Bearing the Costs of Disaster Area Development

"We live with these risks because the trade-offs seem worth it. The chances of our home going up in flames or falling down a hillside seem relatively remote."

"But the magnitude of the risks was again brought into sharp focus in October, when wind-driven wildfires burned half a million acres, destroyed more than 3,000 homes, killed 10 people and temporarily displaced nearly 20,000 more from Santa Barbara to the U.S.-Mexico border. Similar destruction occurred in 2005, and climate scientists predict even more severe fire seasons ahead."

"Once the fires are put out, the official debate inevitably centers on how to respond more effectively to future conflagrations and how to better aid the victims. Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed an annual fee of 1.25% on all property insurance premiums in the state to generate, according to his office, $125 million a year for fire protection equipment and services. The state legislative analyst, Elizabeth Hill, countered that the costs should be borne by the communities that allow houses to be built in fire-hazard areas and by the people who choose to live in them."

"The disagreement boils down to two basic questions: Should local governments be allowed to continue approving development in fire-prone, or other hazardous, areas, and should all state residents keep subsidizing the choices of those who live there? Or should the state adopt rules limiting development in these areas and force the people who chose to live there to bear more of the risks?"