Do Zone 0 Homes Really “Fare Better”?

An LA Times article claims that homes with a cleared “Zone 0” were less likely to burn in the Eaton and Palisades fires—and suggests this supports California’s proposed Zone 0 mandate. Let’s pause and reality-test that claim.

What the Article Says

An insurance-backed investigation found that only 9% of homes with little vegetation within five feet burned, compared with 27% of homes with more vegetation. The reporter’s implication is clear: Zone 0 works, skeptics are behind, and the data justify regulation.

What the Article Admits (But Doesn’t Reckon With)

  • The study is exploratory, not causal

  • It does not control for home age, construction type, income, or retrofit timing

  • It does not account for firefighting intervention

  • Its definition of “Zone 0” does not match California’s proposed rules

  • Its sample is not representative of entire burn areas

These are not minor caveats. They determine whether the conclusions are valid.

The Inconvenient Truth Buried in the Article

The strongest predictor of survival wasn’t vegetation at five feet. It was spacing between homes. The article quotes the insurance institute’s own CEO saying spacing is “the most definitive way” to differentiate what survives and what doesn’t—while immediately dismissing it as “not feasible to change.”

That’s the tell.

Why This Reporter’s Framing Matters

When the most important factor is declared off-limits, attention shifts to what can be regulated: private yards. That’s how a planning and governance failure becomes a homeowner obligation. Correlation is elevated to proof. Exploratory insurance research becomes policy justification. And ecological destruction is rebranded as safety.

What This Evidence Actually Supports

At most, the data show that:

  • Hardened homes sometimes survive

  • Multiple factors interact

  • Firefighters save many structures

  • Dense housing amplifies loss

It does not show that mandatory removal of living gardens within five feet of every home is necessary, sufficient, or proportionate.

Sanity Check

If homes ignite homes, and spacing is the strongest predictor of survival—but spacing is deemed “not feasible”—then Zone 0 is not fire prevention.

It’s risk displacement from land-use decisions to homeowners, public responsibility to private compliance, and planning failures to living landscapes.

That’s not resilience.

That’s surrender—backed by statistics that don’t say what they’re being used to justify.