Homeowners Are Under Attack: Take Action To Protect Your Property And Your Rights

Before we dive into the subject of this article, I know some of you are unfamiliar with who I am.

For years, I have provided free expertise to California property owners on matters related to housing, urban forestry, land use, and environmental law. As an ecological horticulturist, legal strategy advocate and community activist, I assist private property owners in understanding city codes, defending their property rights, and neighborhood interests before agencies at the City, County, and State levels.

My work is dedicated to protecting single family neighborhoods, and property rights, defending nature where we live, and resisting policies that weaponize “climate change”, “housing affordability”, the “environment” and fire safety as a backdoor for development and Growthist’s interests.

The information below is what I know to be true from my work on California’s Zone 0 defensible space mandate over the past year. Since AB 3074 was signed in 2020, and especially with Executive Order N-19-25 in 2025, I am working hard to highlight the worst parts of these bills, propose alternatives, and above all—stop Zone 0 from becoming a blunt tool for habitat removal, insurance denial, loss of property rights, and increased density in high-risk urban areas.

The goal of this post is to help California homeowners understand Zone 0, how it ties into local wildfire hazard policies, how it will impacts both urban and rural neighborhoods, and how property owners can advocate for themselves.

I know that some people will not agree with all of my assessments, or that there is nature in and around our private city yards, and that both urban and rural Californians are under attack from bad government policy and so called “environmentalists”. That’s okay.

The purpose of this post is to get information out to property owners so that you are not left in the dark on what is happening with your government, and to help you advocate for yourself in ways that will effectively move the needle.

Let’s dive in.

HISTORY OF AB 3074, EO N-18-25 & THE ZONE 0 DEFENSIBLE SPACE RULES

Assembly Bill 3074 (Friedman) was passed in 2020, which introduced the concept of “Zone 0”—a five-foot “ember-resistant zone” around every structure in the State mapped Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).  The law was not supposed to go into effect until the new ember-resistant zone rule was written by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BOF).  Fast-forward to 2025: Governor Newsom, facing political pressure from negative media headlines, signed Executive Order N-18-25, which gave the BOF emergency powers to finalize Zone 0 regulations by year’s end. Media pressure—not safety or science—drove this timeline.

This rushed process means regulations are being imposed without regard to local conditions, ecological fire science, adverse impacts or property rights, and Californians are supposed to foot the bill.

The BOF has established a rule that effectively makes the bill’s ember-resistant zone a no landscaping or no vegetation allowed zone. Even healthy well-maintained vegetation is now not allowed. You can download how the BOF has interpreted AB 3074 to create the Zone 0 rule we have today here.

I have concerns.

1. Parcel-by-Parcel Regulations in Dense Neighborhoods

I have said from the beginning that there is no way the state of California can create a one-size fits all rule that applies across California — from highly urbanized areas all the way to a remote cabin in Northern California on a ranch — that is plausible enough to be used to regulate people and their property.

Zone 0 requires property owners of existing homes who are mapped in the very high fire hazard severity zone in both rural California and Los Angeles with one of the densest metropolitan cities in the country to comply with the exact same regulations and standards.  Those regulations are applied not at the local level and not after a site inspection where conditions found on the property may warrant those measures. They are applied based solely on a map that was created in an office without any ground-truthing.

The idea that each property in a dense city such as Los Angeles where houses are less than 10 feet apart can be regulated with a uniform five-foot vegetation-free zone (Zone 0) is impractical. I have questions.

• Could this rule realistically be applied in dense Los Angeles neighborhoods where setbacks are often only five feet—or less—between homes?

• How do you impose a combustible-free zone in places where fences, and hedges are providing privacy and security between tightly packed homes and within 5 feet of a busy street?

• What about shade trees that provide cooling, moisture, and fire resistance—how can they survive if their canopy or limbs extend into Zone 0?

•  If both neighbors must clear five feet, are you to live with a barren canyon between walls.

• In older neighborhoods, existing homes are often surrounded by vegetation. Are urban dwellers forced to make a choice between destroying shade, losing privacy, or violating the mandate.

