Lets talk about how the LA area ravaged by fire should be redeveloped. I'm thinking that

[Raven]

I would bring back the tight knit low/moderate income communities and small businesses first. I would convert the Malibu beach strip into public open space. Just a few thoughts. What are yours?

[Oneear]

1. Los Angeles County California needs to Scale up Goat and Sheep Herders with lots of Goats and Sheep

So they will eat the Dry Grass and Dry Brush in the step Hills

[haele]

24. LA county can be the new wool and cheese center of the US

Of course, our drought and wet cycle makes it hard on the livestock.
There used to local deer that would eat the brush, but between growth and fencing limiting their habitat, their numbers have decreased to levels that they're no longer effective.

[Srkdqltr]

2. There are companies planning to monetize already.

Would not be surprised that there have been plans around for a long time.

[global1]

8. The Tr**p Malibu Resort & Hotel......nt

[2naSalit]

23. That will continually...

Be either burned down or fall from earthquakes costing taxpayers for each rebuild.

[MichMan]

3. Do the people who currently live there have any say?

[Raven]

12. Yes, normally through the zoning process.

[Sneederbunk]

37. No, but those who post here do.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

4. How about we wait to see what the actual owners of the land want to do

Being that they still own it.

[ItsjustMe]

5. 🤔

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. Under what legal theory would that land be yours to decide? nt

[Raven]

9. I believe the city could take the Malibu land and compensate the owners for it. The city, through its

zoning laws would guide the redevelopment process.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Nothing like

taking advantage of a tragedy to take people's property away from them.

And yes, I know you said they would be compensated, but no way would they be compensated for the actual value of the property.

[Raven]

14. I'm talking about the very wealthy properties along Malibu beach. That land should never have been

developed. It should have been open space.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. Yes, I know what you're talking about

Doesn't change my opinion at all.

[malaise]

16. Have you read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine

Have you seen what has happened after disasters in this current century. It’s Disaster Capitalism on steroids.

This will make Tulsa look mild.

[Raven]

19. This!

[Voltaire2]

30. happens all the time to poor people.

How about we start making the ruling class pay?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Example?

[Voltaire2]

40. Just about every city in this country.

Poor, and typically black, neighborhoods were routinely appropriated and destroyed to build highways and other ‘urban renewal’ projects.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. With what money, exactly? They can't even fund their own fire services. nt

[Raven]

17. You sound like we should just give up and walk away. You can be sure that the likes of Trump and Musk are

doing a lot of thinking about how to redevelop that land.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. No, we should let the people who own the land decide.

Because, you know, they OWN it?

Trump and Musk do not figure in the discussion.

[meadowlander]

25. It's not that simple when we're talking about land that is subject to intolerable risk to life from natural hazards.

In British common law, which was the basis for US law, there's a doctrine of tenure that provides that the state/the Crown has an underlying property interest in all land even after it has been sold as private property. That's the basis for eminent domain which enables the state to take land for the public interest as long as adequate compensation is provided.

While the doctrine of tenure doesn't apply in most US states, it's the underpinning for the assumptions behind the 5th amendment which enables deprivation of property with due process and compensation for a public purpose. The state is also enabled, via zoning laws, to change the permitted purposes that land can be used for as long as due process is followed.

The fact is you can't just leave it up to people to live wherever they want regardless of the risk because you get the exact situation you get now where once their home is destroyed or their family member is killed they blame the government for letting them live there and then demand compensation for the consequences of their poor or uninformed decision making.

As climate change renders more and more places unlivable, we need to get serious about the tools that enable managed retreat from high hazard area. And sorry but that's never going to happen if we give supremacy to individual private property rights.

[Voltaire2]

31. State of CA is running a surplus again.

California is a very wealthy state with a huge economy. They could easily fund eminent domain actions to return fire prone areas to public lands.

Also, yes LA had to cut their fire department by 2%. That however had basically nothing to do with why these fires got out of control. As you should well know, it was (and is) a combination of drought and high winds and just fucking stupid development in wildfire areas that, along with the primary driver of catastrophic climate change, resulted in impossible to contain wildfires.

