This week, reality TV star Spencer Pratt posted multiple videos on social media. In one, Pratt told 2 million Tiktok followers he had consulted the Artificial Intelligence Engine about Senate Bill 549. He told him he would allow LA county to buy burnt-out lots in Pallisard, convert them into low-income housing, remove local zoning decisions and strip away the dense reconstruction. He urged people to oppose it.
“I don’t think this is political,” Pratt said. “This is a common sense post.”
None of the things Pratt said are in the bill. But last week, such a false-information-fueled battle overwhelmed conversations on Los Angeles, the State Capitol and social media about wildfire recovery. The Post has preyed on changing neighborhoods, mistrust among government authorities, mistrust of low-income housing, among other things, insisting that wildfires are deliberately demolished Pallisard and replaced the community with affordable housing.
The chatter has a clear discussion of key reconstruction proposals from LA County leaders. Under the plan, new local governments can purchase burnt lots, rebuild the home and offer it to the original owner at a discounted rate. The idea is to give to property owners who are struggling to restructure another option to stay in their community. There will be no changes to rules requiring zoning modifications or approval for individual residential developments.
Senator Benjamin Allen (D. Santa Monica), author of SB 549, creating local governments, said he understands legitimate policy disagreements over the new powers granted in the bill.
But those debates are overshadowed, he said.
“It became this complete meme among the right-wing blogospheres and unfortunately it was picked up by lazy journalists who don’t mind reading the bill that is trying to turn the entire Palisade into low-income housing,” Allen said.
Allen said some of his own friends who lost their homes in Palisades have texted them asking why he was trying to force low-income housing into his neighbourhood.
“People say I want to put a train there,” Allen said. “That’s insane.”
The frenzy is partly due to timing issues. Last month, a 20-person expert panel of experts that LA County has made inexplicable proposed local governments as an important recommendation for reconstruction after the January Pallisard and Eton fires destroyed 18,000 homes and other properties.
The committee leaders then approached Allen about writing a bill that would allow it to be implemented. Allen wanted to do that, but the deadline for introducing new laws had passed for a long time.
Instead, Allen adopted SB 549, which had nothing to do with wildfire reconstruction, but was still alive in Congress and added the language of the reconstruction authorities. This is a common legislative procedure used in proposing ideas later in the year.
Allen also decided to keep the original language in the bill. This called for large spending on low-income housing through unrelated funding programs. Multiple news articles have been added to the alarm, confusing two parts of the bill.
The version of the SB 549 with the Wildfire Rebuilding Authority held its first hearing at the Legislative Committee on Wednesday. Allen spent much of the hearing acknowledging the confusion around it.
Misinformation for reconstruction authorities was facilitated by California Governor Gavin Newsom, which he made this month.
State housing officials have dedicated $101 million to build new developments in Los Angeles, shattering $101 million from long-term funding allocations for low-income housing.
The funds will be prioritized for projects within and around burn zones and will be used to subsidize low-income apartments across the county.
The fire exacerbated the housing crisis in the area. Higher rents continue in nearby neighborhoods, and low-income residents continue to struggle. Newsom has cast an announcement that they will help them regain their footing.
“Thousands of families are still evacuated from Palisades in the Pacific to Altadena to Malibu, and we owes it to help them,” Newsmom said when it announced its spending.
Like the proposed reconstruction authority, the funds will not change zoning or other land use rules. Developers who receive the dollar must individually approve government approvals to begin construction.
Nevertheless, social media posters took new money and proposed new authority and saw the plot.
“Burn it on fire. Buy it. Rebuild the way they want,” said a July 15th post from X-user @HustleBitch_, with nearly 124,000 followers. “You still think this wasn’t planned?
Newsom called another example of “opportunist abuse” the situation[ing] This tragedy to blow away fear – and pit communities with each other. ”
“Let’s be clear. The state is not taking away anyone’s property, and has enacted some mass rezoning or destroying the quality and character of the destroyed neighborhood. “Everyone who claims otherwise is misinformed or intentionally lying. It’s not just wrong. It’s dishonorable.”
Not all discussions about the reconstruction authorities are based on false information.
Allen and local leaders acknowledged the need to make more consensus about their role, especially given their sensitivity to recovery. What has not yet been resolved was the governing structure of the authorities, whether it would be confined to Altadena or other non-incorporated regions.
Pratt lost his Palisade home in the fire, suing the city, claiming he was unable to maintain proper water supply and other infrastructure. In this week’s social media video, Pratt said he and other residents didn’t trust the county with an increased power to rebuild the county when he believed the leader could not protect the neighborhood in the first place.
“We’re not a policy sandbox, we’re a community struck by fire,” Pratt said. “We do not support the county becoming the dominant landowner of Pallisard.”
A representative for Pratt could not be reached for comment.
By the end of Wednesday, Allen had admitted his defeat at SB 549. He said there were many legitimate hurdles in the bill that would pass before Congress postponed in mid-September. In particular, representatives of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told the Legislative Committee that he opposed the bill because the city wasn’t sure it was effective yet.
But the misinformation surrounding the bill made it even more difficult to imagine its success, he said. Allen retained the bill and decided to reconsider it in January when Congress was reconvened.
“If I’m going to do this, I want time to get it right,” he said.
