“The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he did not exist…”

The wildfire reform package we have been waiting for from Governor Newsom and legislative leadership finally dropped Saturday morning as amendments to SB 492.

I spent the morning reading through the actual bill language. There is a LOT here. This is a massive, complicated package touching utility liability, the Wildfire Fund, ratepayer financing, insurance subrogation, future survivor claims, utility executive compensation, wildfire mitigation and more.

I’m still digging — particularly into several provisions that could have implications for the Eaton Fire and Southern California Edison — and I expect attorneys, ratepayer advocates, insurance experts and utility lawyers will be analyzing this bill and finding things buried in this bill for days, so consider this a first read.

There is some genuinely good news for future survivors. There are also some very big questions. And perhaps the biggest thing that jumped out at me is what isn’t here.

But first, the quick takeaways.

1. THE $150,000 CAP ON SURVIVORS’ PAIN AND SUFFERING APPEARS TO BE GONE

This is probably the biggest immediate win for future survivors. I say future, because per insiders, the current liability of the Eaton Fire was never on the table. The provisions fire survivors have been fighting hardest over the last several weeks do not appear in the final negotiated package.

That proposal was particularly outrageous for Eaton survivors because potentially limiting compensation for people who have already lost homes, neighborhoods, businesses, pets, family members and, in some cases, nearly their own lives, and who have faced living in absolute hell every day since, is, outrageous. We fought it. Hard. And it looks like that organizing made a difference. For now, at least.

2. THE PROPOSAL TO GUT INSURANCE SUBROGATION APPEARS TO BE GONE

The earlier proposal would have dramatically restricted insurers’ ability to recover from utilities after paying wildfire claims. If utilities cause catastrophic fires but insurers are prevented from recovering those losses from them, the liability doesn’t magically disappear. More of it potentially gets absorbed by the insurance system and ultimately by homeowners through premiums and availability. That proposal did not make it into this version either. There are some changes to how insurer subrogation claims and attorneys’ fees are handled, and insurers can no longer sell their liabilities to hedge funds and third parties, but insurers do retain their underlying ability to pursue utilities.

Another significant change from what was being discussed only days ago.

3. THERE IS A NEW “FAST-PAY” PROGRAM FOR FUTURE FIRE SURVIVORS

SB 492 creates a new California Wildfire Relief Fast-Pay Program intended to get survivors of future utility caused wildfires compensated without forcing everyone to wait years for litigation. There are deadlines for settlement offers, the possibility of advance payments, and survivors can reject an offer and continue litigating. Wrongful death and bodily injury claims are treated separately. There will undoubtedly be much more to examine about how Fast-Pay works in practice and whether the settlement formulas ultimately treat survivors fairly. But the most important point for Eaton survivors is that this system is prospective. Eaton survivors are not being forced into it. Our existing cases remain our existing cases.

4. THERE ARE SOME NEW CONSEQUENCES FOR UTILITY EXECUTIVES (BUT, NOT REALLY)

For catastrophic utility caused fires destroying 500 or more structures, senior utility executives can lose short-term incentive compensation for the year of the fire and the following year. There are also provisions placing portions of executive incentive compensation at risk. Executives aren’t forfeiting their salaries or all of their other compensation.

Considering the scale of destruction utility caused wildfires can create, not to mention the countless deaths caused — and the extraordinary compensation packages at some of these companies — it’s hard to imagine this constitutes meaningful deterrence. Still, it is a little more accountability than exists today.

5. THE BILL PUTS A LOT MORE FINANCIAL MUSCLE BEHIND THE WILDFIRE FUND

This is where things get considerably more complicated. SB 492 creates and expands substantial financial machinery intended to keep California’s Wildfire Fund functioning.

There are bonds, borrowing, securitization, dedicated accounts and financing mechanisms. And yes. Ratepayer money can ultimately be part of that structure.

The legislation says utility contributions should be used before ratepayer contributions to the extent practicable, but it expressly contemplates debt backed by ratepayer contributions. So while survivors appear to have successfully stopped some of the worst proposed concessions, the larger policy question remains.

How much of the financial risk created by private investor owned utilities is California ultimately transferring to ratepayers? In other words, exactly how much more corporate welfare are we talking about here?

One thing becomes very clear reading this bill. California is extremely concerned about ensuring that catastrophic wildfire liability does not threaten the profits of its investor owned utilities.

6. THERE IS AN INTERESTING DATE PROVISION

There is language creating a special financing pathway for catastrophic wildfires that ignited between January 1, 2025 and the effective date of this legislation. The Eaton fire ignited January 7, 2025. If wildfire claims have been settled or finally adjudicated and Wildfire Fund assets are exhausted, the utility may potentially seek financing for remaining costs through nonbypassable charges paid by electricity customers.

In plain English, there appears to be a mechanism here that could potentially allow some utility wildfire liability to ultimately be financed through all of us ratepayers. Again. We need to dig much deeper into this before drawing conclusions about exactly how it would apply to SCE or what CPUC review would ultimately be required

My extremely obvious question for Sacramento.

Why January 1, 2025?

Dates don’t accidentally appear in legislation. Which catastrophic wildfire liabilities were lawmakers intending to capture with that window? Given that Eaton began six days later, I think we have a very clear answer.

