Comment on the LA Times, "Deadly California fires prompt bold thinking about prevention: Shelters, strict zoning, buyouts"
The answer isn't one thing, but rather all of the above, and the article does a pretty good job of highlighting actions that the state could take: Suggesting we rethink and update our approach to urban planning and fire-hardening of structures as well as location and siting of structures. There are plenty of contributors that don't receive mention: There's the now well-known idea that we are grappling with a legacy of lands management that have made our forests susceptible to recurring high-intensity fires. Also not mentioned are invasive grasses that contribute to fuel loading and spread of fire. Nor is air pollution noted, which can increase the growth of invasive and fire-prone plant species through dry-fall of nitrogen-containing pollutants from the air. But those aren't really the point of the article, either.
What we can address is local (state wide) standards. The recurring cost of lives and property lost that is otherwise avoidable will make such an effort worth while, despite higher up-front costs. We shouldn't just rebuild without thought. After all, isnt't a definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different outcome?
However, as the article notes, state flow-down of minimum standards for emergency egress, materials, design, and land use is bound to come up against fierce opposition from local planning advocates. That's a natural reaction, but the smarter thing to do is to change our approach in the face of new information.
