A new University of California Berkeley Center for Community Innovation study raises important questions about California’s wildfire policies, but its solutions would be disastrous. The report chastens the state for encouraging homeowners and cities to adopt wildfire-mitigation strategies rather than simply discouraging the construction of homes in fire-prone areas.
Communities located within, say, the wooded Sierra Nevada foothills certainly are more prone to wildfires, which impose high costs on state and local budgets. Instead of promoting time-tested market incentives to deal with this situation, the researchers promote policies that would raise taxes and exacerbate an already vexing housing crisis.
“Climate change and sprawl in the wildland urban interface are driving up both the economic and human cost of wildfires in California,” the authors explain. “Successive wildfire disasters strengthen the case for land-use conservation and urban infill strategies that reduce disaster risk, promote housing supply, and mitigate climate change impacts.”
The study, commissioned by the Next 10 think tank, promotes urban-growth boundaries and conservation easements — and calls for “funding streams” such as a fee on residential properties to fund wildfire-risk-reduction planning. These are terrible ideas. California already imposes strict growth limits, which lessen the amount of developable land.
The result is California has the highest housing prices in the nation and faces vast shortages and a growing homelessness problem. This editorial board generally supports loosening zoning restrictions so developers can more easily build higher-density infill projects, but that is only one small part of the solution. Not everyone wants to live in a mid-rise condominium, and such projects are costly to build.
To meet its housing needs, California needs to permit more developments virtually everywhere. Large master-planned housing developments in outlying and inland regions don’t pose any particular wildfire risk. And there’s an easy way to discourage construction within wooded areas — by reforming the state’s insurance rules so insurers can price policies to reflect the risk.
Yes, California needs to analyze its wildfire-related policies. But the state shouldn’t use that problem to promote a misbegotten scheme to force more Californians into high-density housing.
These short-sighted solutions are par for the course in California, known for shooting themselves in the foot. As for the highest housing prices in the nation, the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley, has written a series of articles on development fees. If read, one can see why housing, single family or multi-unit homes are so expensive. In the Bay Area, how much does it cost builders to install mandatory all electric appliances, mandatory electric chargers for the majority of folks who don’t own electric cars, low-water or no-water toilets, etc.? Builders aren’t going to throw in those “features” for free.
If a community wants stack and pack housing, why don’t we build multi multi-story dorm buildings and begin selling rooms with communal kitchen and bathroom rights? This would have the benefit of increasing single family home values as well as creating housing for much more people. Win-win!
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
These short-sighted solutions are par for the course in California, known for shooting themselves in the foot. As for the highest housing prices in the nation, the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley, has written a series of articles on development fees. If read, one can see why housing, single family or multi-unit homes are so expensive. In the Bay Area, how much does it cost builders to install mandatory all electric appliances, mandatory electric chargers for the majority of folks who don’t own electric cars, low-water or no-water toilets, etc.? Builders aren’t going to throw in those “features” for free.
If a community wants stack and pack housing, why don’t we build multi multi-story dorm buildings and begin selling rooms with communal kitchen and bathroom rights? This would have the benefit of increasing single family home values as well as creating housing for much more people. Win-win!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.