7. THERE IS ALSO AN ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARD

Elsewhere in the bill is language limiting some protections available to utilities when their conduct crosses a particular threshold. The normal statutory limitation on how much a utility may have to reimburse the Wildfire Fund does not apply when its conduct constituted “conscious or willful disregard of the rights and safety of others.” Exactly how that standard could apply to any particular wildfire is ultimately a legal question. But given what we now know from the CAL FIRE investigation about the Eaton Fire ignition and everything still being developed through litigation that is likely not a concern for us but language that deserves some attention.

8. SB 1090 WAS NOT ROLLED INTO THIS PACKAGE (AND THAT IS GOOD NEWS)

The Governor’s Office has been signaling that other wildfire legislation could be rolled into this reform bill and SB 1090 did not make it to the Senate floor following the Assembly vote yesterday which has been concerning. I specifically went looking for it and it’s not here. There is nothing in SB 492 that replaces the recovery protections we have been fighting for through Senator Sasha Renée Pérez’s SB 1090, Keep Altadena Lands in Altadena Hands, bill.

That means yesterday’s unanimous 60–0 Assembly passage still matters and we are still in the game. SB 1090 remains alive as its own bill and can return to the Senate for concurrence before heading to the Governor. That is good news. But we are not done. KEEP WORKING THOSE SENATE CALL LISTS. We need SB 1090 across the finish line before this legislative session ends.

9. AB 1642 WAS NOT ROLLED INTO THE PACKAGE EITHER

I also specifically searched for the wildfire contamination protections we have been fighting for through Assemblymember John Harabedian’s AB 1642 with Jane Lawton and EFRU (Eaton Fire Residents United). They aren’t here. AB 1642 remains independently necessary and independently alive. So both of our critical Altadena bills still have a path to the Governor’s desk before the Legislature adjourns. Let’s make sure they get there.

SO, DID SURVIVORS WIN?

I know there will be press releases and victory laps declaring that survivors won this fight, and important work was absolutely done here, but I think we need to be much more realistic.

We successfully stopped some very bad things from happening. That is a victory. It is not the same thing as winning wildfire reform.

Let’s be clear about what happened here. We fought to keep what was already ours. We did not win the reform needed to save families and communities after disaster strikes. Who did win? The insurance companies and the trial lawyers who lobbied hard with their dollars not to lose their dollars. So no, I’m not ready for a victory lap.

Stopping Sacramento from taking something away from survivors is not the same thing as Sacramento putting survivors first.

If this is truly “Survivors First” wildfire reform, show me what survivors got that we didn’t already have. More importantly. Show me what our communities got.

Preserving our existing legal rights was the floor. It should never have been the finish line.

WHAT’S NOT IN THIS BILL?

There is no Marshall Plan. No Disaster Investment Fund. Nothing that functions like one. And virtually no new tools for community recovery. I went looking specifically for elements of the Disaster Investment Fund (DIF) that Stephen Sachs and I have been discussing, not by name, but for anything resembling the underlying concept and tools.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

No revolving disaster recovery investment fund. No community rebuilding capital mechanism. No structure designed to leverage public and private investment to rebuild disaster stricken communities. No means to bridge federal funds when they’re stalled or don’t come at all. No Marshall Plan for rebuilding and recovery.

Nothing.

And the more I read this bill, the more extraordinary that omission becomes. SB 492 demonstrates that California knows exactly how to build sophisticated financial machinery when policymakers decide something is important enough to protect.

There are bonds. Securitization. Dedicated accounts. Continuous appropriations. Ratepayer-backed revenue streams. Financing orders. Mechanisms for borrowing against future revenues. An enormous amount of financial creativity has gone into making sure capital is available when investor owned utilities face catastrophic wildfire liabilities so that they don’t take a hit.

So I keep coming back to a very simple question.

Share

COMMUNITIES NEED LIQUIDITY, TOO

This isn’t theoretical for those of us living through the Eaton Fire recovery. We know exactly what happens in the financial vacuum after a catastrophe. Families wait for insurance money. Businesses lose their customer bases and disappear. Property owners make enormous financial decisions under pressure because they cannot afford to wait indefinitely. Local infrastructure isn’t rebuilt. Community institutions struggle to survive. Federal disaster funding can take years to arrive, if it arrives at all.

Every month that capital doesn’t arrive changes who gets to rebuild and who doesn’t. It changes which businesses survive. It changes which homeowners sell. It changes who comes back. Ultimately, it changes whether the community that emerges after the disaster still belongs to the people who lived there before it.

This is precisely the problem the Disaster Investment Fund is intended to address.

Create a revolving source of recovery capital capable of moving when communities actually need it. Leverage public and private investment. Bridge delayed federal disaster funding. Invest in infrastructure and economic recovery.

And rather than treating disaster recovery money as something California spends once and loses, build a structure in which capital can ultimately revolve into the next California community struck by catastrophe. Because there will be a next one.

THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL IMBALANCE IN CALIFORNIA’S “WILDFIRE REFORM”

California is trying to solve several legitimate problems in SB 492. How do we make sure wildfire victims can actually collect judgments? How do we prevent catastrophic wildfire liability from bankrupting an investor owned utility? How do we stabilize the Wildfire Fund? How do we compensate future survivors faster? Those are reasonable questions. But there is another question that seems almost entirely absent.

How does the community itself survive?

Where is the plan to keep families in their communities? Where is the capital to keep local businesses alive? Where is the bridge when Washington takes years to deliver disaster funding? Where is the mechanism allowing devastated communities to rebuild infrastructure now rather than waiting for reimbursement later?

Where is Gavin Newsom’s Marshall Plan for communities that will burn again?

