[jwlake]

Firefighting makes the next fire worse. You need to have a theory that doesn't involve more expensive fire fighting every time someone builds a new house. This is general means defending towns and letting the mountainside burn.

[ethbr1]

This is an insurance problem more than anything else.

If insurers were allowed to and incentivized to price accurately, homes in dangerous areas (flood plains, fire hazards) would be too expensive to buy, and people... wouldn't.

Especially given that if you can't get insurance, you can't get a mortgage, which drastically limits your buyers.

[jwlake]

I 100% agree with that, but the way pricing works is generally not sufficiently granular. You either get underpriced government backed plans, or a plan that does not take into account your actual circumstances. Eventually sufficient big data might be able to solve the pricing problem. Defensible construction will have cheap insurance and indefensible buildings will not be economically insurable. The problem is insurance is by county (lol) or by "city". Neither work in CA mountains.

[nradov]

Is that even feasible? How exactly would firefighters defend towns from large wildfires. They can't cut an effective fire break around an entire town.

[jwlake]

The bigger the town the easier it gets. Towns have roads and parking lots and cmu commercial buildings that are mostly non-flammable. They also have water supplies and logistics infrastructure. Centralized defense is very feasible. Mountain roads and poor communications cause an underutilization of resources.

[jjk166]

The cost of a fire break is proportional to the perimeter, the value is proportional to the area.