• Why do regulations not consider actual site conditions with healthy well-maintained vegetation? Why is compliance is based solely on a blanket cut it all down rule with no opportunity to appeal a rule that could result in steep fines, forced clearance, property liens and jail time?

• Will the Legislature finally put an end to this chaos?

2. The Accuracy of the State’s Fire Hazard Maps

While I could write a long technical paragraph raising issues with the underlying modeling, the reality is that the fire hazard maps don’t pass the “sniff test”.

First, the map does not consider all the factors that truly affect fire hazard and the risk of significant structural loss for any particular property.   If the state wants to regulate property on a parcel-by-parcel basis, shouldn’t the state look at the parcel and examine what the property owner has done to safeguard it from fire?

For example, the map does NOT factor in whether people have fire-hardened their homes, done defensible space, or any other proactive steps to reduce the risk of fire starts and ember spread on their properties. There is no consideration of how close properties are to fire stations or water sources or to each other. You could be in the ocean and still be labeled as the same hazard as someone who is 30 minutes away on dry land. Think I’m joking?  An area in the San Francisco Bay is mapped as a very high fire severity zone. 

Second, some of it just doesn’t make sense. How is it that one house in a subdivision is Very High-Hazard, but the house 10-ft away nextdoor is Moderate-Hazard? 

3. Efficacy of Zone O

If efficacy means “does this stop houses from burning,” the answer is no in the urban environment. A bare five-foot perimeter cannot shield a home from a wall of fire advancing through tightly packed structures. If efficacy means does Zone 0 protect firefighters, the answer is also no.  Firefighters don’t operate within a five-foot strip hugging the side of your burning house. They need space—real space—to maneuver engines, lay hose, and defend structures. A retired firefighter put it plainly: “In a conflagration, we can’t stop it. The best we can do is protect the edges and wait for conditions to change.”

If efficacy means “does this policy build resilient neighborhoods,” the answer is again no. Zone 0 produces barren lots, reduced property values, and ecological harm—without solving the core risk factors.

4. The Scientific Gap

Peer-reviewed fire science repeatedly emphasizes that structure density and spacing are the most important predictors of home loss. Research by NIST and University of California scientists shows that in neighborhoods with close setbacks, the primary pathway of fire is structure-to-structure ignition, not vegetation-to-structure ignition. Zone 0 does not address this. In fact, it distracts from the core problem: development patterns that put homes too close together, without buffers or adequate firefighting access.

By focusing narrowly on a five-foot clearance, Zone 0 creates the illusion of safety while ignoring the broader ignition dynamics that determine whether entire neighborhoods survive.

5. Ecological and Social Backfire

Ironically, Zone 0 may worsen fire conditions in Los Angeles. Removing shade trees and vegetation around homes exposes soil, raises ambient temperatures, and reduces moisture in the air. These are the very conditions that make neighborhoods more flammable over time. Residents lose the cooling canopy that makes life in the city bearable during heat waves, while also losing an ecological ally in retaining moisture that resists ember spread.

At the same time, Zone 0 imposes financial and legal burdens on homeowners—many of whom cannot afford tree removals, perpetual clearing, fines, or citations. The result is resentment, noncompliance, and ultimately a weakened social contract around fire safety.

6. Tree Canopy, Urban Heat & Nature

I have also been concerned from the beginning about how Zone 0 will affect nature and heat in the city.  At minimum it is a tree canopy removal program in disguise.

While a “specimen tree exemption” now exists on paper, in practice it results in severe over-pruning, canopy loss, and shortened tree lifespans.  Furthermore, if a tree in Zone 0 dies, a replacement tree can never be planted in its place.

For Los Angeles, a city already struggling with extreme heat and inequitable canopy distribution, this is a direct threat to public health and fire safety. Shade and moisture—not bare soil—are the antidotes to fire spread in cities.

Protected trees and shaded landscapes stand in the way of densification. Zone 0 clears them—literally.