If California can devise sophisticated mechanisms to ensure investor owned utilities remain financially viable after catastrophic wildfires, surely we can bring the same financial creativity and urgency to making sure disaster stricken communities remain viable. That, to me, would actually be wildfire reform.

THE BOTTOM LINE

There is a LOT more in this bill and this is still my first read. Other community organizers have already flagged other concerns baked into this. But right now, let’s focus on a bit of good news.

The worst proposed provisions targeting survivors appear to be gone. SB 1090 is still alive. AB 1642 is still alive. Let’s keep fighting so neither is sacrificed before this legislative session closes out.

We have kept up the fight. We made some headway. But I am not ready to declare we won or that anyone put “Survivors First” and take a victory lap. We successfully defended rights survivors already had. We should celebrate that without pretending it is anything more than it is.

There are some very big questions buried in this legislation that appear to create substantial new financial protections and certainty for utilities while giving survivors and their communities very little that addresses the fundamental problem we have been talking about since January.

How do we actually finance recovery?

Fast payment of claims is helpful. Wildfire mitigation is necessary. Making sure there is money available to compensate victims matters. But none of those things is a recovery strategy. Survivors shouldn’t have to accept the premise that the best wildfire reform California can imagine is one in which we fight successfully to keep the too few rights we already had.

There is much more here to understand, and I’m going to keep digging into SB 492, but for now let’s get SB 1090 and AB 1642 across the finish line. And then let’s demand something bigger. There will be plenty of time for victory laps when California creates a wildfire recovery system that actually puts survivors and communities first. But, we’re not there yet.

The findings are expected. The timing is…curious.

After months of relative silence, the 55 page CAL FIRE report arrives conspicuously right after Governor Newsom’s office came under intense scrutiny for its attempts to make last minute amendments to SB 254 behind closed doors and its attempt to retroactively limit the non economic damages available to wildfire survivors—including the tens of thousands of people impacted by the Eaton Fire.

At the Dear Newsom press conference just days ago, I asked a simple question.

Why now?

Why, after more than eighteen months, was there suddenly urgency to try to retroactively change a state senate bill that had already been voted on and passed in a shroud of secrecy? Today, we have another piece of that puzzle.

I’ve only begun reading the report (because of course, after more than eighteen months, it would be released on the final day of my vacation) but no doubt, I’ll have much more to say once I’ve had the opportunity to read every page. What I’ve seen so far is worth talking about.

After their “rigorous” investigation, CAL FIRE concluded:

“After 18 months of thorough review of all evidence, alongside retained electrical and metallurgical experts, the investigation concluded that the cause of the wildfire conflagration was due to the electrical arcing events that took place on the out-of-service Southern California Edison (SCE) tower.”

For Altadena, this is hardly a revelation. It’s confirmation. Confirmation of what thousands of us have known since January 8, 2025.  Even Southern California Edison was no longer disputing that its equipment was associated with the fire’s ignition.

Responding to the report, SCE acknowledged that it had previously recognized “it was likely our equipment was associated with the ignition of the Eaton Fire.”

Edison’s reps also stated:

“We have taken our potential role in the start of this fire seriously from the very beginning.” And that it “continues to support the community as it recovers.”

I’ll leave it to each of you to decide how those words land after more than eighteen months. (Insert a heavy eye roll here).

But for a report we’ve waited a year and a half to receive, what stands out almost as much as what it says…is what it doesn’t.

Where is the word negligence?

At first, that omission concerned me. Then I found myself wondering whether the report even needed to use the word. If Southern California Edison’s equipment ignited the fire, and they agree their equipment was the likely culprit, the obvious question becomes – How?

This report arrives after eighteen months of questions about why power remained energized during an active Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) event, whether vegetation management met SCE’s own required standards, whether equipment maintenance met the required standards, and whether Southern California Edison exercised the level of care required under some of the most dangerous fire weather conditions imaginable, that notably were not unprecedented, and had been in the forecast for days.  

Those are the questions survivors have been asking since January 2025. They’re also the questions that will continue to be examined through the legal process.

Then there are the redactions.

The report is riddled with black blocks. Why is information (beyond, of course, the identifying information of specific individuals) so heavily redacted, including all of the Penal Code, Public Resources Code, Health & Safety Code, Public Utility Code and General Order violations?

Don’t get me started on the errors.

Page 4 of the report states the number of victims of the Eaton Fire was 18. The official death count is actually 19, but who’s counting. And that’s just four pages in.

Survivors deserve better. Californians deserve better. Americans deserve better.

After all this time, we get another report full of omissions and errors? How much confidence should survivors have in these institutions that are supposed to work for and protect us? How much confidence should Californians have? How much confidence should the American public have?

After eighteen months of investigation, code violations, electrical experts, metallurgical experts, interviews, evidence collection, and undoubtedly significant public resources and tax dollars, survivors deserved a report that inspired confidence, not whatever this is.

Public trust depends on transparency. It depends on accuracy. It depends on the confidence that investigations are complete, independent, and free from outside influence. When a report of this magnitude still contains factual inaccuracies, unanswered questions, omissions and redactions, that confidence is inevitably shaken.

If anything, this report reinforces exactly why Altadena for Accountability fought so hard for an independent investigation by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

If the official accounting still leaves this many unanswered questions, survivors have every reason to insist on an investigation that is completely transparent and independent of the agencies whose actions are also under scrutiny.

We’ve learned over the past eighteen months that accountability is rarely volunteered. It has to be demanded.

Which brings us back to where we started. The timing.

