Holidaymakers have been asked to leave and others warned to avoid the area surrounding Dockweiler Beech RV site (pictured) in the city of El Segundo, California, amid preparation for the growing Coronavirus pandemic
Los Angeles’ homeless population could find themselves self-isolating inside a beachside RV in the coming months – as California frees up hundreds of motorhomes and hotel rooms for those in need.
Holidaymakers have been asked to leave and others warned to avoid the area surrounding Dockweiler Beech RV site in the city of El Segundo, California, amid preparation for the growing Coronavirus pandemic.
Hand washing stations have popped up in Los Angeles and San Francisco around large homeless populations and Governor Gavin Newsom revealed the state is acquiring around 900 hotels with tens of thousands of rooms to be converted for the use of both hospital patients and the homeless.
In the next few weeks, dozens of camper vans parked along the beach front are expected to become home to vagrants ordered into quarantine.
California boasts a homeless population of more than 100,000 and with no way for them to wash their hands or maintain hygiene, it was a highly at-risk group – diseases already run rife with central LA’s Skid Row recently seeing outbreaks of typhus and Hepatitis A.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – The Employment Development Department (EDD) of California is providing workers who are unable to work because of the coronavirus with various insurance claims they may be eligible for.
Governor Gavin Newsom informed the public about these claims on Twitter Monday afternoon.
If your hours have been reduced or your employer has shut down operations due to Coronavirus — you can file an Unemployment Insurance claim.
The Unemployment Insurance claim provides partial wage replacement benefit payments to workers who lose their job or have their hours reduced, through no fault of their own.
The department says workers must remain able and available and ready to work during their unemployment for each week of benefits claimed and meet all other eligibility criteria. Eligible individuals can receive benefits that range from $40-$450 per week.
The department is also reminding individuals that they can file a Disability Insurance claim if they become sick or quarantined with the coronavirus. This claim, which is available for non-work-related illness, injury or pregnancy, provides short-term benefit payments who are losing money due to their health condition.
In order to file for this claim, the worker’s claims must be certified by a medical professional. Benefit amounts are listed as being around 60-70 percent of wages (depending on income) and would range from $50-$1,300 a week.
Those who are unable to work because they are caring for someone sick with the coronavirus are able to file a Paid Family Leave claim. This claim provides up to six weeks of benefit payments to workers who are losing wages while caring for a family member with a serious illness.
The benefits from the Paid Family Leave claim would cover 60-70 perfect of the worker’s wages (depending on income) and would range from $50-$1,300 a week as well.
For more information from the EDD about potential insurance claims related to the coronavirus, you can visit their website here.
The energy situation in California is bad and likely to get worse. Ronald Stein, Founder and Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure of PTS Advance, sounds the alarm. ViaWatts Up With That:
California has not even been able to generate enough of its own electricity in-state and imported 29% of its needs in 2018. … California households are already paying 50% more, and industrial users are paying more than double the national average for electricity.
Do the communists running the state actually believe that carbon emissions are somehow harmful? Apparently not, or they would support zero-emission and low-emission energy sources. The state’s last nuclear plant and the last three natural gas plants in Southern California are all closing. Nuclear and natural gas are no good because they are economically efficient.
But there are no plans for industrial wind or solar projects either. This means California will have to import ever more energy — some from overseas.
California is the only state in the union that currently imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries. TheCalifornia Energy Commission(CEC) data demonstrates that this dependency on foreign sources of oil requires expenditures of $60 million dollars EVERY DAY to oil rich foreign countries to support the 5th largest economy in the world for it’s military, aviation, cruise ships, and merchant ships, just to make up for the States’ choice to continue decreasing in-state production.
Not all of these countries are friendly to the USA or to California.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s solution is to take a bad situation and make it worse. His…
…latest moves to reduce production and require larger setbacks for existing production wells will further decrease production and require the State to increase its monthly imports resulting in expenditures approaching a whopping $90 million EVERY DAY for foreign countries to support our infrastructures.
By now everyone knows that Trump is not in cahoots with Vladimir Putin, regardless of what the Democrat Party/establishment media told us for years. Maybe someone should investigate Newsom instead:
Both [Putin and Newsom] support California being more and more dependent on imported foreign oil, and both support anti-fracking in California as a successful fracking enterprise would lessen the states’ dependency on that foreign oil.
No wonder most of the moving vans are heading out of instead of into California. As those who leave are displaced by still more needy immigrants from the less successful parts of the world, expect the politics to veer ever further to the left. TheDemocrat Death Spiralis not inducive to energy production.
(Ryan McMaken) Not every square inch of the planet earth is suitable for a housing development. Flood plains are not great places to build homes. A grove of trees adjacent to a tinder-dry national forest is not ideal for a dream home. AndCalifornia’s chaparral ecosystemsare risky places for neighborhoods.
This is nothing new. While people many Americans who live back East may imagine that something must be deeply wrong when they hear about fires out West, the fact is things are different in North Americawest of the hundredth meridian. The West is more prone to extreme temperatures, hundred-year droughts, and fires in the wilderness. Many of these ecosystems evolved with this fire risk.
