In response to the devastating wildfires in the Los Angeles region, particularly in Pacific Palisades/Malibu, where more than 6,800 structures were destroyed and nearly 1,000 damaged, as well as in Altadena, where 9,400 structures were lost and 1,000 damaged, government officials are preparing to use the disaster recovery process as an opportunity not just to restore and modernize what was lost, but to push forward a progressive communist democrat social engineering agenda under the guise of recovery efforts.

According to Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger…

When we think about recovery, we must think beyond simply reconstructing what was lost. Our mission is bigger than rebuilding houses and businesses. We must also work hard to restore hope with tangible and scalable solutions that are accessible, sustainable, and can be delivered quickly.

My promise to rebuild is also based on the fact that we have an opportunity to modernize our infrastructure, to create scalable and cost efficient housing solutions, and to ensure that every resident — no matter their economic standing — has an option to return home. <Source>

Gavin Newsom Says Californians Need to Rebuild With Science and Climate Change in Mind

"You can't rebuild the same, so we have to rebuild with science, we have to build with climate reality in mind, we have to look at infrastructure, redundancy systems, ingress, egress as it relates to emergency management and planning, materials, all of that is being reviewed and reconsidered with the latest iterations in terms of understanding and technology." 

The Dangers of Using Disaster Recovery to Advance a Progressive Agenda

Communities face the daunting task of rebuilding after natural disasters. The damage done to infrastructure, homes, and livelihoods often requires a massive, coordinated effort from government agencies, businesses, and citizens to return to normalcy. However, while disaster recovery is an urgent priority, some policymakers have used these critical moments of crisis to advance progressive agendas that go far beyond the simple restoration of what was lost.

The problem arises when the recovery process is hijacked to impose social engineering projects that transform the character of communities in ways that may not align with the interests or preferences of the people who live there.

The results are detrimental when disaster recovery funds and regulatory changes promote high-density, low-income housing in neighborhoods once zoned as single-family residential. This transformation often happens through local zoning laws, building codes, and permits—tools that should ensure safety and consistency but can also be wielded to promote a broader political or social agenda.

1. High-Density Housing in Single-Family Neighborhoods

One of the most controversial strategies is the demand for high-density, low-income housing in previously single-family residential areas. Sometimes, these policies are justified as a solution to housing shortages or a response to low-income communities' economic challenges. However, the unintended consequences of these projects often include:

• • Devaluation of Property Values: Introducing multi-family or low-income housing into areas previously dominated by single-family homes can significantly alter the neighborhood's character. It can drive down property values for existing homeowners who may have invested in the area for its residential stability.
  • The strain on Resources: High-density housing can strain local infrastructure, schools, roads, and emergency services, which were not designed to handle such a volume of people. The influx of residents without corresponding upgrades in essential services can reduce the quality of life for new and existing residents.
  • Loss of Community Identity: These developments may disrupt the community's social fabric, eroding a neighborhood's unique character and cohesion.

2. Public Transit Mandates and Zoning Restrictions

In some disaster recovery plans, policymakers mandate conformity to public transit routes, pushing for projects like creating public transportation infrastructure in areas that may not need it or are not equipped to support such an endeavor. While public transit is beneficial in many cases, it is not always appropriate in areas better served by private transportation options, such as cars or ride-sharing services.

Additionally, these types of mandates can encroach upon local zoning laws designed to protect residents' freedom to determine the future of their communities. Forced conformity to top-down solutions is an imposition that undermines the principles of local governance and autonomy.

3. Regulatory Capture and Eminent Domain

In some cases, desirable, disaster-stricken land becomes subject to eminent domain, where government entities seize privately owned property for public use. The real danger lies in how this power is sometimes used to capture prime real estate for public parks, green spaces, or commercial developments that serve specific political or social interests. This could result in:

• • Loss of Property Rights: When the government exercises eminent domain under the guise of disaster recovery, individual property owners lose their rights over their land, potentially without fair compensation or proper consultation with the community.
  • Political Agenda-Driven Land Use: The public good is often cited as the justification for these takings, but in many cases, it is less about actual public benefit and more about fulfilling a progressive agenda, such as creating more public parks or forcing the introduction of certain types of infrastructure that align with a political ideology.

4. The Climate Change Prescription: Overreach in the Name of Sustainability

Another alarming trend is using disaster recovery as an opportunity to implement climate change prescriptives. This includes stringent regulations on energy consumption, transportation, appliances, and even the types of fuel used in everyday life. For example:

• • Gas Station Closures and Restrictions: To promote electric vehicle adoption, some localities are enacting regulations that severely limit or outright forbid the construction of new gas stations. While arguably beneficial in the long-term transition to greener energy, this move can create unnecessary obstacles in communities with limited transportation options, especially in rural areas.
  • Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: As part of the green agenda, many recovery plans now mandate the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. While the shift toward electric vehicles is not inevitable, these mandates often occur without considering whether the infrastructure is practical or needed in a specific area. In communities with limited demand for electric vehicles or inadequate, stressed power grids, forcing these installations can divert resources away from more pressing needs.
  • Appliance Restrictions: To combat the use of fossil fuels, new construction is often forced to curtail appliances such as gas water heaters or gas cooking stoves. This is definitely a tyrannical approach to restricting personal freedoms without any moral or scientific justification. Even if all of the gas-powered vehicles, stoves, and heaters were eliminated, it would have a non-measurable effect on the global climate.

5. The Hidden Cost of Social Engineering Through Recovery

While progressive policies in the wake of disaster recovery might be well-intentioned, they can have unintended consequences that impact residents for generations. These policies often prioritize ideological goals over practical considerations, resulting in:

• • Increased Division: When communities are restructured according to a top-down vision, residents may feel alienated or disconnected from their own neighborhoods. It is essential to involve local stakeholders in the recovery process to ensure that rebuilding efforts align with their needs and values.
  • Loss of Community Voice: Disaster recovery should be a time to heal, rebuild, and listen to the needs of the affected population. Imposing a social engineering agenda risks sidelining the voices of those directly impacted by the disaster.
  • Communist Ideals: Taking from one group of creators and producers and giving to another group of non-contributors by following the Marxist dicta of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Explain this...

Newsom Authorizes $50M To Fight Trump … After Begging For Federal Fire Aid

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed two bills Friday providing $50 million to fight President Donald Trump’s policies—after returning from a trip to Washington, DC, where he sought federal aid money for recent wildfires in his state.

Both bills were passed after a special legislative session called by Newsom after the election to prepare California to lead the opposition to the second Trump administration. Newsom and the Democrat-controlled legislature reached a deal to fund the anti-Trump effort even as the Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire were still smoldering in Los Angeles. <Source>

Grenell Calls Out Bass-Appointed L.A. Fire Recovery Chief for $500K 3-Month Salary: ‘Gross, Offensive’

Ric Grenell, President Donald Trump’s Envoy for Special Missions, slammed Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’s (D) fire “recovery czar” for his large three-month salary of $500,000 paid by charity groups.

Real estate executive Randy Johnson, who worked with Soboroff in developing the ritzy Playa Vista neighborhood in the Westside area of L.A., will receive $250,000 from charity groups over the 90-day period as he helps with the recovery efforts. <Source>

Bottom line…

Residents and others must resist the politician's temptation to use recovery efforts to advance political agendas far beyond the immediate needs of rebuilding homes and more resilient infrastructure.

Focusing on restoring communities and ensuring that recovery efforts reflect the desires of the people who live there, we can avoid the dangers of tyrannical government overreach and create a more responsive approach to disaster recovery.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve