If there are places with lower risk, certainly, extend insurance there (when reasonable) using data driven risk models. But places where the risk is high? Prohibit building by refusing to issue a building permit, and perhaps cover existing owners in some fashion. If their house burns down, they must turn over the land to be locked up and never built on again to receive their claim payout. Similar to what FEMA does for flooding.

You want to strongly discourage moral hazard (repeatedly funding rebuilds with taxpayer dollars in high risk areas) while not making housing insecurity drastically worse than it already is. I admit this is a tall order with the perpetual housing shortage.

https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230502/fact-sheet-acqui...

> Acquisition of Property After a Flood Event

> If the homeowner still owes a mortgage on the home, the balance due will be deducted and paid to the lienholder. After required payment(s) have been made, the structure is then demolished and the land is deeded to the local government with its use restricted to open space. The land must remain open in perpetuity.

Your point is taken and I am mindful that SF isn’t say, an hour outside of Sacramento or closer to the national forest range. California is handling this as a state crisis though, which is good from a governance and fiscal strength approach, but not so good considering the significant delta in risk between cities and high risk areas (due to the wildly disproportionate costs).

> For example you’ll find no challenges getting insurance in San Francisco city or San Jose for the most part.

While some of that is climate, much of that is because the natural environment was wiped out and urbanized years ago.

I have a higher wildfire risk not because my home is in some wooded canyon, but there are more plants, trees, and open areas around vs paved cityscape.