Newsom Vetoed a Bill to Enhance Fire Mitigation So He Could Grab the Land for Affordable Housing

On Wednesday the Hughes Fire erupted in Northern Los Angeles, in an area called Castaic Lake. It has already burned through 9,400 acres so far, and 19,000 people are under evacuation order. The 5 Freeway, a critical trucking route that connects the entire state, has been shut down in the region. 

Two weeks after the Palisades and Eaton Fires burned through the communities of Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Altadena, Los Angeles is once again battling another wildfire, as the victims from these previous fires quantify their losses. Which begs the question: where is California Governor Gavin Newsom? The Castaic Lake area of Los Angeles isn't a typical celebrity domicile, and probably doesn't contain any Democrat megadonors; which is probably why he hasn't shown his face. I doubt if he'll be spotted cheesing in front of burning houses or doing a shoulder shimmy at the thought of commandeering land for his "Marshall Plan."

"Organizing a Marshall Plan..." Keep that phrase in the forefront, because what has been uncovered will further blow the lid off Newsom's braggadocio. A 2020 memo exposes not only Newsom's cavalier attitude toward fire mitigation and maintenance, but it further shows that elected leaders disregard of the warnings to take care of the high-risk fire prone communities was more by design than people wish to believe.

In 2020, SB 182 came across Newsom's desk. Authored by then-State Senator Hannah Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), whose district had just suffered the Thomas Fire and subsequent deadly mudslide in Montecito, this bill sought to increase local planning requirements and guidelines for permitting development in certain fire-hazard severity zones. What does that mean? For new and existing development, local governments would have been tasked with creating strategies to retrofit and fire harden the buildings and homes in the area, and smaller municipalities which often lack funding for such measures would have been given grants so they could implement wildfire risk reduction and undertake planning activities to increase fire safety. 

From the text of SB 182:

The Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan that includes various elements, including, among others, a housing element and a safety element for the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with the effects of various geologic and seismic hazards, flooding, and wildland and urban fires. Existing law requires the housing element to be revised according to a specific schedule. Existing law requires the planning agency to review and, if necessary, revise the safety element upon each revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every 8 years to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.

Pretty straightforward and forward-thinking, which is no doubt why it passed through both the Senate and the Assembly without issue. Had this bill become law the communities of Pacific Palisades, Altadena, and Malibu would potentially have had resources and greater protections to ward off the ravages and destruction which they have since suffered.

So, why was this bill not signed into law? Because Newsom vetoed it. 

In 2020, the California Legislature passed SB 182, which would have required that new housing developments in very high fire zones include various elements to better withstand wildfires.

SB 182 would have mandated design elements such as evacuation routes, vegetation management, and fire-safe construction. 

It also would have required the regional housing needs allocation plan to further the objective of reducing development pressure within very high fire risk areas.

Guess who vetoed it?

In the September 30, 2020 letter explaining to the Senate why he did not sign, Newsom plainly admitted that fireproofing an existing community would not take precedence over his efforts to limit suburban sprawl and build more affordable (read tiny) housing. This "housing for all" mantra was the linchpin of his 2018 gubernatorial campaign. 

On the campaign trail and after taking office, Gov. Gavin Newsom promised bold action to confront the issue he called California’s greatest challenge: making housing affordable again. Or at least returning us to a world where this house doesn’t sell for $900 grand.

The rhetoric was lofty: A “Marshall Plan” for affordable housing; unprecedented state action on homelessness; and most audacious, 3.5 million new housing units by 2025, a construction rate not seen since they started keeping track of that kind of thing. 

“If we want a California for all, we have to build housing for all,” Newsom said during his first State of the State address, a reference to his campaign slogan.

Newsom further outlined in the veto letter: "Wildfire resilience must become a more consistent part of land use and development decisions. However, it must be done while meeting our housing needs." 

Fast forward to 2024 and Gavin Newsom's second term in office. California leads the way in homelessness. Newsom cannot account for 24 billion in funding that was supposed to address homelessness. And the median home price in California? $869,000. How's that affordable housing program working?

You see, in Newsom's grand scheme, creating affordable housing was more critical than protecting and supporting already existing communities; particularly communities that would not adhere to his "Marshall Plan" for housing. So, if your 1920 Spanish duplex in Pacific Palisades that had been in your family for three generations, or your Craftsman home in Altadena that your father bought post-war and passed down to you and your children burned to the ground? Well, so be it. Your carbon footprint was too big anyway. 

In his veto letter, @CAgovernor @GavinNewsom ADMITS that he vetoed the California Fireproofing Bill not because we don’t need it but because it would ruin his plan to force people into cities! He actually says “… fails to account for consequences that could increase sprawl and places significant cost burdens on the state. New state laws and policies are already directing housing to communities near transit, jobs and urban centers…” IF THIS ISN’T ENOUGH TO FORCE A RESIGNATION OR RECALL, WHAT IS?! 

The veto letter goes from bad to absolutely craven:

New state laws and policies are already directing housing to communities near transit, jobs and urban centers and away from fire risk areas, including integration into the current housing planning cycle.  

Additionally, the 2019-20 Budget requires 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.

And if you're a city like Huntington Beach, which refused to play Governor Hair Gel's land grab game? The California Attorney General files a lawsuit against you. As Dr. Houman Hemmati's X post above reinforces, if this clear act of negligence and malice does not get Newsom recalled or forced to tender his resignation, then what will?