7. Insurance & Development Pressure

I know that properties are being dropped from insurance because of wildfire risk. This is 100% fact. HOWEVER, compliance with Zone 0, home hardening or any other mitigation will do nothing to change your fire map zone.  I tell all of you this not because I know insurance is the issue that concerns us the most – but because we need to focus energy in the right places. If the State Wildfire Hazard Zones and Zone 0 were eliminated tomorrow, insurance would still be a problem. This is because insurance providers have their own maps and risk modeling. They do not need Zone 0 to raise or lower rates, deny claims or drop customers.

8. Property Values

The fire map hazard designation hanging over your property is a scarlet letter. It signals risk, imposes costs, and reduces value.  This becomes impossibly frustrating when property owners are told they can never change their hazard rating, no matter how well you maintain your property, harden your home, or comply with Zone 0 and other defensible space rules.  The only way to solve this problem is to eliminate the map that identifies properties as a hazard.   

9. Zone 0 as a Tool of Displacement

California property owners need to understand – there are prominent environmental groups and State legislators that are driving the idea that people should not be allowed to live in rural areas mapped as fire zones. These powerful interests tell family farmers and related workers to abandon their land and move to dense cities for a job in construction. At the same time, they demand that property owners in the city strip our bare, cut down our trees, forget about the joy of birds in our yards and open green space — accept more building density, despite the fact that buildings are the fire’s fuel in the urban environment. Of course, our yards could be better. I have made a career of advocating for ecological yards but instead of supporting that vision, Zone 0 forces conformity to a lifeless buffer zone. It treats our homes as fortresses surrounded by dead space, rather than living places connected to land, water, shade, and community.

What’s really happening is that fire is being used as a pretext for social engineering: to push people off the land, to erase the cultural and ecological value of working landscapes, and to make private yards inhospitable so that resistance to densification breaks down. Zone 0 is less about safety than it is about control — redefining who belongs where, and what kind of landscapes are “permitted” to exist. In the name of fire prevention, Californians are being asked to give up not just their trees, but their autonomy, their traditions, and their sense of place.California property owners need to understand – there are prominent environmental groups and State legislators that are driving the idea that people should not be allowed to live in rural areas mapped as fire zones. These powerful interests tell family farmers and related workers to abandon their land and move to dense cities for a job in construction. At the same time, they demand that property owners in the city strip our land bare, cut down our trees, forget about the joy of birds in our yards and open green space — accept more building density, despite the fact that buildings are the fire’s fuel in the urban environment.   Of course, our yards could be better. I have made a career of advocating for ecological yards but   

Bills such as Zone 0 stand as a shocking and direct attack on both rural and urban property owners.

HOW TO ADVOCATE & PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

Demand Legislative Change

The real battle is in Sacramento and City Hall. Zone 0 was never designed for dense, urban Los Angeles. It is a one-size-fits-all policy crafted for rural sprawl, now being shoehorned into a city of 4 million people.

When you contact your legislators or councilmembers, make your case clear and strong:

• Where you live: Explain your lot size, setbacks, and density.

• What Zone 0 means for you: Cost of compliance, loss of trees, loss of shade.

• Property values: Your home is your greatest asset; explain how mandates erode it.

• Science: Cite research provided here showing that structure spacing and neighborhood ignition are the true drivers of fire spread—not a five-foot vegetation ban.

• Equity: Note that wealthier homeowners can afford compliance, while middle- and working-class Angelenos face fines and criminal penalties.

CONCLUSION

Zone 0 in Los Angeles is a case study in how wildfire policy can go wrong. I do not deny that defensible space and home hardening can help reduce risk applied with nuance, with incentives, and with respect for science, urban ecology, and private property rights—not as mandates that strip away trees, privacy, and property rights. But those tools must not be a substitute for sound urban planning and fire safe building setbacks.

California property owners are under siege from greedy developers and environmental advocates pushing policies that threaten the right to live, work, and enjoy nature in the cities. While those who support these bills claim they are intended to “close loopholes” in our planning system, these bills stand as shocking and direct threats to our communities and private property rights.

While the advocates for these bills will say they “preserve wildlands” and “fight climate change”, the reality is that almost ALL Californians live inside our cities (95%) and I feel even cities need nature.  As such, these bills are attacks on city living in general.

This is why I fight.