They all need to be condemned and home owners collect what they can from their insurance providers. That land cannot be stablized at any price point. Why do they expect the other taxpayers to pick up a billion plus dollar tab.

1.9 million average for there.

Still castles built on sand.

They spend millions to buy and now expect taxpayers to make them whole. This is a known unstable area.
State could cover the demolition and turn the area into open space.

ANY home built or purchased near or on erodible land comes with an inherent risk. Same with hillsides. When I bought my California home 23 years ago I made damn sure there wasn't a hillside nearby that could someday wipe me out.

Was water also cut off? Both are usually delivered by pressurized underground pipes, is why I ask. Sort of seems like the need for cutting off the whole neighborhood would go hand in hand for those two, even if the dangerous consequences of a rupture are different between them.

And if the water WAS cut off, what the heck are these people still doing there to even experience the electricity cuts and be annoyed by it? And do their gravity-based sewer lines still work anyway with things shifting so (and if not repeat the prior question)?

That eater was still running

Five residents had twenty four hours to move out. They became homeless overnight. There was only one open apartment in the complex so the eldest lady with serious disability was moved into it.

You never know what's going to happen in California.

I’ve lived in CA for almost 30 years now, and I still feel uncomfortable in anything higher than a 3-story building. I don’t think I’ll ever feel “settled” here.