites BS is just that, BS hyperbole"

***

So you agree to big government and are utterly silent as to unwilling/unable/irresponsible land owners and clean ups, and that's just for starters. Stop ignoring your own contradictions.

And of the fires and fire restorations you've dealt with, Jim, how many involved total and absolute destruction of the premises?

"Claims" are an insurance matter. I've dealt with claims. Eminent domain proceedings, too. Comes with the territory of being a litigation/trial attorney for almost 40 years. Property owner, too.

What's your experience with government powers for rezoning property use after a disaster? I'll give you a hint; the powers are very extensive, and for good reason.

0 Votes

All Forum Posts by: John Clark

John Clark has started 5 posts and replied 1330 times.

Post: LA fires Wholesalers Beware

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Subto FHA problem

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.

Post: Failed Leadership is why California is on fire.