Re: Newsom's 'Compassion' for Wildfire Victims

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:56:33 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2025 at 1:38:48 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:20:56 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
 

On Jul 12, 2025 at 4:12:08 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
 

 BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
 

  In case you were wondering where we stand with the wildfire recovery…
 
  When the fires were still burning, Newsom was on scene speaking his normal
 mix
  of gibberish, platitudes, and tech jargon, saying that the government at
all
  levels would have the backs of those who lost everything.
 
  Fast forward seven months. Newsom is now issuing $1700 fines to any
wildfire
  victim who still has any debris on their property, even while he (and his
  accomplice, Karen Bass) refuse them permits to rebuild. And at the same
 time,
  he's announcing a $200 million state program to appropriate (read: steal)
 what
  used to be entire neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades and use them to build
  'affordable housing', which is prog-speak for 'dorms for bums, addicts, and
  criminals'.
 
  Now vote for him for president!

 
 Maybe this is why the city of Scottsdale this week came by issuing
 citations for potential fire hazards. They hit me because I had a couple of
 palm fronds on the ground at the base of my palm tree as if they hadn’t
 noticed there was wind the night before.

 
I knew it. Back when the fires were still raging, I posted right here on RAT
that when all this is over, look for the government to muscle its way and try
to convert a significant portion of the burned land into "affordable
housing".
Welp, here we are.
 
Today the California Senate passed SB 549, granting L.A. County authority to
purchase fire-destroyed lots for minimal cost and convert them into
low-income
housing, directly contradicting the repeated and televised post-fire
assurances of Gavin Newsom to homeowners that such government-driven property
conversions wouldn't happen.

 
What does minimal cost? Does it mean under valued so a homeowner with
a mortgage can end up under water? If so I can't imagine any of the
voters wanting to vote for these politicians at the next election.

>
That's the true root of the problem in California. No matter how badly or
often the government abuses the people here, they continually reward them with
re-election. It's truly like a cult. They'd rather pay $8.00/gallon for gas,
have vagrants shitting on their front lawn, and have a round of riots and
looting every six months than EVER vote for someone who doesn't have (D) next
to their name on the ballot. Which, of course, only emboldens the politicians
to be even more abusive since they know there will be no electoral
consequences for it.

There's no reason they couldn't find Democrats that are more
responsible to the voters. The only other state I see hitting those
sorts of prices is Hawaii due to the logistics.