{"id":38737,"date":"2025-01-13T12:09:38","date_gmt":"2025-01-13T20:09:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=38737"},"modified":"2025-01-13T12:09:39","modified_gmt":"2025-01-13T20:09:39","slug":"the-architects-of-l-a-s-wildfire-devastation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2025\/01\/13\/the-architects-of-l-a-s-wildfire-devastation\/","title":{"rendered":"The Architects Of L.A.\u2019s Wildfire Devastation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Katya Schwenk<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

January 13, 2025 (editor@levernews.com)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Devastation from the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles. (AP Photo\/Mark J. Terrill)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Share this article on <\/strong><\/em>Bluesky<\/strong><\/em><\/a>, <\/strong><\/em>X<\/strong><\/em><\/a>, and <\/strong><\/em>Facebook<\/strong><\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[View in browser<\/em><\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back in 2019, a California state climate task force issued a stark warning<\/u><\/a>: Endless development in the state\u2019s high-risk wildfire zones was magnifying wildfires and putting more people in their path. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was a call that has echoed in the state for decades from environmentalists, urban planners, and policymakers, even as developers pushed to build ever more homes in zones designated as \u201cvery high risk\u201d of wildfires. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, many of those homes have burned to the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A map showing very-high-risk wildfire zones around Los Angeles where policymakers have unsuccessfully pushed to limit development and the locations of the January 2025 fires. (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Veronica Riccobene for <\/em>The Lever)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fires in Los Angeles have reduced thousands of homes to ash, forced more than 100,000 people to evacuate, and rank as the most destructive<\/u><\/a> in the city\u2019s history. They were fanned by 100-mile-per-hour wind gusts and exacerbated by eight months of little rain<\/u><\/a>. But they were also fueled by the state\u2019s endless urban sprawl, which is encroaching further and further into fire-prone wildlands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, at every turn, efforts to reduce high-fire-risk development have been stymied by powerful real estate and construction interests. The industry has successfully fought against limits on development for wildfire safety and even beat back safety standards for houses in fire-prone areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That includes a successful 2021 lobbying blitz uncovered by The Lever<\/em> that helped kill a state bill that would have limited new home construction in the state\u2019s most extreme fire-risk areas \u2014 including some of the Los Angeles neighborhoods engulfed in the recent fires. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is huge pressure on local and state officials to continue approving large-scale development in high-risk areas,\u201d said J.P. Rose, urban wildlands policy director and senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group. Particularly in the last few years, Rose said, the industry has pushed legislation that would \u201croll out the red carpet for more such developments.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey\u2019re Putting All Of Us At Risk\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, State Sen. Henry Stern<\/u><\/a> (D), who lost his own home in Los Angeles\u2019s Topanga Canyon in the 2018 Woolsey Fire<\/u><\/a>, was fighting in the California legislature to stop development in high-risk areas. Stern told Curbed <\/em>in May 2021 that it was time for the government to tell developers, \u201cNo, you can\u2019t build your new mansion.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time, four years before the firestorm that just descended on Los Angeles, Stern was trying to pass a bill that would block most development in zones designated by the state as \u201cvery high risk\u201d of wildfires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

California\u2019s State Fire Marshal maps out fire risk across the state<\/u><\/a>, classifying areas as at \u201cmoderate,\u201d \u201chigh,\u201d or \u201cvery high\u201d risk of wildfires. These designations inform building safety standards and disclosure requirements for property sales. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, Stern\u2019s bill<\/u><\/a> would have barred development in \u201cvery high risk\u201d zones, with exceptions for cases in which local fire agencies adopted a comprehensive plan for wildfire risk management. Without such limitations, development in these areas was likely to continue to boom; one 2014 study estimated<\/u><\/a> that by 2050, a million additional houses would be built in very-high-risk wildlife zones in California. Already, there are two million homes in high and very-high-risk wildfire zones in the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td><\/tr>
Listen To MASTER PLAN<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Master Plan<\/em>, an investigative podcast series years in the making from The Lever<\/em>, reveals how political ideologues and corporate forces have spent years orchestrating a system of legalized corruption in America. We are exposing their scheme.<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Start Listening Now<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Los Angeles County has the most homes<\/u><\/a> in areas at high risk of wildfires of any California county. Wildfires in and around the city are frequent, and several of the most affluent areas that recently burned \u2014 like the Pacific Palisades neighborhood and the neighboring city of Malibu \u2014 have long been deemed at high fire risk, having been built into canyons and foothills where wildfires are inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wildfires in the state are steadily worsening. The widespread devastation of the recent fires \u2014 including in parts of the city at lower risk of wildfires \u2014 illustrates how building structures in high-fire-risk zones can have downstream effects in other areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The highest-risk zones are often at the edges of suburban development, where homes lie adjacent to wild, undeveloped land. Called the \u201cwildland-urban interface,\u201d this is where fires are most likely to begin, often because California\u2019s fire-prone chaparral landscape is ignited by a human-made spark. And once a fire begins, it spreads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s really the edge that\u2019s going to start the center,\u201d explained Jack Eidt, a Los Angeles-based urban planner and environmentalist. He explained that this phenomenon could be seen in the recent Palisades Fire, which consumed 20,000 acres and burned down thousands of homes. The fire spread outward from the Palisades Highlands neighborhood<\/u><\/a>, one of the Palisades\u2019 more recent developments<\/u><\/a>, which borders undeveloped state park land, into lower-risk areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf some entity would have stopped development out in Palisades Highlands, this fire would never have spread to Palisades Village,\u201d Eidt said. \u201cSo they\u2019re putting all of us at risk when these types of developments are approved on the edge.