It's not about getting rid of the village, but legislating that the town needs a gravel firebreak around their city limits, which might get rid of the 'we are in the middle of a forest' feel that they are going for. Somewhat like building codes so people don't live in toothpick houses that burn away or shake away in a flash.

You’re assuming city limits exist. There’s a lot of places with names and lots of people in California that are just part of the County.

"If you live in a place that is wooded, you must have a firebreak or or be within a firebreak perimeter unless your housing can mobilize in 1 hour, such as a RV / tent, etc"

Thinking of how to deal with edge cases is not hard people.

Not disagreeing, but you need a means of taking enforcement action. Legislation is meaningless without enforcement. Millions of people live in places that are for all practical purposes, towns, but without all the trappings of a town like a municipal government, local PD, fire department, etc. and rely on the County for these services. That’s hardly an edge case.

Fire breaks are good if you can get them and maintain them, but you’re probably better off addressing that and other factors through the Insurance market.

You also still need to actually maintain the forests to reduce risk. That means allowing some fires to burn so there isn’t a massive fuel build up, and removing dead trees which will burn and explode instead of leaving them as mulch. You still need a market based solution to encourage people to cull the woods near their property though because sometimes the only thing keeping responsible property owners from culling the woods near their property lines are their own neighbors who outvote them when it comes to making a decision. California is very democratic like that.

Again, though, the houses already exist. The firebreak might be doable, but who’s paying for it?

The city and the people who live in it? Municipal bonds? Firezone income & sales taxes? It's like a special assessment in a condo when you haven't been managing your reserves properly and by law / ADA you MUST fix your elevator to make your building accessible for people who cannot walk up stairs.

As to how? Like many other govt infrastructure projects, eminent domain. Except this land nobody will be living on, it will probably just be uninhabited farm or forest land or already owned by the state.

If we're talking about New Almaden, it isn't even a city. Just an unincorporated small community in Santa Clara county. There is no realistic way to fund major fire safety projects there. The county is tapped out, there is no way to raise taxes significantly, and other more heavily populated areas have higher priority.

We made roads & electric services to that place, I think a small gravel firebreak for their small community is not so much of a stretch.

Sure there's a way to finance it! Make everyone else in the country subsidize New Almaden! Works for hurricane and tornado areas too!

In the absence of government intervention, renters/homeowners insurance rates would rise to reflect actual fire risk. This would naturally result in people leaving risky towns.

But the government doesn't allow that to happen by over-regulating the insurance industry.

folks shouldn't be trying to get rid of those towns wholesale, just price in the risk and the externalized costs appropriately. easier said than done of course, as our legislative and regulatory apparatus has been broadly subjugated to real estate interests.

Pricing in the externalities of peoples’ houses is a bit of a Pandora’s box, and I can understand why no-one’s too eager to do it. If you’re going purely utilitarian, well, that’s rural housing out the window for a start. Essentially all of it.

Plenty of rural housing has minimal fire risk, especially if homes are built from fire resistant materials and homeowners take proper responsibility for clearing defensible space.

Assume houses/buildings in those areas WILL burn down each year and price insurance accordingly. Then have regulations (and government enforcement) that owners must have insurance.

California's become used to rebuilding to address threats following earthquakes. It will come to do so to wildfire..

It won't be governments which remove these towns. Or at least their structures.