[jhj]

It’s probably more California regulations than the wildfire risk per se?

The direct backyard of my house in Wyoming is Bridger-Teton National Forest, wooded mountainous wilderness for miles with its trees abutting my property. A wildfire in 2012 in the forest came within 1.3 miles of me. I’m insured by State Farm, pay substantially less percentage wise than most places in the country for home insurance and my rate went down this year by about $1K, go figure.

[vineyardmike]

1. Yes the article says that insurance agencies can only look at historic risk, not future risk. So a region becoming more fire prone won’t be reflected.

2. Presumably an area that just experienced a fire is now at lower risk of a repeated burn?

[lolinder]

> the article says that insurance agencies can only look at historic risk, not future risk

The article actually doesn't say that, that's a quote from a different article that I linked to above. The article only mentions the increased risk of wildfires and doesn't place any blame on California's regulatory environment at all.

My other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40260160

[loosescrews]

Yes, and it is also the high construction (replacement) costs in California.

[jhj]

Construction costs here (Teton County, WY) are significantly higher than CA or most places in the US due to labor constraints (we have the highest average per capita income in the US, yet an ~80 : 1 median house price : median yearly income ratio, contractors have to commute in from 50+ miles away because unless you bought your home 20+ years ago it's hard to do so as a tradesperson now, etc). It's hard to construct SFHs here for less than $800/sq ft. The same I would imagine is true of other expensive resort places like Aspen or Park City as well.

My house is insured for more than I bought both the land and house for, as suggested by State Farm themselves due to ludicrous construction costs.