We don’t know why this report was released this week. We don’t know if that timing has anything to do with what’s happening with SB 254, the ongoing litigation, or Southern California Edison’s continued efforts to encourage survivors to resolve claims through its voluntary settlement program.

What we do know is that all of these events are unfolding at the same time and that’s an observation that deserves scrutiny.

At the very moment CAL FIRE officially concludes that Southern California Edison’s equipment ignited the Eaton Fire, but stops short of stating negligence whilesurvivors are also being encouraged to resolve their claims through Southern California Edison’s voluntary settlement program.

At the same time, Sacramento is considering SB 254, legislation that would retroactively reduce the value of many wildfire claims by limiting non economic damages.

Those are facts.

It’s also true that many survivors have declined Southern California Edison’s voluntary offers because they believe those offers fall dramatically short of the true value of what they have lost.

I can’t tell you why all of those things are happening simultaneously but they are clearly worth examining together.

The difference between accepting an early settlement and fully understanding your legal rights can be life changing for families who have already lost everything.

Non economic damages are not a windfall.

They represent the losses no insurance policy can replace.

The trauma. The grief. The destruction of community. The loss of safety and security. The loss of mental and physical health. The loss of jobs, careers and businesses. The sleepless nights. The milestones that will never again be celebrated in the homes where they belonged. The marriages strained. The families and children children that remain displaced. The history and culture that was erased in a matter of hours.

No legislation should retroactively reduce the value of those losses. No survivor should feel pressured to accept less than the law provides before fully understanding their rights. No one gets to rewrite the rules after the fact. Every survivor deserves full and fair compensation under California law. That money belongs to the people who lost everything. Not the for profit utility enjoying record profit and record executive compensation whose equipment CAL FIRE concluded ignited this fire.

Read the Report

Here it is.

Read it for yourself. Ask your own questions. Don’t stop asking them.

Take Action

If you haven’t already, please take two minutes to sign the letter at DearNewsom.org.

Governor Newsom still has the opportunity to reject any attempt to retroactively reduce the legal rights of wildfire survivors.

Tell him to stand with the people who lost everything not the powerful interests seeking to limit accountability and their financial responsibility. Every survivor deserves every dollar the law allows. No exceptions.

⸻

These are simply my first impressions after an initial review of the report. There will likely be more to discuss about everything else this document raises.

This report answers one critically important question and it raises many more. But one thing is already abundantly clear. We are not going to get accountability unless we demand it. We are not going to get transparency unless we insist on it. And we are not going to receive the compensation fire survivors deserve unless we fight for it.

That fight isn’t over.

In many ways, it’s just beginning again.

I’ve been sitting with a conversation that sparked off in our private group this weekend because I think it expose…

Read more

For the past 18 months, we’ve fought to recover our homes, our community, and our future.

If the first year of recovery was about surviving, the second year is about protecting everything we’ve fought for.

In many ways, it feels like like we are under siege. New legislation. Critical funding decisions. Insurance battles. Utility accountability. Recovery dollars. Development pressure. Every week seems to bring another challenge demanding our attention.

This is the reality of long term disaster recovery.

The good news is that we’ve learned something over the past 18 months. When our community shows up, we make a difference. This week is another one of those moments.

Year two is when recovery shifts from emergency response to decisions that determine who returns, who rebuilds, and what kind of community emerges on the other side.

Here’s what’s happening this week…

Wednesday Evening: SB 1090 Community Update

Wednesday, July 22
7:00–9:00 PM
Eaton Fire Collaboratory
540 W. Woodbury Road, Altadena

Tomorrow evening, the Altadena Town Council is hosting another community update and panel on SB 1090.

Whether you’ve been following this legislation closely or are still trying to understand what it means for Altadena’s future, this is an excellent opportunity to hear the latest updates, ask questions, and better understand where the bill stands as it continues moving through Sacramento.

SB 1090 has made tremendous progress because thousands of survivors stayed engaged, showed up, made calls, wrote letters, traveled to Sacramento, testified, and refused to give up.

Now we need to finish the job and get this legislation across the finish line.

* Note: This is an in person event.

Make One Phone Call: Help Keep Federal Tax Hands off of Disaster Settlement Dollars

While we’re fighting here in California, another important battle is taking place in Washington.

Senator Ted Cruz continues to hold up H.R. 5366, the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act, that would extend tax relief on settlements for disaster stricken communities like ours recovering from catastrophic fires.

This one is a clear non-partisan issue supported on both sides of the aisle. If you have just a few minutes today, check out the flyer here from Jen at After the Fire USA and please make the call.

One phone call may seem small, but thousands of calls together move mountains.

Friday Morning: Join Us at the Dear Newsom Press Conference

Friday, July 24
Eaton Fire Collaboratory

☕ 8:30 AM — Coffee and connect with fellow survivors

🎤 9:00 AM — Survivor led press conference

✍️ 9:30–11:30 AM — Postcard writing party to Governor Newsom

On Friday morning, Beautiful Altadena will proudly stand alongside Senator Sasha Renée Perez, the Every Fire Survivor’s Network (EFSN), Consumer Watchdog, Pasadena NAACP, Eaton Fire Survivors United (EFRU), Altagether, My TRIBE Rise, Essie Justice, and many other local, statewide and national partners as we urge Governor Newsom to protect wildfire survivors—not the perpetrators responsible for California’s catastrophic fires. I’m especially proud to be working alongside Joy Chen and the coalition she has brought together on this effort, because this is another battle that needs the whole village.

