To the editor: So, David Steiner’s concrete home is the sole survivor in a destroyed Malibu neighborhood. I find that predictable, but apparently insurance companies don’t.
My home is an entirely concrete structure with a dirt-over-concrete roof. Recently our insurance was canceled because we are in a fire zone. True, but they did not cancel our neighbor’s late-1950s wood-frame home in the same zone.
We hear that insurers in California are mandated to consider a home’s fire-resistant elements. It seems you get credit for screening vents but punished for building an essentially fireproof structure.
Yes, California’s natural disasters make it very hard for insurers. What would it take to wake them up and get them to actually look at the fire-related elements of a house rather than, as they do now, put homes into categories and deny those that fail to fit in one of those boxes?
Ann Cottrell, San Diego
..
To the editor: Here are two undeniable facts: First, there will always be wildfires in California, and second, wood burns.
When people rebuild their homes this time, will they avoid the use of wood and other combustibles? Not likely unless they are forced.
But it could happen very easily. Local and state ordinances can be the start — that would be the best way if politics didn’t keep everything tied up in court until it was too late and all the tinder was in place for the next fire.
The most likely push to end the use of combustibles will come from the insurance industry. By offering deep discounts or simply refusing to insure, companies can save not only our rebuilding communities, but also our forests. They can also save themselves from bankruptcy.
One more thing: If you already have a wood house in a fire-prone area, stucco it. That’s what saved my Altadena home from the firestorm that leveled my neighborhood.
Steve Huffsteter, Altadena