Stop regurgitating rightwing talking points.

[JI7]

7. Is there a way to build which can prevent this type of damage

since we are likely to experience this type of weather again whatever is decided has to consider this will happen again.

[Voltaire2]

32. yes of course: build in places that are not prone to wildfires. nt.

[crud]

11. Maybe they could have fire breaks

between developments and wild lands, also fire breaks within neighborhoods with ponds/lakes so they don't run out of water. Metal or tile roofs would help too. Public beaches for sure.

[Lulu KC]

20. All ocean beaches are public in California

The property line is at the high water mark.

[crud]

21. thanks for clarifying this

and beach access probably doesn't really help w fires except maybe more stretches of public access without development would serve as fire breaks. That was my thinking.

[Voltaire2]

33. The rich shits routinely make it difficult to get access. nt.

[DBoon]

22. Make owners deed the property to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservacy as a condition of accepting Government aid

No one should be building in those hills. They have a log history of frequent destructive wildfires. Having to protect dwelling in such a high risk area imposes costs on everyone.

If you don't want to hand your propeerty over to a public lands trust, fine - then rebuild with your own money.

[Raven]

28. Agree.

[Bobstandard]

29. What about the Altadena neighborhood?

The Altadena neighborhood was not built “in those hills”. It’s built on a wide, mostly gentle slope. There’s a good chance that a neighborhood near you is situated in very similar terrain. If that neighborhood is fairly old with mature trees and other landscaping, then you’ve got the makings for a very similar fire fed disaster.

Seven years ago a fire broke out in a suburban neighborhood in Santa Rosa. Flat land, not surrounded by wildlands.

Thousands of closely built homes were destroyed in a neighborhood like hundreds or thousands across the country. The culprit was years of drought, sudden high winds, dense mature landscaping, and an electrical fire in a home miles and miles away. Essentially it was a climate change deal.

Most folks don’t realize that they live with the very same jeopardy. So if you think we shouldn’t be building in areas like Altadena, then you’re also saying we shouldn’t be building just about anywhere.

That, however is not the real takeaway. Climate change is real and accelerating. There is no ‘new normal’, things will just get worse and worse, faster and faster. Nowhere is immune.

The interesting question is, can the LA neighborhoods be rebuilt in more resilient ways? The answer is probably yes -but it’s unlikely to happen. Trump will see to that

[Baitball Blogger]

26. Fireproof roofs made out of materials that won't kill you over time.

[Red Mountain]

27. This is exactly the kind of talk

the right wingers pretended was happening in the mountains after Helene.

It wasn't real but it got a lot of people riled up.



That said, if somebody who is burned out decides they have to sell it might be a good thing to make sure the land passes from private to public ownership.

It would be expensive but an opportunity to rethink some of these communities.

If that's what they want to do. It has to be a local decision.

[MineralMan]

34. I think I don't own any property in that area.

So, it's not my business in any way.

However, other people do own property there. Lots of other people. Maybe ask them what they want to do with their property. I don't think we're competent to answer for them. Do you?

[JustAnotherGen]

35. That's up

To the Council and Planning/Zoning board. If the ordinances have housing - that's what it needs to be. Presuming the homeowners property taxes were current - they have the right to rebuild on their land.

[KT2000]

36. Those who can should take

the money they get from insurance and use it to start a new life in another country. That is what I would do.

[DeepWinter]

39. LA County and especially the Pacific Pallisades

is some of THE most expensive real estate in the Nation. The ENTIRE nation. There is 0.000000% chance it will be bought up for low income or medium income housing. There is 0.00000% chance it will be set aside for nature. Many are multi-millionaires who have already stated they are going to rebuild, rebuild bigger.

These multi-millionaires will buy more expensive and better lawyers than the city to fight city land grabs. They will Lawfare the city for as long as it takes. They're already well connected to city officials with their ears as to what they want to do.

I'm super interested in how this will play out. But it won't be for the little guy. There are Billions of dollars of real estate on the line. Money will take care of money. Count on it.