Next week, Governor Newsom is expected to consider proposals that could dramatically affect survivors’ ability to recover compensation from Southern California Edison, including placing caps on our non-economic damages in settlements that would be retroactive and apply to Eaton Fire survivors.

Before those decisions are made, we want him to hear loud and clear from the people living this recovery every single day.

We’ll gather over coffee, hear from survivor leaders during the press conference, and then stay to write personal letters and postcards to the Governor. Why? Because they work!

And yes…

Bring your signs. Our “Great Hair Don’t Care” protest signs weren’t made just for photos. They were made to remind our elected leaders that survivors are still here, we’re watching, and we’re going nowhere. Sadly, our numbers are also just going to keep growing.

Can’t make it in person? Visit dearnewsom.org for more info and actions you can take, wherever you are!

Every Action Matters

It’s easy to look at these as three unrelated events. They’re not. They’re three parts of the same fight.

• Protect federal legislation.

• Protect survivors’ legal rights.

• Protect our ability to rebuild.

Ultimately, this is about protecting the financial future of thousands of Altadena families. The compensation survivors deserve. The resources that allow families to come home instead of being forced to leave Altadena forever.

Every delay costs survivors. Every victory helps keep recovery where it belongs—with the people rebuilding this community.

I hope to see many of you Wednesday evening.

And again Friday morning.

Let’s keep showing Sacramento and Washington that Altadena doesn’t give up and set an example for other disaster survivors fighting the same battles.

New Here? Let Me Reintroduce Myself.

If you’re one of the hundreds of people who have recently subscribed to Beautiful Altadena, welcome!

I’m Shawna Dawson Beer—a 16-year Altadena resident, former hospitality executive, entrepreneur, brand builder, community organizer, and, like too many of you, a total loss survivor of the Eaton Fire.

I created Beautiful Altadena in 2015 because I loved this community and wanted to help neighbors connect. After the pandemic, and then the fire, it became something much bigger.

Today, Beautiful Altadena has grown into a trusted community platform reaching tens of thousands of people through this Substack, our social media channels, a private Facebook community for survivors and current residents, our After the Ashes podcast, community office hours, public education efforts, and advocacy campaigns.

Our mission is simple. Connection. Community. Advocacy.

We believe an informed community is an empowered community, and that recovery works best when survivors have a meaningful voice in the conversation and seat at the table.

Whether we’re breaking down legislation, explaining complicated policy, organizing community meetings, amplifying survivor voices, or simply helping neighbors stay informed, our goal has always been the same.

To help Altadena recover and to make sure the people who built this community help shape its future.

I’m grateful you’re here. Welcome to Beautiful Altadena.

P.S. We’re also putting the finishing touches on Beautiful Altadena Alerts—a new text and email notification system designed to deliver urgent community updates, advocacy actions, important deadlines, and recovery news when timing matters most.

More on that very soon.

Connection. Community. Advocacy.

Helping Altadena recover. One informed neighbor, one advocacy effort, and one step forward at a time.

Author's Note: This is a longer essay than I typically publish, but the future of SB 1090—and, more importantly, the future of Altadena's recovery—deserves more than a few paragraphs. Thank you for taking the time to read it.

There are moments in public advocacy when your job is to speak.

And there are moments when your job is to listen.

Over the past several weeks, I’ve spent far more time doing the latter.

I’ve sat in community meetings that stretched for hours. I’ve met privately with legislators and their staff. I’ve talked with community organizations, nonprofit housing advocates, neighborhood leaders, policy experts and lawyers, fellow fire survivors, affordable housing organizations, and people who strongly oppose the position I’m about to lay out.

I’ve also had thoughtful conversations with organizations like Cal YIMBY and our local chapter of YIMBY Action, as well as residents advocating for everything from bungalow courts to stronger tenant protections including 150% AMI for affordable housing–something that is key for getting our displaced Altadena renters, who represent 38% of our displaced neighbors, home.

Some of those conversations reinforced what I already believed.

Others challenged me to rethink my assumptions.

When Beautiful Altadena first began discussing SB 1090, I approached it from the perspective many of us shared. How do we protect our community from speculative development while we rebuild after one of the worst disasters in California history?

Today, after weeks of listening, I’ve come to believe the question is slightly different.

How do we protect our recovery while giving this legislation the strongest possible chance of becoming law?

Those are not always the same questions. And the answer isn’t always the bill we would write if each of us were sitting alone at a drafting table. Legislation doesn’t happen that way. It is shaped by competing interests, legal realities, political constraints, unintended consequences, and countless conversations that most people will never be aware of or give any thought to.

That doesn’t mean we abandon our principles. It means we constantly ask ourselves whether the strategy we’re pursuing still gives us the best chance of achieving them.

That’s exactly what I’ve been doing. My values haven’t changed. I still believe the people who experienced this disaster—not outside investors, interests, organizations or voices—should shape Altadena’s recovery.

I still believe survivor rights must come first. As I have laid out here in previous posts, I still believe thoughtful planning matters. I still believe our local government has failed this community by not creating the framework we should have had long before the Eaton Fire. And I still believe that without meaningful local planning, we risk making permanent decisions in the middle of a crisis.

None of that has changed. What has changed is my understanding of the best path forward. This essay is my attempt to explain why. Not because I expect everyone to agree with me. But because I believe this community deserves transparency, especially after the countless hours so many of us have invested trying to find a path that protects Altadena while also recognizing the political realities of Sacramento.

