• Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    They could tax insurance sales to high risk or high value properties. They’re the ones that will ultimately be the biggest burden in a fire anyway.

    In reality the costs should fall on the utility companies that likely caused several of the fires. But that would raise prices for everyone.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Insurance companies operating in California are already massively increasing homeowner premiums regardless of risk. Example: my homeowner and earthquake premiums are both up 60% year-on-year. I live in a low fire-risk area, and the risk of an earthquake hasn’t changed since last year. They’re seeing how far they can push it before the regulators stir themselves from their lethargy and actually do something. And Newsom has consistently shielded big corporations from accountability.

    • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s tricky because the people who live in high risk areas live there because that is frequently what they can afford. It also means they may not be able to afford the rising costs of insurance. The issue is complex and the reality is that wildfire prevention and mitigation is expensive. We will end up paying one way or another.