I understand this is going to be our taxpayer monies?
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/09/09/hawaii-governor-proposes-lahaina-fund-victims-an-alternative-lawsuits/

HA HA HA HA HA 

Governor Greed mentioned about the unethical vultures from the mainland.  He said they are the worst kind and need to fly back to the mainland.

No, No, No, Governor Greed.  The worst kind vultures are right here.  In Hawaii.

It takes one to know one.

I understand this is going to be our taxpayer monies?
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/09/09/hawaii-governor-proposes-lahaina-fund-victims-an-alternative-lawsuits/

Sounds like he's trying to short-circuit the inevitable lawsuits against the state for all the failures before, during and after the fires.

if he can set up a settlement fund now, it avoids the truth having to come out.

Unless fund beneficiaries have to sign a "no legal action" promise, this won't prevent lawsuits from being filed.

The state screwed the pooch and then lied about it, especially with not sounding the warning sirens and saying they are just for tsunamis.

HA HA HA HA HA 

Governor Greed mentioned about the unethical vultures from the mainland.  He said they are the worst kind and need to fly back to the mainland.

No, No, No, Governor Greed.  The worst kind vultures are right here.  In Hawaii.

It takes one to know one.

When one needs political distractions, scapegoating and demonizing someone else is always a popular choice among bad leaders.

Wag the dog ... 1984 ... Nazi Germany ...

HA HA HA HA HA 

Governor Greed MD mentioned about the unethical vultures from the mainland.  He said they are the worst kind and need to fly back to the mainland.

No, No, No, Governor Greed. MD The worst kind vultures are right here.  In Hawaii.

It takes one to know one.

It is on his official bio/photo caption. I'm a real Dr / Governor

Most people have insurance. Wouldn't that cover a lot of the expenses?

Most people have insurance. Wouldn't that cover a lot of the expenses?

Unless victims have 100% replacement cost coverage, the buildings might be covered, but personal property items would be based on market value less depreciation.

For example, electronics are normally depreciated about 10% of current price per year.  So, that TV you paid $1500 for 5 years ago that could be bought for $800 now would be worth $400 to the appraiser.  Replacement cost coverage would be the $800 needed to buy it again.

If everything is destroyed in a fire, they might offer a dollar amount to settle the claim without the need to prove you owned stuff.  That is almost always less than what you had, but it's better than only getting paid for what you can prove.

It's a good idea to walk around the house taking pictures of all your stuff every so often.  if it's stored on the cloud, you'll have the evidence you need for a full claim payout.

Anyone notice the difference in that...if a single house burns down, that family gets no money from the government and must fend for themselves.  If a bunch of homes burns down, then they get government support and money.

No real practical difference between the two if you think about it.  Except for widespread economic damages.

Anyone notice the difference in that...if a single house burns down, that family gets no money from the government and must fend for themselves.  If a bunch of homes burns down, then they get government support and money.

No real difference between the two if you think about it.

Lots of people seeking insurance benefits and assistance for themselves and family can overwhelm the support systems run by the state and charities.  That increases the amount of time people are dependent on assistance until they get a check from insurance and can get their lives put back together.

Also, think of how many jobs were lost -- all those displaced employees without a paycheck now and no new jobs in the near future.

i just found out the SNAP food stamp program is putting semi-annual re-certifications for everyone currently getting benefits on hold until around Feb-Mar 2024. due to the fire.  That tells me the state is having to divert resources from normal program administration to assisting the fire victims and families.  Dept of Human Services does more than food stamps, so all the state and federal programs they administer will be focused on assisting Maui residents.

If it was just one home destroyed, the state would be able to assist as usual and not disrupt normal operations.  It really doesn't take much to overwhelm a system that already takes a month or two to process new benefits applications.

I pray for those that have lost their lives, homes and jobs.
But bottom line you voted for the a$$holes responsible for this mess
and I have NO responsibility to fix your mistakes.
I pay dearly for home insurance with full replacement coverage.
Reputable company with sold finances.
I won't beg the tax payer to pay for my mistakes and lack of good judgement.
You Democrats make me sick.
BTW any cop that would have tried to halt me from saving myself
and family would not have survived the effort.
 

Hoo Boy.  Hawaii going get big sue job.

Pretty soon nomo money.

Honestly even though this will impact me in many ways, I don't blame the victims for suing the living sh*t out of the state.

Lots of people seeking insurance benefits and assistance for themselves and family can overwhelm the support systems run by the state and charities.  That increases the amount of time people are dependent on assistance until they get a check from insurance and can get their lives put back together.

