To the editor: The Los Angeles Instances has seen match to print an article about an insurance coverage industry-sponsored “check” purporting to indicate the effectiveness of California’s proposed Zone 0 regulation (“In a check, one dwelling 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 info that this text ignores in regards to the “check” and Zone 0:
The check failed to contemplate science exhibiting that mature, wholesome vegetation can present safety to houses in city wildfires, as an opinion piece within the L.A. Instances identified just lately. What if this experiment had included a fire-hardened dwelling surrounded by wholesome vegetation? What if this experiment included a Zone 0-compliant dwelling subjected to flying embers and winds of 60-80 mph?
The insurance coverage {industry} stands to profit considerably by Zone 0 regulation as a result of it probably arms them but another excuse 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 assets can pay disproportionately extra to come back into compliance with Zone 0. Householders with small tons could have disproportionately much less inexperienced area the place their youngsters can play.
Lastly, the article fails to say the grave affect on California’s surroundings that the wholesale elimination of thousands and thousands of crops and mature bushes would have.
Defensible area is essential to fireside prevention. I hope future reporting will discover the motives of Zone 0 advocates and the science behind extra nuanced approaches.
Susan Woolley, Altadena
