No. Let owners exercise owner's responsibility (e.g. insurance, and if insurance is too expensive -- well, the risk is too high).
PS: I heard the thing California does, however, is putting a cap on insurance premiums, so insurers just avoid some regions, and owners cannot find insurance to buy. It's kinda the same thing -- owner's responsibility.
AFAIK in CA insurance rates must be set based on historical trends not anticipated future losses or reinsurance prices. It is easy to imagine why - insurance companies love to play financial games when they can. Historical data is lagging by nature and the reinsurance market predicts large fires will continue thus the insurers get hit from both sides.
Note that a lot of the property insurance regulation stems from a 1988 voter proposition. I suppose it has worked fine from then until now but the CA drought and greatly increased fire risk was an unexpected shock.
FWIW I would guess that we won't see extreme fire events for some time going forward - probably not until a "big drought" comes back to CA 30-40 years from now. The reinsurance market will settle down and mutual insurance companies will end up issuing refunds eventually.
At least you’re answering the question.
California FAIR is the insurance of last resort so what you’re saying isn’t totally accurate.
There has to be an insurance option because you can’t get a mortgage without insurance. And owner occupied real estate prices do not go up without mortgages.
California bends over backwards to make owner occupied real estate risk free.
More provocative questions: what is the difference between someone who lost a home in a place guaranteed for the home to eventually burn down, and someone who doesn’t own a home at all? In that moment: nothing, right? Why is sunk cost a fallacy all the time, except that time?
Is someone who pays less in taxes deserving of less, more or equal government assistance? No, right? Now replace taxes with “compulsory payments” like home insurance: does your answer change?
This should illuminate for you why CA wildfire bailout policy is so inequitable. These communities are not an escape valve from overpriced real estate in California cities, they ARE the overpriced real estate all the same.