Re: Newsom's 'Compassion' for Wildfire Victims

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.

Trump gets a lot of shit from the media for his lies but none of them ever
seems to care that you can't even ask Newsom about the weather without a lie
spewing from his mouth.
 
Maybe we're seeing the reason why we're seven months out and no one can seem
to get a permit to rebuild. Maybe this was the plan all along. It even brings
into question whether the lack of water in the Santa Ynez reservoir was
negligence or was it intentional? It's prime real estate and the state is
stealing it right out from under the people who own it. It's almost like this
whole thing was planned.

 
I think you or someone else posted about people getting fines if their
plots weren't cleared. I saw a video just a week or two ago about a
guy who had lost his home in the fires that just got the people to
clear his lot. The people that did the work had to wait for multiple
other people to show up to either give approval or to watch the work
being done. There was even a biologist to check if there was some
protected animal there (luckily there wasn't.)
 
The point is it was just in the last month that his lot was cleared
because the people doing the work were so far behind. Yet the
government is threatening to fine people like him if they don't clear
the lot. So on the one hand we have the government slowly clearing all
the lots so that people can rebuild or sell the lots, and on the other
hand we have the government threatening to fine people for not
clearing the lots. This is sounding a lot like the stuff I used to
hear from Louis Rossman about his experiences with NYC government.
 

They're strategically avoiding the use of eminent domain and couching it as
'voluntary sales', but at the same time the state is making permits to
rebuild
impossible to obtain. The landowners will have no choice to sell at vastly
reduced prices, since the market value of a lot where a buyer knows they
can't
get a permit to build will be only a fraction of what it was before the fire,
which allows the state to not only take the land, but get if for pennies on
the dollar.
 

 
The one that makes the rules controls the game.