fp.

Agreed. IMO anything that's objectively the wrong implementation for any lifespan of the regulated thing should not get grandfathered. If it's like, "this type of concrete only lasts 10 years" then the regulation should say that anything built < idk 8 years ago is fine so long as everybody is notified. But if regulators found that doubling hydrant frequency would help then it just should've been done.

Neywiny•44m ago

A bit sneaky of the reporter here. They're hinting that even with an extra hydrant it may not have helped because there wasn't enough water to go around. Unless I'm misunderstanding

yesfitz•40m ago

"The LADWP tells Eyewitness News they will cover the cost of installing a new fire hydrant at the price tag of $35,000."[1]

The median sale price in the Pacific Palisades is ~$2 Million.[2]

The homeowners said "Our insurance certainly wouldn't have covered [a new hydrant]." And according to them, the LAFD said "please contact LADWP to get a cost estimate for what you'll have to pay to build and install this new hydrant." Emphasis mine.

Even if the homeowners had to bear the entire cost, assuming they had a median home, a new hydrant would be 1.75% of the value of the house, equivalent to a $7,175 expense for a home valued at the US median price of $410,000.

I feel for these people. No matter who you are, losing your home is a terrible experience. But it's ridiculous to choose to rebuild in a clearly fire-prone area, and then complain that the city needs to you install fire protection as part of the building.

This should have been a matter between the homeowners and their insurance company.

1: https://abc7.com/post/palisades-fire-victims-told-had-pay-ne... 2: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/19810/pacific-palisades-l...