1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Zone 0 regulations. As currently drafted, these rules are environmentally destructive, financially burdensome, and scientifically unsound — and I cannot support or comply with them. Requiring the removal of every tree, hedge, and plant within five feet of homes across Los Angeles will devastate our neighborhoods. Such a mandate would erase shade, eliminate privacy, destabilize hillsides, and decimate the biodiversity that supports our air quality and cools our city. This is not about fire safety — it is environmental destruction vandalism. The financial impact is staggering. Compliance would cost millions of dollars collectively, draining homeowners and taxpayers alike, with no proven benefit. Meanwhile, the secondary effects are clear: hotter homes will force greater reliance on air conditioning, spiking utility bills for families and placing additional stress on California’s already fragile electrical grid. Equally troubling, these rules dismiss peer-reviewed science. Leading fire ecologists, including Dr. Jon Keeley, have demonstrated that what truly saves homes is home hardening, Class A roofs, double-pane windows, and defensible space managed with care. Widespread vegetation clearance, especially of irrigated, well-maintained plants, does not reduce ignition risk in dense urban areas. Regulations that ignore this science are not legitimate. If adopted, these rules will guarantee widespread non-compliance. Very few properties currently meet them, and most never will. Attempting to enforce compliance through fines, liens, or forced clearance will only provoke community outrage, legal battles, and inevitable complications failure. I support reasonable, science-based brush clearance. However, I cannot — and will not — comply with regulations that harm our environment, bankrupt residents, and fail to improve safety. Zone 0, as written, is unscientific, unaffordable, and unenforceable.