The Forest Service’s biggest excuse for spending billions of dollars a year on fire suppression is that there are an increasing number of homes in the “wildland-urban interface” (abbreviated WUI and pronounced “wooeee”) and these homes need protection. I’ve always said that this is a matter between the homeowners and their insurance companies.
The Castle Rock Fire casts an eerie glow at sunset as seen from Ketchum, Idaho.
Flickr photo by kajo55
Now, an insurer named AIG has stepped up to deal with the problem. A national forest fire in Idaho has burned 22 square miles and threatens to burn some valuable homes covered by AIG near Sun Valley. AIG’s solution? Hire a fire truck to defend the homes from the fire.
In choosing supplements like this, you should discount levitra be really careful enough. This is not only unsatisfactory and frustrating for a man free cialis without prescription to have this condition. You can treat male impotence with Kamagra The condition of male sexual dysfunction can be frustrating, but there are other ways to enjoy a sexual relationship with your ex-partner. viagra prices seanamic.com I want to have a normal, satisfying sex life. viagra online canadian
AIG only insures seven homes in the area, but together they are worth about $35 million. Not everyone in the WUI has a $5 million home, but insurance companies can surely coordinate together to protect homes they insure. Or not: If the homeowner is so careless as to not firewise their home — that is, do such things as remove flammable vegetation outside and put a metal roof on top — and the insurer doesn’t think it is worth protecting, let it burn.
Some people think counties should ban construction of homes near national forests, just as many places ban construction of homes in floodplains. I disagree. If someone wants to build their home in the likely path of a fire, let ’em. I would advise them to firewise it, but if they don’t want to, and their insurance company doesn’t care, why should our tax dollars go to protect their home? Let it burn.
but insurance companies can surely coordinate together to protect homes they insure.
So they can plan. Just like everyone else. So planning is OK.
I would advise them to firewise it, but if they don’t want to, and their insurance company doesn’t care, why should our tax dollars go to protect their home?
Well, our tax dollars are going to their roads and other infrastructure investments. I guess if their house burns and doesn’t get rebuilt, their taxes and discretionary income will have to be made up by everyone else. Not much of an investment strategy, but then again you don’t plan, do you?
DS
First Dan, he didn’t say let THEM burn, just their homes. They can still pay taxes and earn income somewhere else.
Second, the money NOT SPENT to protect their home should go back (or not be taken) from the rest of us therby increasing OUR discretionary income which has a higher multiplier effect than government spending on fire fighting.
jg:
The infrastructure costs are already sunk for extant homes. This scheme may work for future homes, but for homes on the ground now someone has to pay for the CIP investment lost in the fire. And one can argue about implied contracts and expectation for protection. And the businesses around the charred homes have made investments based on the number of dwelling units in the area.
However, let me state I do not like second homes in the WUI. I’m all for disincentives to developing there. Cutting their support and forcing them to pay true costs for insurance is a good thing in my mind, as this will likely drastically reduce second home construction, which will have multiple environmental benefits.
DS
DanS said, “So they can plan. Just like everyone else. So planning is OK.”
Remember, as I stated at the very beginning and repeatedly since, the Antiplanner is against government planning, not private planning, which tends to be far more flexible, short-term, and mission-oriented, and far less subject to special interests.
Besides, coordinating efforts is not the same as planning.
Everyone plans, including th’ gummint. If businesses, banks, corporations didn’t make long-term plans, they’d get outcompeted. And, gee, Randal. Coordinating efforts is not planning. OK.
‘When do you anticipate being out of x section?’
‘By September’
‘Good. We’ll concentrate in the adjacent western sections so as to not duplicate effort.’
Sure. No planning here. None at all. Nothing like it.
That’s good comedy, Randal. Good comedy indeed.
DS
Pingback: » The Antiplanner