Letters to the Editor: Proposed Zone 0 fire-safety regulation needs more scrutiny

To the editor: The Los Angeles Times has seen fit to print an article about an insurance industry-sponsored “test” purporting to show 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 would require homeowners to remove all vegetation within five feet of homes. There are several facts that this article ignores about the “test” and Zone 0:

The test failed to consider science showing that mature, healthy vegetation can provide protection to homes in urban wildfires, as an opinion piece in the L.A. Times pointed out recently. What if this experiment had included a fire-hardened home surrounded by healthy vegetation? What if this experiment included a Zone 0-compliant home subjected to flying embers and winds of 60-80 mph?

The insurance industry stands to benefit significantly by Zone 0 regulation because it potentially hands them yet another reason to cancel California homeowners’ policies. All it takes is a drone flyover for insurers to know what’s growing on your lot.

The regulation is profoundly regressive. Homeowners with the least resources will pay disproportionately more to come into compliance with Zone 0. Homeowners with small lots will have disproportionately less green space where their children can play.

Lastly, the article fails to mention the grave impact on California’s environment that the wholesale removal of millions of plants and mature trees would have.

Defensible space is critical to fire prevention. I hope future reporting will explore the motives of Zone 0 advocates and the science behind more nuanced approaches.

Susan Woolley, Altadena