Before There Was SB 1090

To understand how we’ve arrived at this moment, it’s important to remember that this conversation didn’t start after the Eaton Fire. In many ways, it began years earlier.

Long before January 7, 2025 I was raising concerns about the cumulative impact of California’s expanding housing laws on Altadena including SB9 that was implemented in Altadena on January 1, 2022. Not because I opposed housing. And certainly not because I believed Altadena should stop evolving. Altadena has always embraced housing diversity. Long before planners coined phrases like “missing middle housing,” Altadena had already built it.

Historic bungalow courts. Duplexes. Triplexes. Apartments. Accessory dwelling units. Multigenerational family properties. Neighborhoods that grew organically over generations. Housing diversity isn’t something we’re trying to invent. It’s something that’s always been woven into the fabric of this community.

What concerned me wasn’t housing. It was the absence of planning.

Over the years, California adopted statewide housing legislation intended primarily to encourage urban infill. Most of our neighboring cities and towns responded by updating their local plans and development standards to receive an exemption from SB9 and chart their own path. Altadena did not.

And year after year, the County failed to create the kind of thoughtful, community specific planning framework that could have balanced new housing opportunities with aging infrastructure, emergency access, neighborhood compatibility, historic preservation, transportation, parking, and public safety. The warning signs were there. Then January 7 changed everything.

The Fire Changed More Than Our Neighborhood

The Eaton Fire didn’t just destroy more than 9,000 homes, businesses and structures overnight. It transformed every policy conversation we were already having.

Questions that had once been theoretical became immediate. How do we rebuild? Who gets to rebuild? How do we protect fire survivors from speculation while also making sure survivors themselves have every possible opportunity to return home? How do we preserve affordability without unintentionally making rebuilding even harder? How do we make sure Altadena remains a community rather than becoming a collection of opportunities for disaster capitalists?

Suddenly, thousands of ordinary residents found themselves trying to understand land use law, insurance regulation, utility policy, environmental remediation, disaster recovery, legislative procedure and constitutional questions they never imagined they’d have to learn.

None of us wanted to become experts in any of those subjects. We became students because our homes, our community and our futures depended on it.

The Community Speaks

The first major turning point came when an overflowing crowd packed an Altadena Town Council meeting on June 16 to express outrage about what rebuilding looks like if statewide housing laws were applied like urban planning doctrine to a disaster recovery zone and Senator Sasha Renée Pérez presented SB1090, the Keep Altadena Land in Altadena Hands Act.

People came with different priorities. Some were worried about speculative development. Others focused on infrastructure. Others talked about parking, emergency access, traffic, or neighborhood character. Some wanted stronger protections. Others wanted greater flexibility for rebuilding. Some are concerned the community will never be even remotely the same. Others clearly do not want ADUs at all. There was no single point of view. But there was one unmistakable message.

Altadena wants a voice in shaping its own recovery.

That meeting sparked a much larger conversation. Recognizing both the urgency and the complexity of the issue, the Altadena Town Council convened an emergency community meeting on June 24 focused specifically on the legislation and what it could mean for our future.

From there, something remarkable happened. Organizations that hadn’t always worked together came to the same table. Fire survivors. Affordable housing advocates. Neighborhood organizations. Policy experts. Community nonprofits. Elected officials.

Residents who often disagree agreed on one fundamental belief:

Altadena deserves a recovery shaped by the people who live here.

Those conversations eventually drove the amending of SB 1090 to protect our local community land trusts, our displaced renters and our fire survivor home and property owners who stood side by side at the community press conference on the morning of June 29.

This also reminded me of something I’ve witnessed over and over again since the fire. When our community comes together around a shared purpose, we are capable of influencing decisions that many people assume are already out of our hands.

That lesson would prove important in Sacramento.

From Community Advocacy to State Legislation

As the conversation around SB 1090 gained momentum, many of us found ourselves headed to Sacramento.

There is something profoundly humbling about sitting in on lobbying calls with our state representatives and walking the halls of the Capitol carrying the stories of your neighbors, knowing that many of the people making decisions about your community will never set foot in it.

Every meeting became an opportunity to explain why Altadena’s recovery could not simply be treated as another housing debate. This wasn’t a conversation about whether California needs more housing. It wasn’t a conversation about whether housing affordability matters. It wasn’t even a conversation about whether density belongs in Altadena. The answer to all three of those questions is yes. It wasn’t a partisan issue. And it wasn’t a matter of YIMBY vs NIMBY either.

The conversation was about something far more specific. How do you apply statewide housing laws—written for normal conditions—to a community recovering from one of the most devastating disasters in California history?

That distinction matters. And thanks to the extraordinary work of many people, Sacramento listened. Community organizations mobilized. Residents flooded legislative offices with calls and emails. Letters poured in. People submitted public comments. They shared deeply personal stories about losing their homes, their neighborhoods, and the lives they had spent decades building. Those voices made a difference.

On July 1, SB 1090 advanced unanimously through both the Assembly Housing Committee and the Assembly Local Government Committee. Those votes were more than procedural victories. They were proof that grassroots advocacy still matters. They demonstrated that ordinary residents when they organize, collaborate, and persist can deeply influence the legislative process.

That should give every one of us hope. But that legislative success also brings a new responsibility. Eventually every bill reaches a point where advocacy gives way to negotiation. Where broad principles collide with legal realities. Where difficult choices have to be made. That’s where we are today.

Listening to Everyone—Especially Those Who Disagree

One of the most valuable parts of this process has been the opportunity to hear perspectives I might never have encountered otherwise.

