Not least of which that housing costs are astronomically high.

homes burnt out except for the one guy that built his place right. There was a little bit of a stink raised because the fire department focused their efforts on saving that guys home if I remember right. It was the only one they even had a chance at saving and the guys were hosing it down from the street above ready to run for it.

Then from the same fire I saw this jackass that admitted to having a shake shingle roof. No problem, and he was going to rebuild. He didn't say if he would be a little more careful.

Lack of regulation in the first place and insurance companies willing to ensure guys like that to take the big money when they could.

sinking properties? I am tired of paying for their rebuilds.

So many people want water views and keep getting reimbursed by insurance to build there again.

and has for centuries, why should you expect anyone to insure it?

Here in Santa Rosa, they approved housing in an area that had burned heavily twice before (Fountaingrove). But the last time, in 1964, it was mostly just oak and shrubs.

And they let people rebuild! Out of the same materials.

We have 20 million too many people here in CA, and at least 200K too many in Sonoma County.

I would think, like they do with creating (and periodically updating) the flood zone maps, that there would be areas designated as chronic "burn areas" (for the most part, because like the flood zones, there are places that might periodically flood but mainly due to one-off events), so that the rest of the state doesn't get impacted by a lack of insurers.

E.g., - the below from 2013 - 2018 - https://www.popsci.com/california-five-year-wildfire/



Alternately, like flood insurance, which is now only offered by the federal government, there could be similar for wildfires offered by the federal government (in the event that more or even all the insurers pull out).