The Hughes Fire, a raging inferno that has already consumed 9,400 acres in the Castaic Lake area of Northern Los Angeles, has forced the evacuation of 19,000 residents and the closure of the 5 Freeway, a vital trucking artery for the state.
This comes just two weeks after the Palisades and Eaton Fires wreaked havoc in the communities of Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Altadena, leaving residents grappling with the aftermath. Amidst this chaos, the conspicuous absence of California Governor Gavin Newsom has raised eyebrows and questions about his priorities.
According to RedState, the Castaic Lake region, devoid of celebrity residents or Democrat megadonors, has seemingly been overlooked by Newsom. His absence has sparked speculation about his commitment to the "Marshall Plan" he once touted, a plan that now appears to be more about political posturing than practical action.
Newsom's cavalier attitude towards fire mitigation and maintenance was laid bare in a 2020 memo. The document reveals a disturbing disregard for high-risk fire-prone communities, suggesting that the lack of action was more by design than accident. The memo refers to SB 182, a bill authored by then-State Senator Hannah Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), whose district had recently suffered the Thomas Fire and a subsequent deadly mudslide in Montecito. The bill aimed to bolster local planning requirements and guidelines for development in certain fire-hazard severity zones.
The bill's text outlined a comprehensive, long-term plan requiring the legislative body of a city or county to adopt measures for the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with geologic and seismic hazards, flooding, and wildland and urban fires. It also proposed strategies for retrofitting and fire hardening buildings and homes in high-risk areas. Smaller municipalities, often lacking the necessary funding, would have been provided with grants to implement wildfire risk reduction and planning activities to increase fire safety.
The bill, which passed through both the Senate and the Assembly without issue, could have provided the communities of Pacific Palisades, Altadena, and Malibu with resources and protections to mitigate the destruction they have since endured. However, it was vetoed by Newsom.
In a letter dated September 30, 2020, explaining his decision, Newsom admitted that fireproofing existing communities would not take precedence over his efforts to limit suburban sprawl and build more affordable housing. This "housing for all" mantra was a key component of his 2018 gubernatorial campaign.
Newsom's campaign promises included a "Marshall Plan" for affordable housing, unprecedented state action on homelessness, and an ambitious goal of 3.5 million new housing units by 2025. "If we want a California for all, we have to build housing for all," Newsom declared during his first State of the State address.
Fast forward to 2024, and California is leading the nation in homelessness. Newsom is unable to account for $24 billion in funding that was supposed to address homelessness, and the median home price in California has soared to $869,000. Newsom's grand scheme prioritized creating affordable housing over protecting and supporting existing communities, particularly those that would not conform to his "Marshall Plan" for housing.
In his veto letter, Newsom admitted that he vetoed the California Fireproofing Bill not because it was unnecessary, but because it would interfere with his plan to direct housing to communities near transit, jobs, and urban centers. This decision has been met with outrage, with critics arguing that it demonstrates a clear act of negligence and malice.
The veto letter also revealed that new state laws and policies were already directing housing to communities near transit, jobs, and urban centers and away from fire risk areas. This included integration into the current housing planning cycle. The 2019-20 Budget required the California Department of Housing and Community Development, in collaboration with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, to develop recommendations to improve the regional housing need allocation process to promote and streamline housing development to address California's housing shortage.
However, cities like Huntington Beach, which refused to comply with Newsom's land grab game, faced lawsuits from the California Attorney General. The question now is whether this clear act of negligence and malice will lead to Newsom's recall or forced resignation. As the state continues to battle wildfires and residents grapple with the aftermath, the Governor's priorities and actionsor lack thereofremain under scrutiny.
Login