Yesterday, @GavinNewsom vetoed legislation that would have required a 5ft noncombustible zone around homes in high fire risk areas of California. He noted that resiliency measures "need to be crafted to meet the individual needs of that community."
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/AB-1516-Veto-Message.pdf …
-
Show this thread
-
That may well be true. And it IS true, as our Governor notes, that he is doing a lot to address wildfire. But building resiliency to wildfire raises some difficult collective action problems for communities that may best be solved at the state rather than the local level.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
One collective action problem: these measures work best if enacted at the scale of fires. It doesn't matter if I have a resilient house if my neighbor doesn't. If I live near a boundary between two communities, it won't matter what my town does if the adjacent town opts out.
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MichaelWWara
I'm not entirely sure this is true. Post-fire studies demonstrate that it is indeed possible (if expensive) to build a house that survives even if your neighbours don't. In that sense, it's more equity problem than collective action: rich folks with space & $ can protect selves.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ericbkennedy @MichaelWWara
It's simultaneously true that - if we want to protect homes - all properties should conform to certain standards (e.g., defensible space) but /also/ standards only really work with local buy-in (e.g., because so much is ongoing upkeep, buy-in is just important as regs).
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
Or there’s not an effective way for older homeowners to unlock equity and then manage a process by which their homes become firesafe.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.