Continuing with Red Ted's critique.

There is a second problem with forests and fires. People keep moving into fire zones and building houses. Stereotypically these are new luxury houses, McMansions, and they are inhabited by people who tend to vote against all taxation and for a smaller state. These people then move into unstable terrain and, when fire comes, demand expensive state protection for their private property.

The new rural population of urban refugees gentrifying the wilderness and small communities aren't anti-tax state minimalists, they are Sierra Club types and fellow travelers who favor high taxes and demand expensive state services. It is a mistake to conflate the issues, to attribute the independent habits and attitudes of those who live and work in rural areas with recent urban immigrants who arrive with pockets full of money and continuing ties to urban centers for income. The recent immigrants bring their culture and politics with them, often to the chagrin of locals who dislike them but can't refuse the money they can earn serving them.

Basic principles of fairness suggest that people who live in fire zones should pay the costs of protecting their property. Normally we let the insurance system handle those costs - earthquake insurance is cheap in Boston, expensive in San Francisco. In certain situations any event that would lead to one claim would lead to thousands of claims, defeating the insurance purpose of spreading losses around, and the government steps in. It is my understanding that people who live in California canyons have trouble getting fire assistance.

It can be confusing for those unfamiliar with the situation, but the residents of California canyons Edward refers to aren't rural residents. They are suburban residents in one of the most densely populated, fastest growing areas of the state. These aren't newly developed areas for the most part so much as continued growth of communities long established that are creeping farther and farther away from urban centers while remaining a commutable distance from the centers of finance and power. We shouldn't confuse these issues with those of western forest environmental issues, they are unrelated.

All California coastal residents have special risks. They face the twin threats of earthquake and fire. They don't face the threat of hurricanes faced by residents on the Atlantic coast stretching from Virginia all the way around Florida to the gulf states and Texas. They don't face the threat of tornadoes faced by residents of the midwest or the threat of blizzard and ice storms faced by residents of the northeast. They don't face the threat of floods faced by residents of the Mississippi valley or the threat of volcanoes faced by residents of the northwest. They don't face the threat of drought faced by residents of the Colorado plateau. It's hard to think of many places in this country that do not face the threat of natural disaster.

When natural disaster strikes localities are often overwhelmed and ask for assistance from their neighbors. It's fractal. Individuals depend on friends and families, families depend on other families in their community, communities depend on other communities, states depend on other states. It's mutual aid in times of crisis, the bedrock of sociality.

It's useful to remember who we are and who we aspire to be when we are tempted to indulge in politicized scapegoating for partisan advantage. When the campaigns are over we still have to bed down cheek by jowl with opponents and rely on them to perform their social duties, to engage in the mutuality that makes civilization possible. Even when we can segregate ourselves into blue and red regions and establish an illusion of independence we can't escape interdependence. We need to be well schooled in the art of sales resistance and recognize when politicians are attempting to manipulate us for personal advantage. They want us to be at one another's throats, them and us, since it weakens us.