To the editor: The Los Angeles Occasions 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 test, one home burns, the other is unscathed. A lesson for fire-proofing L.A.?,” June 11). This is able to require owners to take away all vegetation inside 5 toes of properties. 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 properties in city wildfires, as an opinion piece in the L.A. Times pointed out recently. 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 profit considerably by Zone 0 regulation as a result of it probably fingers 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. Owners with the least assets pays disproportionately extra to return into compliance with Zone 0. Owners with small tons may have disproportionately much less inexperienced area the place their kids can play.
Lastly, the article fails to say the grave impression on California’s setting that the wholesale removing of tens of millions of crops and mature timber would have.
Defensible area is crucial 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
