5 ms·

Fireproofing isnt mandatory, so people dont do it People like lawns and shrubberies, and they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing when they know a t

Fireproofing isnt mandatory, so people dont do it People like lawns and shrubberies, and they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing when they know a taxpayer-backed insurance policy will cover their substandard construction

hiatus 2y ago
> they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing when they know a taxpayer-backed insurance policy will cover their substandard construction So people would prefer to lose all of their belongings and be displaced?
- senordevnyc 2y ago
  You never think it's going to happen to you...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- lq9AJ8yrfs 2y ago
  Yes. They are clearly preferring to save their money on insurance and keep the chance to lose all their belongings and be displaced. That is a fair way to say what happens when people with the option to buy insurance don't. Including people both whose houses burnt down and whose houses didn't burn down. In economics there is a difference between stated preferences and economic or "revealed" preferences. It shows what people say they want and what people do with their money are not always the same thing. Sometimes especially what people say and what people do with their money differ in predictable ways. It can be fun to juxtapose the observed behaviors with what people say. Makes for very compelling and sometimes cynical commentary.
  - MarcoZavala 2y ago
    [dead]
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  OP added taxpayer-backed insurance policy part for fluff and/or agenda. It has zero to do with the valid part of their point: > they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing replacing my roof in a low cost of living area is $25k. I can't imagine what it is down there. It's also an expense that comes up and people don't tend to plan well for. I don't think taxpayer backed insurance even comes into peoples' thoughts at all let alone their justification for lack of planning for property maintenance expense.
jimt1234 2y ago
In my area of Southern California, fireproofing is mandatory for new construction, meaning new homes have to be built to very strict fire safety standards that get updated all the time. However, yeah, for existing homes, it's highly recommended to clear brush or whatever, but it's not mandatory.
- wduquette 2y ago
  In my experience, if you've got significant brush on your property and you don't clear it, the FD asks you to take care of it pronto.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  In the middle of nowhere mountain/inland northwest insurance companies fly drones over your home and send you letters with pictures telling you changes you need to make if you want to keep your insurance. Crazy that isn't a thing in California yet.
  - jimt1234 2y ago
    Not sure about policing and drones in California, but I know it's extremely expensive to get home owners insurance in canyon-bordering areas. A buddy of mine couldn't get his property insured at all; he was forced to utilize some sort of state-run program, which, of course, was extremely expensive.
finnh 2y ago
> Fireproofing isnt mandatory, so people dont do it 100% > and they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing when they know a taxpayer-backed insurance policy will cover their substandard construction That just doesn't follow. More likely is that people building the homes (possibly on spec) are motivated by their bottom dollar, so only do what is mandatory (per your first point) or that people who own the homes simply _don't know about these mitigations_. Blaming all behavior on a last-resort insurance fund misses a lot of steps between, and I don't think tracks to how people actually behave in the real world.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  "simply _don't know about these mitigations_" Yes, but if insurance rates were to be free of government interference, the cost of insurance might start factoring into homebuyers' research and decision processes.

hiatus 2y ago

> they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing when they know a taxpayer-backed insurance policy will cover their substandard construction So people would prefer to lose all of their belongings and be displaced?

senordevnyc 2y ago
You never think it's going to happen to you...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lq9AJ8yrfs 2y ago
Yes. They are clearly preferring to save their money on insurance and keep the chance to lose all their belongings and be displaced. That is a fair way to say what happens when people with the option to buy insurance don't. Including people both whose houses burnt down and whose houses didn't burn down. In economics there is a difference between stated preferences and economic or "revealed" preferences. It shows what people say they want and what people do with their money are not always the same thing. Sometimes especially what people say and what people do with their money differ in predictable ways. It can be fun to juxtapose the observed behaviors with what people say. Makes for very compelling and sometimes cynical commentary.
- MarcoZavala 2y ago
  [dead]
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
OP added taxpayer-backed insurance policy part for fluff and/or agenda. It has zero to do with the valid part of their point: > they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing replacing my roof in a low cost of living area is $25k. I can't imagine what it is down there. It's also an expense that comes up and people don't tend to plan well for. I don't think taxpayer backed insurance even comes into peoples' thoughts at all let alone their justification for lack of planning for property maintenance expense.

jimt1234 2y ago

In my area of Southern California, fireproofing is mandatory for new construction, meaning new homes have to be built to very strict fire safety standards that get updated all the time. However, yeah, for existing homes, it's highly recommended to clear brush or whatever, but it's not mandatory.

wduquette 2y ago
In my experience, if you've got significant brush on your property and you don't clear it, the FD asks you to take care of it pronto.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
In the middle of nowhere mountain/inland northwest insurance companies fly drones over your home and send you letters with pictures telling you changes you need to make if you want to keep your insurance. Crazy that isn't a thing in California yet.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  Not sure about policing and drones in California, but I know it's extremely expensive to get home owners insurance in canyon-bordering areas. A buddy of mine couldn't get his property insured at all; he was forced to utilize some sort of state-run program, which, of course, was extremely expensive.

finnh 2y ago

> Fireproofing isnt mandatory, so people dont do it 100% > and they hate spending even one dollar extra on roofing when they know a taxpayer-backed insurance policy will cover their substandard construction That just doesn't follow. More likely is that people building the homes (possibly on spec) are motivated by their bottom dollar, so only do what is mandatory (per your first point) or that people who own the homes simply _don't know about these mitigations_. Blaming all behavior on a last-resort insurance fund misses a lot of steps between, and I don't think tracks to how people actually behave in the real world.

rahimnathwani 2y ago
"simply _don't know about these mitigations_" Yes, but if insurance rates were to be free of government interference, the cost of insurance might start factoring into homebuyers' research and decision processes.