To the editor: The Los Angeles Instances has seen match to print an article about an insurance coverage industry-sponsored “take a look at” purporting to indicate the effectiveness of California’s proposed Zone 0 regulation (“In a take a look at, one house burns, the opposite is unscathed. A lesson for fire-proofing L.A.?,” June 11). This could require owners to take away all vegetation inside 5 toes of houses. There are a number of information that this text ignores concerning the “take a look at” and Zone 0:
The take a look at failed to think about science displaying that mature, wholesome vegetation can present safety to houses in city wildfires, as an opinion piece within the L.A. Instances identified lately. What if this experiment had included a fire-hardened house surrounded by wholesome vegetation? What if this experiment included a Zone 0-compliant house subjected to flying embers and winds of 60-80 mph?
The insurance coverage {industry} stands to learn considerably by Zone 0 regulation as a result of it doubtlessly arms them but one more reason to cancel California owners’ insurance policies. All it takes is a drone flyover for insurers to know what’s rising in your lot.
The regulation is profoundly regressive. Householders with the least sources pays disproportionately extra to come back into compliance with Zone 0. Householders with small heaps may have disproportionately much less inexperienced house the place their kids can play.
Lastly, the article fails to say the grave affect on California’s surroundings that the wholesale elimination of hundreds of thousands of vegetation and mature timber would have.
Defensible house is important to fireplace prevention. I hope future reporting will discover the motives of Zone 0 advocates and the science behind extra nuanced approaches.
Susan Woolley, Altadena
