Wildfire WRECKAGE—Now Newsom Wants More?

California’s plan to spend $101 million building low-income housing in the very wildfire zones that just burned down some of the state’s most desirable real estate is the kind of government logic that leaves taxpayers shaking their heads—while wondering if common sense has also gone up in flames.

At a Glance

• Governor Gavin Newsom has allocated $101 million to build low-income multifamily housing in areas ravaged by the Eaton and Palisades fires.
• The move prioritizes development right in the heart of affluent neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades and Malibu, drawing fierce opposition from residents.
• State law mandates that rent-protected units destroyed by fire must be replaced with low-income housing—regardless of neighborhood pushback or risk of future disasters.
• The plan fast-tracks construction by rolling back environmental regulations, raising concerns about building in high-risk, fire-prone areas.

Housing Millions for Disaster Zones: Newsom’s “Recovery” Plan

In the aftermath of the catastrophic Eaton and Palisades fires, which tore through Altadena, Pasadena, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu, destroying over 12,000 structures and displacing thousands of families, Governor Gavin Newsom is pushing a $101 million “recovery” initiative. But instead of focusing on rebuilding what was lost, the plan aims to flood these high-value, fire-scarred neighborhoods with low-income multifamily housing. Taxpayers and local residents are left to wonder: since when does disaster recovery mean social engineering, and who exactly benefits from this grand experiment?

Newsom, touting the program as a model of “equity and resilience,” insists that those who lost everything in the fires deserve affordable housing options. But the real story is how Sacramento’s solution is to shoehorn government-subsidized housing into some of California’s wealthiest enclaves—places where residents spent decades paying sky-high taxes for the privilege of safe neighborhoods, only to now face state mandates that could permanently alter their communities’ character. The new funding specifically targets construction as close as possible to the fire perimeters, raising the question: did the state learn nothing from the devastation, or is the agenda simply too important to pause for common sense?

Affluent Neighborhoods in the Crosshairs

Pacific Palisades and Malibu have always been symbols of California’s success and prosperity. Now, thanks to state law requiring destroyed rent-protected apartments to be replaced with low-income units, these communities are ground zero for a radical housing policy. Residents, already battered by insurance nightmares and the trauma of disaster, are understandably livid. Many accuse the state of using the fires as a pretext to force redistribution schemes that have nothing to do with helping the original victims and everything to do with scoring political points in the name of “equity.”

Local developer Rick Caruso and a chorus of neighborhood groups warn that this project threatens property values, public safety, and the very lifestyle people worked their entire lives to achieve. The idea of building dense, subsidized housing in wildfire zones—especially when the ink isn’t dry on lawsuits against the utilities allegedly responsible for the blazes—strikes many as the ultimate government boondoggle. Once again, Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all approach tramples local voices, prioritizing ideology over reality.

Rolling Back Regulations to Expedite a Risky Agenda

To speed up construction, Newsom signed a rollback of environmental regulations that would normally slow development in high-risk areas. This is the same government that, year after year, lectures Californians on the existential threat of wildfires and climate change. Now, when it suits a “progressive” housing agenda, those environmental protections are tossed aside, and the bulldozers roll in. Urban planning and fire safety experts have already sounded the alarm, warning that rebuilding in burn zones without strict oversight is a recipe for more tragedy.

Meanwhile, the insurance market in these areas has collapsed. Many displaced homeowners can’t get private coverage and are forced onto the state’s FAIR plan, making it even harder to rebuild. So, who exactly will fill these shiny new low-income units if families who lost everything can’t afford to return, and who is on the hook when the next fire inevitably sweeps through? As usual, the costs and consequences will land squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers and middle-class families—while politicians take victory laps for “fixing” the crisis they helped create.

A Precedent for Disaster or a New Model for “Equity”?

California has a long history of leveraging disaster recovery as an excuse to push big-government policies, but this latest move is unprecedented in both scale and audacity. Housing advocates and academic experts are split. Some praise the plan as overdue, citing the state’s chronic housing shortage and the need for more “inclusive” communities. Others warn that California is setting a dangerous precedent by treating fire-ravaged, high-value neighborhoods as blank slates for social experimentation—ignoring the lessons of the very disasters that triggered the crisis and steamrolling local democracy in the process.

The coming months will determine whether Newsom’s gamble will actually help those displaced by the fires or simply transform some of America’s most iconic neighborhoods into cautionary tales. One thing is certain: for taxpayers and homeowners who thought they’d seen it all, California’s post-fire housing push is a harsh reminder that when ideology trumps logic, everyone winds up paying the price.