3 ms·

>And what do you do for families whose homes were destroyed? Of the nearly 1500 structures destroyed, only a handful of building permits have been issued to reb

>And what do you do for families whose homes were destroyed? Of the nearly 1500 structures destroyed, only a handful of building permits have been issued to rebuild. You can't let them rebuild in place. Your points are spot on (a new survey shows 1/3 of Californians live in the urban/wildland interface where wildfires will destroy most dwellings) and it requires new zoning, new fire legislation on fire insurance, and of course the ability of people to live in higher density through infill and careful planning. The cost of housing in the Bay Area is a closely related problem, but the bottom line is that we have to let fire move through the coastal redwoods every few decades, and that means we cannot build tinderbox houses right next to those groves.

retrocryptid 3y ago
That would be extremely unpopular. Say you bought a house in the suburbs. Everything's fine. Then someone comes in and says "Hey. We didn't know there was a problem with the soil under your home, so we're just going to come in one night and destroy it. And you don't get to sell it or file an insurance claim. And we're not going to compensate you for it. You just need to pay off your mortgage, even though we destroyed the house." Changing zoning is a great idea, but alienating property owners from the value of their purchase is not. The only solution I can think of is eminent domain, but it's structurally a little more difficult in California than authoritarian states like Texas that just come in and grab your house to give it to the local baseball team. So you would have to pass the legislation in Sacramento to authorize the creation of a special district to manage the confiscation of property. Then you would have to approve the funds, cause this wouldn't be an improvement district and you wouldn't be funding the district from the tax on the property. Then you have do the confiscation, and sheesh, the San Lorenzo Valley is sort of the definition of "weird deed restrictions." And once the state (or maybe the open space trust???) has the land, it has to pay for remediation so the soil doesn't wash away and cause landslides that cover the road in three feet of mud. And you have to do all this before the next big rain event so the roads don't completely wash away. So... eminent domain isn't a bad idea, per se. But it's HARD. (queue Jethro Tull's "Farm on the Freeway")
- lazide 3y ago
  Eh, the counties where this happened in likely couldn’t afford to eminent domain this problem away. It’s their tax base they’d be nuking! If it was a legitimate problem, you’ve described what happens sometimes to folks buying homes. It’s a risk of ownership. Could be sinkholes. Could be subsidence. Could be a toxic waste dump. Lawsuits fly, etc. However, long term it usually boils down to aligned incentives. If the people at risk had to pay for the risk (either by taxes or directly), they’d either move - or cover the costs and reap the good or bad consequences (including bankruptcy/loss of assets).
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    We're talking specifically about Santa Cruz county. SLV is responsible for waaaay more county expenditures than revenue, that might explain why they're slow-balling building permits up along Highway 236.
    - w7b7s7 3y ago
      The county -- via its contract with 4Leaf -- has already issued 180+ build permits specifically for fire rebuilds. The number of completed homes is low. The number of issued build permits is not.
- rcpt 3y ago
  This isn't the suburbs. This is exurban sprawl deep into the redwoods.
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    Yes. That's the point. It's people building summer cabins 100 years ago deep in the woods and then people moving into them year round and building WAY more than should have been allowed. The problem isn't just that people build houses in places they probably shouldn't have, it's that those houses represent the primary wealth of a number of a number of not-entirely-upper-class families. I mean sure... if you're banking a couple mil per quarter working in the venture mines, you can afford to give up your house in the woods. But for the majority of people who live there, that would be financially ruinous, and thus... unpopular.
whyenot 3y ago
> The cost of housing in the Bay Area is a closely related problem, but the bottom line is that we have to let fire move through the coastal redwoods every few decades, and that means we cannot build tinderbox houses right next to those groves. There are very few people who actually live among the redwoods. This is a problem that will take care of itself as the insurance policies of those living in the most risky places are canceled. This is already happening (it has happened to me). A far greater risk is the number of people who live in a WUI and are right next to coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and chaparral. A lot more people are affected by this because these are the plant communities that ring many of California's urban areas, and many of these communities also regularly burn; for their health, they actually need to burn.
rcpt 3y ago
Right. LA Times has a good write up, Rebuild, Reburn https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-reburn-greenville-dixie-fire-recovery https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-...
thghtihadanacct 3y ago
Groves? If you look at a map all that green between Watsonville and the city are Redwoods. Thats the grove.
BurningFrog 3y ago
If we legalized building massive amounts of housing in California cities, this would be one of many problems that mostly disappeared.

