New! Spiffy! And L.A. in flames

Dave · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: New! Spiffy! And L.A. in flames

Arturo did a good job with the strip he wrote. And it leads into the new and spiffy backgroudns available in the Gallery. Enjoy.

Dan also captured L.A. during fires just right. We too get snow-like fall from the sky, except ours only comes from fires raveging the hillsides, or the city itself. And yes, that last panel of L.A. on fire was a bitch to do.
_________________
"Addiction can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed."
-Clango, Diesel Sweeties
===
I (heart) Hanners of Questionable Content.

Mike · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:15 am Post subject:

GG Malibu
_________________

Parsifal · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:13 am Post subject:

No, bad game.

Among the various disaster relief mechanisms in place, we have a general emergency fund for things like lost homes in Los Angeles. A home burns down the people get a flat % back of its value. This sounds great, but the fund only gets a set amount each year from general taxes,

Malibu is nice, lots of good views, near the ocean, expensive to live there. Its also a stated high fire area, everyone who moves in is told this but they make these huge multi-million $ homes there. So these people who know that the entire area goes up in flames (and often) but don't care, and lo and behold pretty soon houses start going up. The fund kicks in and gives them their (lets say) 15%. Thats 15% of a multi-million $ home. So they get a hundreds of thousands or whatever back (not like they can't just build it again) and after a few of these go up the fund is empty until next year.

A small home somewhere within one of the poorer areas of Los Angeles either burns or is destroyed in a earthquake. Thats okay, they'll get a % too. Except for 3 things. #1. Their percentage is comparatively (and understandably) tiny. For what the home was worth its something and could help, but everything has gotten far more expensive since the days many of those homes were built, which leads us to #2. Since its not enough to buy a home and they are poorer, they may not be able to afford the reconstruction. With property values and cost of homes being what they are here, the temptation to cash out and let someone else build onto it could be high. Even a little place that would run reasonable costs hundreds of thousands.

Oh, and then there's #3. Something happens to this place and they go to the county and try to claim some of their disaster relief and are promptly told that they have nothing left in the fund to give. Since there will be nothing until next year, they'll get nothing. This happens during heavy years. When the big homes built up in some of the landslide prone (but beautiful) hills we have here also go down all relief gets promptly drained. Yeah, sorry, someone who's richer and able to afford better lawyers and raise hell if they don't get their money beat you to it. Here's some cheese.
_________________
<(@_@<), <(@_@)>, (>@_@)>, <(@_@)>, <(@_~)>, <(@_@)>, <(@_@<)

jynexia · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject:

That's sad. I think we should insist a law be made that says if you knowingly built a house on a landslide/fire prone area then you will have to foot the bill yourself. Oh yeah and here are the landslide/fire prone areas so you have no excuse.
_________________
~jynx~
I need to go to my Happy place, but I accidentally blew it up, so now I have to find a new one... Sad

Dave · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject:

They could simply do a price line like they have with cars. Any house priced over this much cash is considered luxury, and therefore you would only be able to claim up to that amount.

It'd need to have the details ironed out, but that could work.
_________________
"Addiction can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed."
-Clango, Diesel Sweeties
===
I (heart) Hanners of Questionable Content.