I think the state should subsidize insurance for an issue their negligence and political tribalism have allowed to reach predictably disastrous levels. I don't

I think the state should subsidize insurance for an issue their negligence and political tribalism have allowed to reach predictably disastrous levels. I don't think that the cost of the home should be a factor, the homeowner played no role in the aforementioned disaster unless it's a policy they voted for. I would be personally shocked if "forestry" was at the top of many voter's issue list, more likely those policies just came along as a package with others. It's also worth saying that in your 3 scenarios the outcomes are: 1. Fires still start there because the conditions which cause those fires have little, if anything, to do with the presence of that construction. Said fires would move far more rapidly through the usual untended scrub brush than it does through large, built-up areas. Now you have the same fire problem, but in a slightly different area. 2. That seems like a recipe to make it into even more of an exclusive enclave for the super-rich. Who else can afford to eat that sort of risk, shrug, and rebuild? 3. Then we're back at the start, where the negligent policies of a series of state governments produces a terrible outcome for homeowners who are not the cause of the problem. I propose a more functional response: Let the state pay for its mistake, and require that they follow the plans of states like Oregon, Texas, and Florida, and use controlled burns appropriately! They'll be incentivized to do so as a means to keep their liability to fire insurance down, and as a bonus homeowners won't have to live through cycles of being burned out and returning. And again, just because THIS time the fire primarily impacted the rich, doesn't mean that's how it always has been or will be.