Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Douglas
The people who are really to blame are the developers that put those houses up in the first place.
Who in their right mind, puts houses so close together that you can't get in between them to fight a fire?
|
Developers don't build anything that someone won't buy.
There is (was) a high demand for very expensive (exclusive)
large homes build on tiny lots on the side of hills
in high fire danger areas.
They are (were) in high demand because fire insurance was relatively
cheap and available, especially considering the risk.
The developers are in business to supply what the market demands.
Buyers demand what they supply, only because the
market has been manipulated by the insurance commissioner.
If the free market had been allowed to work
(which it always does if let to it's design)
homeowner's insurance in those areas
would be unobtainable or at least cost-prohibitive
unless the structures were proven to be fire-resistant.
Lower the risk, lower the cost.
No insurance, no mortgage, no flammable homes built on top
of a tinder box.
But none of that happened.
The insurance companies were not allowed to manage
or mitigate the risk.
The "free" market was not allowed equilibrium.
It was artificially manipulated and not able to be effective
in this case.
So all hell broke loose.
Who could have seen that coming?