3 ms·

The end of the article talks about grants for homes in fire-prone areas. No thanks; this sounds just like the FEMA rebuilding the same flood-prone areas again a

The end of the article talks about grants for homes in fire-prone areas. No thanks; this sounds just like the FEMA rebuilding the same flood-prone areas again and again. Let's not subsidize the exurbs, but get people away from dry Forests.

spaetzleesser 6y ago
Totally agree. You just have to look around and see tons of really nice houses up in the hills that will be very hard and extremely expensive to defend. These people should have to buy market based fire insurance or figure out something else. It's much more efficient to defend groups of hundreds or thousands of houses in towns.
jayd16 6y ago
This is getting voted down but I also think we should consider the moral hazards.
bleepblorp 6y ago
Ideally, people shouldn't live in high risk fire areas. However, there's already a shortage of housing on the west coast. Removing housing stock from fire areas will reduce the fire risk to human life but will also make the housing shortage worse. Short of resolving the NIMBY problem that prevents higher-density construction in fire-safe areas, paying residents in fire-prone areas to harden their communities is the best choice out of a selection of bad options. Also keep in mind that keeping people away from fires does nothing to reduce the smoke problem, which is very severe in its own right. The solution needs to be fewer fires, whether they pose an immediate risk to human life or not.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  Building into fire areas is not a solution for the housing shortage. Usually these houses are widely distributed with tons of land around them. In absolute numbers they are probably negligible. But they cost a lot of money to protect during a fire.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  > Short of resolving the NIMBY problem that prevents higher-density construction in fire-safe areas No, the NIMBY problem must be faced head-on. No more avoidance.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

Totally agree. You just have to look around and see tons of really nice houses up in the hills that will be very hard and extremely expensive to defend. These people should have to buy market based fire insurance or figure out something else. It's much more efficient to defend groups of hundreds or thousands of houses in towns.

jayd16 6y ago

This is getting voted down but I also think we should consider the moral hazards.

bleepblorp 6y ago

Ideally, people shouldn't live in high risk fire areas. However, there's already a shortage of housing on the west coast. Removing housing stock from fire areas will reduce the fire risk to human life but will also make the housing shortage worse. Short of resolving the NIMBY problem that prevents higher-density construction in fire-safe areas, paying residents in fire-prone areas to harden their communities is the best choice out of a selection of bad options. Also keep in mind that keeping people away from fires does nothing to reduce the smoke problem, which is very severe in its own right. The solution needs to be fewer fires, whether they pose an immediate risk to human life or not.

spaetzleesser 6y ago
Building into fire areas is not a solution for the housing shortage. Usually these houses are widely distributed with tons of land around them. In absolute numbers they are probably negligible. But they cost a lot of money to protect during a fire.
Ericson2314 6y ago
> Short of resolving the NIMBY problem that prevents higher-density construction in fire-safe areas No, the NIMBY problem must be faced head-on. No more avoidance.