California E&S Insurance

Thanks for the well thought out and researched reply again. I know the proposal faces a difficult path to implementation. Its success would arguably improve the market value of our land by far more than the cost of implementation. I don't have the exact numbers, but food for thought is there are approximately 5 miles of border between Altadena and the wilderness (straight line though). This means only about 500 homes are directly adjacent. It wouldn't be an unmanageable number of homes within a 500 foot level 1 fire defense zone. Right now, those homes are in a pretty much uninsurable area of extremely high fire risk. If that zone were to become provably nearly impossible for wildfire to ignite due to multi-redundant fire safety programs, then all the zones positionally related to that area that were considered dangerous, but just less dangerous than those zones would be relatively considered less susceptible as well. Sure, we can't be 100% sure it will prevent this from happening again. But, we can make it a risk low enough that people and insurers will feel safe and it just seems that fire is such a well understood concept. We've used it since before we built homes and we've used them inside of homes and even wooden boats. There's no way to prevent wildfires, but it doesn't take much to place a barrier as simple as the mesh screens we have between a fireplace and the living room between the borders of a town and wildfire areas. It doesn't take much to hook up a water tank that takes up the size of a one car garage to the water supply and add sprinklers that keep a home wet for a few days or hours depending on need in case of water or power failure. My home burned down because the homes next to it did, not the wildfire itself. We can't stop wildfires, but it doesn't take much to make a home extremely difficult to ignite from natural fires at least 50 feet away.

{
  "score": 0,
  "title": "",
  "subreddit": "altadena",
  "num_comments": 0,
  "scrape_method": "apify_targeted"
}