[Porsche-O-Phile]

When your choice is to live in the endless concrete-encapsulated sprawl-hell that is the L.A. basin, choking on the stench of ten million cars and packed in on top of other people in baking, 100+ degree heat for months on end, or to get something resembling a human existence with a back yard, some trees visible, some "personal space" from one's neighbors and the like for your $500,000, I can see why people do it - fires or no fires. It's a risk. Comes with the territory.

When I was in the market for CA property a year or so ago, I refused to look in the urbanized areas even though it made the most sense from a commute/convenience standpoint. I didn't care. And yes, I'd have gladly paid the fire insurance premiums to enjoy a quality of life that didn't make me mental for the 300+ days a year that aren't fire or mudslide season.

For your half-million dollars you can live in a glorified apartment in sweltering urban hell and die a slow death over an extended period of time from the misery of living in a soulless, artificial setting crammed in amongst (mostly stupid) other people and dealing with all the B.S. that comes with urban living, or you can live in something approximating a setting appropriate for human habitation with a small, small chance you MIGHT get unlucky each year and have to evacuate or potentially lose your property.

The "right choice" seemed pretty obvious to me and if I weren't leaving CA, I'd be looking for places on the periphery again tomorrow.

And I completely agree that public money should not go towards rebuilding private property. The people that prepare adequately never seem to have much problems.