[curryst]

I think it would be more effective to require sprinkler systems indoors on wooden homes. I'm seeing prices of $1-$2 per sqft, which is absolutely reasonable (although I anticipate prices are higher in LA, square footage is typically lower).

It's also probably drastically cheaper for everyone than more frequent inspections.

> The simplest way to counteract this bill would be to demand it require county inspection of all concrete homes after earthquakes

They would likely need to be inspected after wildfires as well. Concrete won't burn, but I believe prolonged exposure to high heat can weaken or crack it. That might go doubly so for something like a single-family home. There's a lot less concrete to absorb the heat, and the upper layers have nowhere to vent the heat. I wonder if it would crack at the foundation as the roof expands, but the floor doesn't because it can vent heat into the ground.

[floatingatoll]

Both of your points are relevant to #1, which considers only the safety concerns of wood frame homes.

Neither are relevant to #2, as neither focuses on the relative safety differences of concrete versus wood frame houses.

(Your second point suggests that sprinklers are necessary for all types of frames, whether wood or concrete or other, which removes the first point from consideration as a “wood frame only” cost, at least not without diving further into the comparison.)

Casually discussing #1 is easy, while casually discussing #2 is nearly impossible. For example: which is higher precedence in a relative comparison: fire or earthquake safety?

Assumption-by-framing that precedence is a frequent source of political manipulation by well-funded buyers, and it’s very effective. Identifying such a framing bias in the proposed legislation would be grounds to kill it in committee, if discovery of such a bias were politically unprofitable for the committee.