I’ve spent time talking with residents who fear speculative development. I’ve spoken with people who believe the legislation does not go far enough. (Arguably, it does not). I’ve met with nonprofit housing advocates trying to preserve affordability. I’ve talked with tenant advocates focused on protecting renters. I’ve listened to people whose primary concern is creating more opportunities for bungalow courts and other forms of “missing middle” housing that currently have no pathway forward other than the problematic application of SB1123. I’ve met with statewide organizations like Cal YIMBY and our local YIMBY Action chapter who strongly oppose this legislation.

I’ve had candid conversations with legislators, legislative staff, policy experts, and community leaders representing very different philosophies. Some of those conversations confirmed what I already believed. Others forced me to rethink parts of my own strategy. That’s exactly what listening is supposed to do. Too often we treat changing our minds as weakness. I see it differently. If new information, thoughtful arguments, and honest conversations don’t occasionally change our thinking, then we aren’t really listening. We’re simply waiting for our turn to speak.

Throughout this process, I’ve tried very hard not to do that. I’ve asked difficult questions. I’ve challenged assumptions including my own. I’ve tried to understand not just what people wanted, but why they wanted it. By the end of those conversations, I realized something important. Many of us were talking about different policies while trying to solve the same underlying problem.

The Current Problem in Altadena Isn’t (Just) SB 9

For years, I’ve warned about the risks of increasing density without thoughtful planning. I still believe that. But today I would describe the problem differently. The problem isn’t SB 9. The problem isn’t even density. The problem is trying to rebuild an entire disaster zone without a comprehensive local plan. That distinction changes everything.

Because once you begin looking at our challenges through that lens, you realize almost every issue we’re debating points back to the same underlying failure.

Parking. Emergency access. Traffic. Infrastructure. Utility coordination. Neighborhood compatibility. Historic preservation. Affordable housing. Accessory dwelling units. Bungalow courts. Speculative development.

Every one of those conversations exists because Los Angeles County failed to create a coordinated vision for Altadena before the fire, and 18 months later, still hasn’t created one afterward.

Just this week, I spoke with one of our utility providers about undergrounding. The conversation was revealing. Different agencies are moving independently. Projects aren’t coordinated. Infrastructure work isn’t sequenced together. Costs aren’t being shared where they could be. As a result, some streets will end up partially undergrounded—not because anyone believes that’s the best outcome, but because no one is orchestrating the broader effort. There is no plan.

If we can’t coordinate underground utilities after a disaster of this magnitude, how can we realistically expect housing policy, transportation, environmental remediation, emergency access, and infrastructure planning to somehow coordinate themselves?

We can’t.

Not without Los Angeles County stepping into the role it should have assumed years ago. Every conversation we’re having about SB 1090 ultimately leads back to that same conclusion. We don’t have a housing problem. We have a planning problem.

Local Problems Deserve Local Solutions

One example illustrates this better than almost anything else.

Bungalow courts.

Throughout this process, I’ve spoken with residents who believe bungalow courts represent exactly the kind of housing Altadena should continue to embrace. They’re not wrong. Historic bungalow courts are part of what makes Altadena unique. They reflect the scale, character, and history of our community.

But that realization led me to another question. If so many people—including many on opposite sides of this debate—agree that thoughtfully designed bungalow courts belong here, why doesn’t Los Angeles County have a local ordinance that allows them?

Why are we relying on statewide housing legislation written for urban infill to accomplish something our own local government should be addressing? That’s using a sledgehammer to solve a problem that requires a scalpel.

The same is true for so many other issues. We need thoughtful local standards for parking. We need survivor centered ADU policies that don’t pit neighbor against neighbor in civil disputes. We need clear rebuilding pathways for multigenerational households. We need updated emergency access requirements. We need neighborhood-specific development standards that reflect the realities of rebuilding after a catastrophic wildfire.

Those are local planning decisions. They shouldn’t depend on stretching statewide housing laws to fit circumstances they were never designed to address. The County needs to step up. And frankly, it needs to do so with much greater urgency than we’ve seen over the past 18 months. That work remains essential regardless of what happens to SB 1090.

But it also helped me understand something else. The question before us today is how we best protect Altadena while we continue pushing for it. That’s where my thinking about SB 9 began to change.

Why My Thinking Changed

One of the questions I’ve been asked repeatedly over the past several weeks is simple:

“If you’ve been warning about SB 9 for years, why would you now support removing it from SB 1090?”

It’s a fair question. The short answer is this:

Because after weeks of conversations, I no longer believe that keeping SB 9 in this legislation is the strongest path to achieving the outcome we’ve all been fighting for.

That doesn’t mean SB 9 suddenly stopped mattering. It means I’ve come to believe that trying to solve too many problems in one bill may ultimately prevent us from solving the most urgent one, or worse, any of them at all. Good legislative strategy sometimes requires asking a difficult question:

What is essential to accomplish today, and what can be accomplished tomorrow if we first secure today’s victory? For me, that’s where this conversation has landed.

One of the most important things I’ve come to understand is that this debate has gradually become about two very different issues that deserve two very different solutions.

SB 9 and SB 1123 are often discussed together, but today they are playing very different roles in Altadena’s recovery.

At this moment, SB 1123 is being leveraged almost entirely by outside speculative developers looking to capitalize on a community still recovering from disaster. That is the immediate and emerging threat this legislation is trying to address.

SB 9 is different.