Also, think of how many jobs were lost -- all those displaced employees without a paycheck now and no new jobs in the near future.

i just found out the SNAP food stamp program is putting semi-annual re-certifications for everyone currently getting benefits on hold until around Feb-Mar 2024. due to the fire.  That tells me the state is having to divert resources from normal program administration to assisting the fire victims and families.  Dept of Human Services does more than food stamps, so all the state and federal programs they administer will be focused on assisting Maui residents.

If it was just one home destroyed, the state would be able to assist as usual and not disrupt normal operations.  It really doesn't take much to overwhelm a system that already takes a month or two to process new benefits applications.

I understand, but it just doesn't seem right.

Anyone notice the difference in that...if a single house burns down, that family gets no money from the government and must fend for themselves.  If a bunch of homes burns down, then they get government support and money.

No real practical difference between the two if you think about it.  Except for widespread economic damages.

It's called buying votes

It is on his official bio/photo caption. I'm a real Dr / Governor

Doesn't own any firearms or reloading equipment!

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

I understand, but it just doesn't seem right.

In a perfect world, we'd all be treated the same as everybody else regardless of the situation.

Unless victims have 100% replacement cost coverage, the buildings might be covered, but personal property items would be based on market value less depreciation.

For example, electronics are normally depreciated about 10% of current price per year.  So, that TV you paid $1500 for 5 years ago that could be bought for $800 now would be worth $400 to the appraiser.  Replacement cost coverage would be the $800 needed to buy it again.

If everything is destroyed in a fire, they might offer a dollar amount to settle the claim without the need to prove you owned stuff.  That is almost always less than what you had, but it's better than only getting paid for what you can prove.

It's a good idea to walk around the house taking pictures of all your stuff every so often.  if it's stored on the cloud, you'll have the evidence you need for a full claim payout.

Homeowners policies have additional coverage to buy that takes away depreciation, "replacement cost contents".

But there are some who are too cheap to buy it as it can cost anywhere from $40-200 a year extra depending on what your contents coverage limit is.

Then if u rent out the home and have a "dwelling fire" policy instead, many dont have this option. But usually a rental is unfurnished and only has appliances or has minimal furnishings.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Homeowners policies have additional coverage to buy that takes away depreciation, "replacement cost contents".

But there are some who are too cheap to buy it as it can cost anywhere from $40-200 a year extra depending on what your contents coverage limit is.

Then if u rent out the home and have a "dwelling fire" policy instead, many dont have this option. But usually a rental is unfurnished and only has appliances or has minimal furnishings.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes, renter's insurance is another issue.  While the landlord has property insurance for the building and his items in it as well as liability coverage if the landlord is sued, the renter's belongings are not covered.  Most renters from what i remember reading have never bought renter's insurance even though it can keep you from losing everything in a catastrophe.

Like all insurance, if you never have a claim on your renter's insurance policy, it's money down the drain.  The fact that it's 100% optional means it's not a common expense renters choose to pay.

I always had renter's coverage even when i was occupying base housing.  In fact, it was encouraged that we maintain that policy when moving so we had additional coverage in case of loss or damage in the move.  It offset the extra (and very expensive) insurance the moving companies sell above their standard limits of liability.

Yes, renter's insurance is another issue.  While the landlord has property insurance for the building and his items in it as well as liability coverage if the landlord is sued, the renter's belongings are not covered.  Most renters from what i remember reading have never bought renter's insurance even though it can keep you from losing everything in a catastrophe.

Like all insurance, if you never have a claim on your renter's insurance policy, it's money down the drain.  The fact that it's 100% optional means it's not a common expense renters choose to pay.

I always had renter's coverage even when i was occupying base housing.  In fact, it was encouraged that we maintain that policy when moving so we had additional coverage in case of loss or damage in the move.  It offset the extra (and very expensive) insurance the moving companies sell above their standard limits of liability.

Unfortunatly, many renters dont know this exist either. Often they find out cause a good property manager/landlord will bring it up. Some prop mgrs even require it in the lease.

Many even assumed their stuff was covered by the landlords policy.

But again, it comes down to price. Many dont want to spend the $150-250 a year on a renters policy either. Esp if one is living paycheck to paycheck.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I understand this is going to be our taxpayer monies?
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/09/09/hawaii-governor-proposes-lahaina-fund-victims-an-alternative-lawsuits/

It says the fund would be paid into by groups that might have liability. Hopefully that doesn't mean taxpayers.

At least, according the article, people could still sue as long as they don't accept funds from this plan.