The Case for Fire Resistant Housing in California
There is no easy fix for California’s forest fire problem, but investing in fire resistant housing seems like a step in the right direction. Although a recent survey indicates that 75% of voters in the state want to see a restriction of housing in fire-prone areas, the harsh reality is that people will continue to live in these areas, which means that homes that burn down will eventually be rebuilt. So why not build homes that can withstand the threat?
Why Fire Resistant Housing Makes Sense for California Residents and Utilities
The short answer is that the current approaches to mitigating the problem do not resonate with utility customers. These approaches, which include levying fines against the offending utilities, increasing vegetation management efforts, and triggering planned outages, do not help residents rebuild their homes – or their lives.
Governor Newsom has promised to build 3.5 million new homes in the next 10 years, but these homes will likely be built outside of current urban and suburban areas. In other words, it is likely that they will be built in areas that will continue to be at risk of wildfire activity. In addition, the risk of human-caused fires will increase. This means that fire resistant housing is imperative.
While it is true that fire resistant homes are more expensive than ‘standard’ homes – for example, tempered glass is 4x more expensive than regular glass and fire-rated wood is at least 2x more expensive – the costs are still far less than post-fire mitigation efforts in the long run. In fact, the 4 most recent forest fires caused an incredible $25 billion worth of damage.
In the final analysis, the best way for California to reduce the impact of the wildfire threat is to proactively make smarter investments in housing and infrastructure that can better withstand the proverbial heat. It seems clear to me that the cycle of build-destroy-build is a less attractive alternative than building fire resistant housing in the first place.