retrocryptid 3y ago

That would be extremely unpopular. Say you bought a house in the suburbs. Everything's fine. Then someone comes in and says "Hey. We didn't know there was a problem with the soil under your home, so we're just going to come in one night and destroy it. And you don't get to sell it or file an insurance claim. And we're not going to compensate you for it. You just need to pay off your mortgage, even though we destroyed the house." Changing zoning is a great idea, but alienating property owners from the value of their purchase is not. The only solution I can think of is eminent domain, but it's structurally a little more difficult in California than authoritarian states like Texas that just come in and grab your house to give it to the local baseball team. So you would have to pass the legislation in Sacramento to authorize the creation of a special district to manage the confiscation of property. Then you would have to approve the funds, cause this wouldn't be an improvement district and you wouldn't be funding the district from the tax on the property. Then you have do the confiscation, and sheesh, the San Lorenzo Valley is sort of the definition of "weird deed restrictions." And once the state (or maybe the open space trust???) has the land, it has to pay for remediation so the soil doesn't wash away and cause landslides that cover the road in three feet of mud. And you have to do all this before the next big rain event so the roads don't completely wash away. So... eminent domain isn't a bad idea, per se. But it's HARD. (queue Jethro Tull's "Farm on the Freeway")

lazide 3y ago
Eh, the counties where this happened in likely couldn’t afford to eminent domain this problem away. It’s their tax base they’d be nuking! If it was a legitimate problem, you’ve described what happens sometimes to folks buying homes. It’s a risk of ownership. Could be sinkholes. Could be subsidence. Could be a toxic waste dump. Lawsuits fly, etc. However, long term it usually boils down to aligned incentives. If the people at risk had to pay for the risk (either by taxes or directly), they’d either move - or cover the costs and reap the good or bad consequences (including bankruptcy/loss of assets).
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  We're talking specifically about Santa Cruz county. SLV is responsible for waaaay more county expenditures than revenue, that might explain why they're slow-balling building permits up along Highway 236.
  - w7b7s7 3y ago
    The county -- via its contract with 4Leaf -- has already issued 180+ build permits specifically for fire rebuilds. The number of completed homes is low. The number of issued build permits is not.
rcpt 3y ago
This isn't the suburbs. This is exurban sprawl deep into the redwoods.
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  Yes. That's the point. It's people building summer cabins 100 years ago deep in the woods and then people moving into them year round and building WAY more than should have been allowed. The problem isn't just that people build houses in places they probably shouldn't have, it's that those houses represent the primary wealth of a number of a number of not-entirely-upper-class families. I mean sure... if you're banking a couple mil per quarter working in the venture mines, you can afford to give up your house in the woods. But for the majority of people who live there, that would be financially ruinous, and thus... unpopular.

whyenot 3y ago

> The cost of housing in the Bay Area is a closely related problem, but the bottom line is that we have to let fire move through the coastal redwoods every few decades, and that means we cannot build tinderbox houses right next to those groves. There are very few people who actually live among the redwoods. This is a problem that will take care of itself as the insurance policies of those living in the most risky places are canceled. This is already happening (it has happened to me). A far greater risk is the number of people who live in a WUI and are right next to coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and chaparral. A lot more people are affected by this because these are the plant communities that ring many of California's urban areas, and many of these communities also regularly burn; for their health, they actually need to burn.

rcpt 3y ago

Right. LA Times has a good write up, Rebuild, Reburn https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-reburn-greenville-dixie-fire-recovery https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-...

thghtihadanacct 3y ago

Groves? If you look at a map all that green between Watsonville and the city are Redwoods. Thats the grove.

BurningFrog 3y ago

If we legalized building massive amounts of housing in California cities, this would be one of many problems that mostly disappeared.