Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City

Born in Flames: The Business of Arson and the Remaking of the American City by Bench Ansfield

Government and industry attempted to end redlining, but instead created a moral hazard that lead to apartment destruction. Special "high risk" insurance pools were available for landlords with few questions asked. If the apartment burned down, they could pocket the money and stop worrying about the headache of maintaining the building. Arsons were rarely investigated, and eve when they were it was assumed that the low-income tenants were behind them. (Though this did not stand up well in comparison to public housing where there were no arsons.) According to the author, the landlord would often hire arsonists to burn down the buildings.

The book ended with communities fighting back against arson and then gentrification. The author did identify the root cause of "unintended consequences" leading to destruction. However, they didn't quite draw it back far enough. Why was it more valuable to burn down buildings? Were there other regulations (such as rent control or tenants rights) that made the buildings less profitable? Did the end of redlining actually make things worse? If gentrification is bad, does that mean people want to live in slums? Should we let neighborhoods get better and worse?