Note
The app for independent voices
renaming my newsletter as if that will somehow magically solve the problem of having to actually write it!!!!
You made it, you own it
You always own your intellectual property, mailing list, and subscriber payments. With full editorial control and no gatekeepers, you can do the work you most believe in.
I don’t claim the title of philosopher to aggrandize myself. I claim it to describe the work I do: thinking carefully, writing clearly, engaging publicly, and holding tensions rather than collapsing into easy answers. If that’s not philosophy, then we’ve surrendered the term to the credentialed class. And I don’t think Socrates would have approved.
Great discussions
Join the most interesting and insightful discussions.
This man is the leader of the free world.
Out in the WUI, or safe in the fold?
Those of us who live in wooded places near jobs (Los Alamos, say, or Palisades, CA) are in a pickle. We’re told not to build in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) because it’s too dangerous and too expensive to insure. Fair enough—putting new single-family homes in a thirsty pine forest during a megadrought doesn’t seem smart.
But here’s the rub: If you don’t build housing near jobs, you force people to commute. Los Alamos has already shoved almost 70% of its workforce off the mesa, leading to unsafe roads, unaffordable rents for workers, and … higher carbon emissions. Like a LOT higher emissions. The exact thing that’s leading to more fires in the first place.
A solution that hardly ever gets attention? Infill development.
Instead of pushing for federal land transfers so we can build new homes deeper into the WUI, why not legalize more housing in town, where it’s safer and more sustainable?
The big question: do insurers see the difference? Do elected leaders see the difference?
Research has shown that low-density, scattered housing is at the highest risk for wildfires.
Dense, missing-middle-style housing is safer—but are insurance companies recognizing that?
If all of Los Alamos is classified as WUI, are insurers treating an apartment downtown the same as a single-family home in a canyon?
The contradiction in policy
Right now, leaders—from a few determined pro-DOE-transfer county councilors to the actual Secretary of actual Energy—are pushing for land transfers for new housing development in virgin land around Los Alamos instead of increasing density in town.
This keeps the town low-density, which may preserve your neighborhood character but exacerbates the housing crisis.
This directly contradicts fire research, which says dense infill is the safest way to build.
Also, and this can’t be said enough, wildfires definitely ruin neighborhood character.
Why this matters
If insurers don’t distinguish between risky sprawl and fire-protective infill, they could unintentionally make the housing crisis worse by making ALL housing expensive or unavailable.
We need a better framework for evaluating wildfire risk—one that encourages smart land use, not just punishes high-risk areas indiscriminately.
What do you think?
Should insurers reward communities that prioritize infill and dense, fire-resilient housing? Or will blanket WUI classifications of entire towns make housing near jobs impossible, forcing even more people into long, unsustainable, climate-damaging commutes?
More reading: journals.plos.org/ploso…
Note: These little essays reflect only my thoughts and not those of Boomtown generally.