It’s also not enough to blame the growing devastation of recent wildfires solely on climate change, researchers said. While drier, warmer conditions have lengthened the fire season and likely increased the severity of the blazes, wildfires are only destroying more homes today than decades before because of rapid growth in rural areas.
It’s not that fires are more devastating in the natural sense. The problem is that human beings insist on putting their property in places where fires have long destroyed the landscape, over and over again.
The Bee continues:
[T]he fires aren’t getting closer to us — we’re getting closer to the fires. “We’re seeing wildfires that have always been a part of the landscape that are now interacting more and more with us…”
Strader studied wildfire history in the western United States going back three decades, then mapped population growth in areas where fire activity had ranged from medium to very high. His research determined there were 600,000 homes in fire prone areas in the West in 1940. Today, that number is around 7 million.
So, why do people keep building homes in these places? Part of it is natural populations growth, of course. But the manner and rapidity with which this development expands out into the fringes of metro areas is also partly due to government policy and infrastructure.
In an unhampered market, it would be very expensive to extend a new neighborhood out into ever-further-out regions near metro areas. In order to reach these places, housing developers would need to find a way to finance both the new housing construction and the roads that give access to them. Certainly, developers often provide part of the funding through development fees demanded by governments. But these roads are often also subsidized by state and local governments, especially in the form of ongoing maintenance. Once a road to a new semi-rural community is built, governments will often maintain it, while spreading the cost across all the jurisdiction’s taxpayers.
This system of subsidy allows more rapid and more dispersed development. Unsubsidized roads would tend to force more close-in and more dense development.
The federal development also subsidizes the construction of larger and more sprawling residential property through the FHA insurance programs and government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae. By purchasing home loans on the secondary market, the GSEs push more liquidity into the home loan market, making loans cheaper, and pushing up demand for larger, sprawling developments.
Many conservatives often speak of density in residential and commercial development as if it were some kind of left-wing conspiracy. It is assumed that few people would opt for density were there not left-wing urban planners to force it on everyone.
But the reality is that in an unhampered market, density levels would be higher than they are now, because sprawl would be (all else remaining equal) much more costly to consumers than is now the case.
In light of the increasing fire danger to homes, many left-wing advocates favor changing California’s housing development patterns. But they can only point toward more restrictive government regulations. The Los Angeles Times editorial board, for example, complains that “Land-use decisions are made by local elected officials and they’ve proven themselves unwilling to say no to dangerous sprawl development …”
But government prohibitions aren’t necessary. If people insist on building and selling homes in fire-prone areas, let them be the ones to cover all the costs. This includes the cost of fire mitigation and rebuilding after fire. This in itself would limit development in these areas.
And yet, while California pundits are complaining that policymakers aren’t doing enough, California politicians are actively taking steps to keep the market from correcting the excessive building in fire-prone areas.
The state said its moratorium applies to about 800,000 homes, and more areas are expected to be added.
A state law passed last year allows the California Department of Insurance to require insurers to renew residential policies for one year in ZIP Codes that have been affected by declared wildfire disasters.
Previously, insurers had to renew policies for homeowners who suffered a total loss. The current law extends to all policyholders in an affected area, regardless of whether they experienced a loss.
Not surprisingly, many homeowners in fire-prone areas of the state are having problems finding fire insurance for their homes. And they often pay handsomely when they do find it. That’s too bad for the owners, but this fact doesn’t justify handing down state mandates that insurance companies continue to cover people who have taken on unacceptably high risk.
By stepping in to force insurance companies to cover these homeowners, California politicians are doing two things:
They’re continuing the cycle of encouraging home buyers to buy homes in areas likely to fall victim to wildfires.
At the same time, regulators are increasing the costs incurred by insurance companies, and this will likely have the effect of driving up the price of fire insurance for homeowners who more prudently declined to purchase a house in fire-prone areas.
We’re now seeing a similar type of moral hazard at work in California.
In a more sane political environment, however, those who insist on living in the way of wildfires would have to assume the risk of doing so, rather than demanding politicians force the cost on insurance companies and taxpayers.
Seen in August 2019, the remains of a home destroyed in Northern California’s 2018 Camp Fire. Rich Pedroncelli/AP
Utility giant Pacific Gas and Electric announced a $13.5 billion settlement agreement to resolve all claims associated with several Northern California wildfires that killed dozens of people and destroyed thousands of businesses and homes. The wildfires have beentied to the company’s equipment.
“We want to help our customers, our neighbors and our friends in those impacted areas recover and rebuild after these tragic wildfires,” said PG&E Corp. CEO and President Bill Johnson in astatementreleased late Friday.
The settlement fund, if accepted by a bankruptcy judge, will go to victims who lost loved ones and/or property, as well as government agencies and attorneys who have pressed the claims.
PG&Edeclared bankruptcyin January, saying it faced potential liabilities of $30 billion. The company hopes that the settlement will improve its prospects for emerging from bankruptcy before a court-imposed deadline in June.
The settlement covers the Camp Fire in 2018; the Tubbs Fire in 2017; the Butte Fire in 2015; and the Ghost Ship Fire in Oakland in 2016.
Victims seeking compensation will have to file claims by the end of the year. The deadline had been extended because tens of thousands of eligible victims hadfailed to fileamid reports that many were still unaware that they could seek payments.