Readers React: Insuring not just the cost of a home, but the cost of the firefighters to protect it

To the editor: In response to the editorial about who should bear the cost of fighting wildfires, I would like to point out an entity that is seldom discussed when this topic arises.

Insurance companies collect premiums from homeowners in order to rebuild homes lost to fire. Yet, when fire departments go out and protect those homes from wildfire, no reimbursement ever comes to the fire agencies from those same insurance companies. Taxpayers at the city, state and federal level foot the bill for firefighting efforts, while the insurance companies collect their premiums without any regard to the money they were saved by firefighters’ efforts.

It seems that if a home is truly a “save” due to our efforts, the insurance companies should be required to pay a percentage of the home’s replacement cost into a fund to reimburse the agencies that saved the home.

Of course, insurance companies will not willingly reduce their income to pay into this fund. They will pass the expense on to the homeowner by increasing insurance premiums on homes that may burn in a wildfire. While no one wants to see higher insurance premiums, it is more equitable for the expenses to be borne by those benefiting from our efforts (insurance companies and homeowners), than by the total tax-paying population.

Rick Zaccaro, Lake Forest

The writer is a captain with the Newport Beach Fire Department

..

To the editor: Steps to prevent fires are much cheaper than the cost of such fires. Fallen power lines do not cause fires if they fall on bare ground.

The power utilities should not be spared the consequences of wildfires they cause if they don’t take proper measures to prevent those fires. It is also reasonable to pass the costs of prevention onto their ratepayers, but it is not reasonable to simply pass the costs of fires that result from lack of prevention onto their ratepayers. The owners and managers of these utilities should be liable for the costs of fires that result from their own negligence.

Thomas E. Locke, North Hollywood

..

To the editor: The axiom attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” applies to California’s problem of ever increasing costs to manage fires due to ever increasing climate change. Its application would seemingly lead to: (1) Clean up the forests per experts’ direction; (2) Build more robust utility lines to withstand higher wind speeds; (3) Don’t approve housing developments in high risk fire areas; (4) Assess owners a “fire tax” commensurate with the cost of fighting a fire in their area; (5) Greatly increase the penalty to humans caught starting fires on purpose. As with most complicated problems, there is no one silver bullet that is going to solve the problem.

Eddie Dawes, Hacienda Heights

..

To the editor: A wise farmer who loses a barn to a lightning strike puts lightning rods on the new barn.

So why do we pay up to $1.6 billion yearly to fight fires rather than using this money to build firebreaks before the fire season?

Bob Munson, Newbury Park

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook