[MineralMan]

"Southern California's record wildfires have not only scorched hundreds of homes, they have rekindled debate on whether the government could prevent such conflagrations by actively removing brush and other forest "fuels."
"

And who's going to pay for this? In most of the areas being burned in CA, there are no trees whatsoever, just chaparral and other brush. There's no logging to be done there, even though much of the land is National Forest land. There are no trees in most of the burned area.

So, this will not be solved by logging companies clear-cutting the land. Clearing this land is expensive, prohibitive in cost, really.

The biggest problem is the expansion into these brushy hillsides. Developers build tracts of expensive houses on these chaparral-covered hills, but don't clear space around them.

Home-buyers pay lots of bucks for these hillside homes with a view, but don't think about fire protection until the fire starts. Then...we all pay to try to protect their homes, which probably shouldn't have been built in such a fire-prone area in the first place.

So, who pays to clear this land? Me? I don't think so. I live in a sensible residential area...far from any hillsides.

Right now I'm looking out my office window and can see a cluster of homes built halfway up a steep hill that is covered with chapparal. There's one road in, and that hillside has not burned in the 33 years I've lived here.

When the hillside finally does catch fire, and it will, there won't be a prayer of saving those homes, many of which are in the $1M+ price range.

Are the homeowners there trying to get the hillside below them cleared? Nope...it's too expensive. So, when their hillside catches fire and burns down all those expensive houses, I'll be paying the bill, not only to fight the fire, but to my insurance company in increased rates.

The question always is: Who pays for this?

[ntnychik]

Wait til the mudslides start in these burned out areas. More homes will be lost, with more taxpayer expense. Meanwhile the government will help with the rebuilding in the same locations.

[Carry_Okie]

Are the homeowners there trying to get the hillside below them cleared? Nope...it's too expensive.

That's bullcrap. The cost of vegetation management is far less than the cost of a new house and all its furnishings as you know quite well. We just hide that fact by pooling the risk statewide as you pointed out.

So, when their hillside catches fire and burns down all those expensive houses, I'll be paying the bill, not only to fight the fire, but to my insurance company in increased rates.

The question always is: Who pays for this?

It is a rhetorical question at best, considering that all the insurer in a oligopoly market has to do is to raise the rate base statewide. They get to make money in the market playing with more of your cash.

The way it ought to work is to discriminate insurance pricing based upon an independent and individual assessment of the risks involved on that unique property. That way the homeowner has to choose between the cost of maintaining that chapparal versus the cost of other risks, such as landslides. There is a full proposal for how the system should work in the last part of this section in my book.

[Mamzelle]

Who pays to clear?

Gee, doesn't anyone think of chainsaws as fun anymore? Seems like the neighbors could get together and have a good time cutting --then pile it up, wait for rain, and torch it. GW thinks brush clearing is recreation.