How to make sure CA homes keep burning

But according to Steinberg and others, there are changes that can help—including applying tougher building codes to more new homes, retrofitting old ones, more aggressive landscape rules, less development in the most vulnerable areas, and letting insurers charge premiums that reflect the risk of wildfire. Those reforms, however, remain anathema in a state squeezed by rising housing costs and the instinct to help communities rebuild as quickly as possible.


A tougher issue is what to do about homes that predate the 2008 code. When it comes to wildfires, a building is only as safe as the homes around it: If a house ignites, odds are that the one next door will too, even if it’s built to the new standards.

But Lehmann says California goes too far in the other direction, preventing insurers from raising rates based on projected future losses from worsening wildfires. Nor can insurers take into account the rising costs of reinsurance, another indicator that risks are increasing.

Since last year’s fires, lawmakers have introduced bills to make it harder for insurers to raise rates or cancel coverage for homeowners in high-risk areas.

“We get a lot of pressure from people who are worried about the impact of climate change and all sorts of failures to adapt,” he says. “And yet when we try to provide the signals that many clamor for us to provide, then others don’t like how it looks.”

But at 2 to 3 x the construction cost, it just makes financial sense to build a cheap but flammable home and rebuild if it burns down. Even with these massive fires, I'm sure the odds are still less than 1 in 100 forest homes in CA will burn down in an owner's lifetime.

build on the coast, you get wiped out by a tsunami, build along the fault line, you get wiped out by an earthquake, build in the forest, you get wiped out by a forest fire, build in the central valley, you get killed by a meth freak or die from asthma, build along a river and your home washes away, build in the gulf of Mexico and you get wiped out by a hurricane, build in the state of Texas and get killed by a red neck, build in the state of Kansas and you get wiped out by a tornado, build in Alaska and you freeze to death, build a house in LA and you die from drugs and alcohol, fire, an earthquake, a tsunami, asthma, or get killed by a heroin addict.
may as well dig a grave and crawl in, too much fear.

Its tough for politicians pandering for campaign funding from voters and special interests alike. But of course its also so easy for us voters to blame the politicians.

At the heart of it all, we get the government we elect. The market will out, eventually.

Hopefully the highest risk counties will lead the way with building codes.

August, your point is excellent but focusing on the wrong peril (fire), which is so unpredictable. In fact, the majority of the lost homes in these attention-getting fires result from a basically urban fire spread - house to house, sometimes even leaving green vegetation nearby or even in between the destroyed houses. Look at aerials of the Waldo Fire, Coffey Park, etc, etc, and you will see. The number of lost houses that are actually in the WUI, where the jacked up insurance rates would be applied, is relatively small. It's a certainty the insurance industry would not price accordingly. They'll hammer the smaller number of policy holders hard, because they can.

Insurance companies will bone you raw given the chance don’t give them the chance.

I'm genuinely curious - if it is a) affordable b) easy to construct (easy for existing contractors to adapt to), and c) seismically safe, it could be a good solution for new homes out near the big burn.

Wait until one of these rain bombs hits a 80,000 acre fire scar.

Welcome to the new normal.