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These were the kinds of developments targeted by Stern\u2019s bill. After the legislation was introduced, disclosures show, the real estate lobby descended on it: A litany of developers and real estate groups lobbied to kill the bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat bill faced strenuous opposition from the building industry,\u201d said Rose at the Center for Biological Diversity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The effort was led by the California Building Industry Association, the lobbying arm of California\u2019s developers and building contractors, an industry estimated to have generated more than $60 billion<\/u><\/a> in residential building revenues in the state in 2024. After languishing for nearly a year after it was first introduced, the bill died in committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Building Industry Association did not return a request for comment from The Lever<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stern also didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment. In 2021, however, he told the press that his bill may have been a long shot. But it wasn\u2019t the first time \u2014 or the last \u2014 that real estate interests would beat back wildfire safety policy in California.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis Is A Political Problem\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When developers and city planners propose high-fire-risk projects in California \u2014 drawing up plans to build thousands of luxury homes on land that has regularly suffered wildfires<\/u><\/a> \u2014 they often fall back on the same justification: California\u2019s ongoing housing crisis. The state has a shortage of hundreds of thousands of homes<\/u><\/a>, and costs for renters are far above the national average<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But for developers, Eidt said, there\u2019s \u201cno money in affordable housing\u201d and far more profits to be found in expanding suburban sprawl into undeveloped land. This incentive structure has driven development increasingly into risky fire zones, abetted by promises of trickle-down improvements to housing availability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td><\/tr>
They can’t scam who they can’t find.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Let Incogni get your personal information off the internet. Help protect yourself from identity theft, spam calls, and health insurers raising your rates. Get 55% off an Incogni annual plan by using code LEVER at checkout.<\/strong><\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Claim 55% Off Offer Now<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And when such developments ultimately catch fire, there\u2019s no way to hold the developers that pushed them through accountable, Rose said. Instead, he said, \u201cRight now, we are all paying when these disasters occur.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere\u2019s landscapes into which we move that we know are high-severity fire zones,\u201d said Char Miller, an environmental historian at Pomona College in Claremont, California. \u201cAnd we are given the green light to do so by city halls, county governments, planning boards, zoning commissions, architectural boards \u2014 they\u2019ve all signed off on this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo this is a political problem, a policy issue,\u201d Miller said. And it\u2019s a policy issue that has been shaped by decades of influence by the state\u2019s real estate interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In California, over the decades, developers and real estate interest groups have again and again intervened to push against wildfire safety standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAny type of baby step toward rethinking our relationship with building the wildland-urban interface is met with massive resistance from entrenched interests among developers and the business community,\u201d said Rose, who has advocated for many of the proposals at the Center for Biological Diversity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Building Industry Association, which spends millions on lobbying and political campaigns<\/u><\/a> in the state, has often been at the forefront of these efforts. It\u2019s led by developers who say they have \u201czero\u201d doubts<\/u><\/a> about building in the riskiest fire zones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group pushed against a proposal in 2021<\/u><\/a> that would have required towns or cities to create fire safety standards before moving forward with developments in very high-fire-risk zones. The California Building Industry Association\u2019s president, Dan Dunmoyer, called the proposal a \u201cno-growth strategy,\u201d saying its \u201cgoal is to make it harder to build housing outside of the urban corridor.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional developers that lobbied on the bill included two of California\u2019s master-planned community developers, as well as Brookfield, a global real estate investor and developer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same year, when California\u2019s Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara<\/u><\/a> proposed withholding state funding<\/u><\/a> for some developments when fire risks were too high, Dunmoyer was quick to speak out against it, calling it a \u201cnonstarter for us.<\/u><\/a>\u201d \u201cIf we plan properly, we can avoid fire loss,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dunmoyer, a former insurance executive<\/u><\/a>, makes $500,000 a year leading the lobbying organization, according to its most recent tax filing<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Building Industry Association has also advocated, sometimes successfully, for weaker wildfire safety standards. The industry pushed a bill<\/u><\/a> through the state Senate last year that would have abolished the state\u2019s current fire-risk classification system entirely, in favor of more limited \u201cmitigation\u201d zones. Though the effort has stalled, the weaker approach had the support of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last year, the lobbying group backed a bill<\/u><\/a> that environmentalists warned<\/u><\/a> would have allowed developers to redesignate very-high-risk fire zones as lower risk, evading building code requirements and opening up the door to even more development in risky wildfire corridors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Center for Biological Diversity called the proposal \u201cunwise and extremely dangerous\u201d and one that \u201cperpetuates the myth that California can safely continue to build deeper into fire zones despite the overwhelming health and financial harms recent wildfires have caused to people and communities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Los Angeles continues to smolder, this myth may be harder to sustain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Katya Schwenk January 13, 2025 (editor@levernews.com) Devastation from the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles. (AP Photo\/Mark J. Terrill) Share this article on Bluesky, X, and Facebook. [View in browser] Back in 2019, a California state climate task force issued a stark warning: Endless development in… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38737"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38737"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38737\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38740,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38737\/revisions\/38740"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}