As California community slowly slides toward ocean, not all homeowners want to leave
Sheri Hastings' property sits on a slow-moving disaster; a complex of landslides in the Portuguese Bend area of Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
For nearly 70 years, this area has shifted roughly a few inches a year, but recently that pace has surged to as fast as four inches a week.
The culprit for the spike in movement is heavy rains – and runoff from nearby canyons -- brought on by a series of recent atmospheric rivers that have soaked deep into the soil, destabilizing the area.
The landslide complex on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is more than a square mile in size and reaches hundreds of feet deep in some places. It's slipping towards the Pacific Ocean.
Mike Phipps, a geologist who has been studying the shifting landscape for nearly four decades, was contracted by the city to monitor the movement. A major part of the city's approach to slow the landslide is around a dozen deep water wells that pull water from the ground and channel it into the ocean.
"It's a catastrophe, and yet some people are still able to live in their homes up here. They're kind of riding a big raft down the hill," Phipps said.
In October, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and California Governor's Office of Emergency Services announced a $42 million voluntary buyout program for residents most impacted by the slide. The properties approved for buyouts will be acquired by the city and converted to open space. Of the 85 residents who applied, only an estimated 20 homes are expected to be covered by the initial funding round, according to the city.
But Hastings isn't interested.
"It's not a good deal. You get what the value of your home was two years ago. You get 75% of that. And then on top of that, you have to pay to demolish everything and have it hauled away," Hastings said.
The FEMA-funded buyout program only provides 75% of the funding for the city to buy affected properties at fair market value, while the remaining 25% is effectively absorbed by sellers, according to the program's guidelines.
Hastings said that insurance doesn't cover any of the damage to her property, either. Her life savings are now slipping away.
"Everybody thinks we're all millionaires up here. We're actually not. Our homes were our money, right? We can't just go out and buy another home," Hastings said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Homeowners forced to 'gamble' amid worsening insurance crisis across US: 'Struggling to keep up'
Homeowners insurance is going up around the United States, particularly in places that have been hit by natural disasters, according to Insurance NewsNet. No one loves paying for insurance, but covering those costs is usually better than risking a catastrophe without it. That has been true for years. Now, though, homeowners are having to decide if they should lower their coverage because it's getting so expensive. In areas across the country, homeowners insurance costs are soaring in the wake of hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters. One senior citizen in North Carolina is considering lowering her coverage. "Admittedly, it is a gamble, but a gamble that a senior on a fixed income must consider," Diana Hill said. "Many of us seniors, if not hurting … are struggling to keep up with the cost of protecting our homes." In recent years, insurers have paid high prices to replace homes and property damaged by natural disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates that the cost of damages from Hurricane Helene alone will be over $1.4 billion. Insurers have to recoup that money somehow, and they are trying to do it by raising premiums. Some homeowners dispute these high costs. They say they aren't getting the amount of money they should have been given based on their policies. Others are getting dropped without any warning. The companies say their costs are going up, but no one can be sure where all the money is going. Rising homeowners insurance costs are bad for everyone affected, especially seniors. However, they also indicate a larger problem. According to the World Wildlife Fund, natural disasters are on the rise around the globe, due in large part to the amount of dirty energy sources that are burned and the planet-overheating pollution they create. In fact, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change observed, per the WWF, these disasters are already worse than what climate scientists had predicted. That's putting more homes at risk, and without a financial safety net, some may find it difficult to recover if their property is damaged or destroyed. Do you think America is in a housing crisis? Definitely Not sure No way Only in some cities Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Insurance regulatory groups around the country are meeting to figure out what can be done about rising homeowners insurance costs. Meanwhile, voters are turning to pro-climate action candidates in an effort to get changes codified into law to protect the planet. In addition, insurance companies are trying to figure out what to do about the way the climate is changing. As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, said, "[A board member for] the largest insurance company on the planet said that he just does not see a way for the insurance business model to survive without meaningfully addressing climate change." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Fiscal Court approves tornado cleanup oversight, several new hires
At its regular meeting Thursday morning, the Laurel County Fiscal Court approved several items related to tornado recovery and county operations for the upcoming fiscal year. Judge-Executive David Westerfield received approval to bring in DRC Emergency Services to oversee remaining tornado debris cleanup through local subcontractors. He was also authorized to hire a company to handle FEMA documentation related to the cleanup, as well as a monitoring company to meet FEMA requirements for debris removal tracking. As for personnel matters, multiple new hires were approved. Jordan Dalrymple, who will serve as retirement clerk, will enter her role on June 16. Dalrymple will earn $21 per hour for the position. Following the retirement of two road department employees, the department saw two new hires — William Antrim and Billy Goforth. Antrim will earn $15 per hour, whereas Goforth will make $14 an hour due to not having his CDL (commercial driver's license). Further, six temporary employees will be hired to haul debris, each earning $30 an hour. In new business, the court approved bids for materials to be used during the 2025–2026 fiscal year. During the county treasurer's report, several transfers and approvals were made, including: — Approval of May claims with no discussion. — An intra-fund transfer, also approved without discussion. — The adoption of standing orders for the 2025–2026 fiscal year. — The closure of the county's ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) account after funds were fully allocated and spent. The cash transfer report included $500,000 from the occupational tax fund to the road fund, $299,848.67 from the ARPA fund to general fund, and $800,000 from the occupational tax fund to general fund. Judge Westerfield closed Thursday's meeting by thanking those involved with tornado relief efforts. 'I just appreciate everybody in the county for pulling together and trying to help these people,' Westerfield stated. The Laurel County Fiscal Court regularly meets at 8:45 a.m. on the second Monday and 9:30 a.m. on the final Thursday of each month. The fiscal court's next meeting will take place Monday, June 9.
Vox
3 days ago
- Vox
The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows. Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it. Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed. However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade. But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards. Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't. In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications. Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates. He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans. Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election. Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic! Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff. The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it. Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different? From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous. Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system. A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it? First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it. Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast. The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat. But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably. Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote. Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette. The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