Whether we agree with it as statewide policy or not, it has now been part of California law for years. Families have made decisions based on it. Local governments have processed projects under it. Homeowners have relied on it. Fire survivors are relying on it today. Those realities deserve to be acknowledged. That distinction became increasingly important to me as this legislation evolved.

A Bill Doesn’t Have to Do Everything to Do Something Important

There has been a tendency throughout this debate to measure SB 1090 against an impossible standard.

Can it solve speculative development? Can it solve survivor rebuilding? Can it solve affordability? Can it solve local planning failures? Can it solve infrastructure? Can it solve density policy? Can it solve every unintended consequence of years of statewide housing legislation?

Of course it can’t.

No single bill can. Nor should we expect it to.

When legislation tries to become everything to everyone, it often becomes nothing at all. The question isn’t whether SB 1090 solves every problem. The question is whether it meaningfully improves our position while creating the opportunity to solve the next problem.

I believe it does.

The More I Listened, the Clearer the Path Became

One concern I heard repeatedly from friends and colleagues whom I deeply respect was this:

“If removing SB 9 makes the opposition more comfortable, isn’t that because they know they can still accomplish their goals?”

I understand that concern. But after sitting with legislators, legislative staff, policy experts, and advocates representing every side of this conversation, what comes into focus is that removing SB 9 from SB 1090 doesn’t simply make the bill smaller. It makes it stronger. It makes it cleaner. It makes it easier to explain. It narrows the legal questions. It reduces unintended consequences. It broadens unity.

And perhaps most importantly, it keeps the legislation focused on the area where there is the greatest consensus that immediate action is needed. Sometimes less is more.

There is another practical reality we shouldn’t ignore.

Before the Eaton Fire, hundreds of SB 9 projects had already been completed throughout California under laws that have now been in place since 2022.

Here in Altadena, approximately 1,200 of the roughly 2,600 rebuilding permits that have been approved or are currently in process rely on existing SB 9 law, including ADU pathways that many survivors are using to make rebuilding financially possible.

Those numbers matter because they illustrate just how deeply existing law has already been integrated into the rebuilding process.

What are we going to do? Tell families who legally relied on those laws that they were acceptable yesterday, but no longer acceptable today? Tell fire survivors who are counting on an ADU to help pay their mortgage that we’ve changed our minds? Attempt to unwind projects that have already been approved or completed? Create legal precedent that pits neighbor against neighbor while families are simply trying to come home?

That doesn’t strike me as good public policy. Nor does it strike me as a fair outcome for people who have already endured more than enough.

The removal of SB 9 from SB 1090 also means we are not trying to backtrack on statewide policy California has allowed to exist for years.

Removing SB 9 from SB 1090 also makes clear that this legislation is not an attempt to reverse statewide housing policy that California has allowed to operate for years. This bill isn’t about relitigating SB 9. It’s about responding to the unique realities of disaster recovery. Those are two very different conversations, and I believe keeping them separate ultimately strengthens both.

It Solves Problems We Have Been Wrestling With

One of my continuing concerns throughout this process has been the 180-day vesting language that remained in the current version of the bill.

Many community leaders and policy advocates worried about the uncertainty that provision could create during an already extraordinarily complicated recovery.

If SB 9 is removed from SB 1090, that issue largely disappears.

That isn’t a small procedural change. It’s one of the bill’s most significant practical improvements. Removing SB 9 also resolves another challenge we’ve spent months trying to navigate.

Throughout this process, many of us worked hard to ensure legislation aimed at speculative development didn’t inadvertently harm projects our community supports. That meant negotiating carve outs.

Carve outs for nonprofit housing organizations. Carve outs for the Altadena Community Land Trust. Carve outs to protect affordable housing efforts. Carve outs to ensure the work of the Altadena Tenants Union and other community partners wasn’t unintentionally swept into legislation that was never meant to target them.

Carve outs that leave the legislation looking like Swiss cheese and opening the door wide to legal challenge. Those conversations were necessary because we were trying to protect good projects while stopping bad actors. But once SB 9 comes out of the bill, many of those carve outs become unnecessary.

Not because those organizations no longer matter. Quite the opposite. Because their work is no longer being unintentionally pulled into the legislation in the first place.

To me, that’s a cleaner solution than creating exception after exception.

We Must Protect Survivors Before We Protect Policy

There is another reason my thinking evolved. As I’ve listened to more survivors describe their rebuilding plans, one principle has become impossible to ignore.

The people who lost their homes should have the easiest pathway back.

That includes homeowners rebuilding on their own property. It includes renters trying to remain in Altadena. It includes multigenerational families whose housing needs changed overnight. It includes seniors who now need children or caregivers living nearby. It includes those who lost everything overnight and need a new revenue stream. It includes young adults moving back home after losing everything. And it absolutely includes families who will only be able to afford rebuilding if they can generate rental income through an ADU.

Those aren’t speculative development projects. Those are survivor recovery projects. Those are exactly the kinds of housing pathways we should be encouraging.

Unfortunately, once again, we run into the same underlying problem. Los Angeles County has not created straightforward local pathways that recognize the realities of rebuilding after a catastrophe.

There should be survivor specific rebuilding ordinances. There should be easier county approval for recovery focused ADUs. There should be clear policies supporting multigenerational rebuilding. There should be local flexibility that reflects the fact that recovery is not the same as ordinary development.

If those policies existed, many survivors wouldn’t feel compelled to rely on SB 9 at all. That isn’t a failure of survivors. It’s another example of local government failing to meet the moment.

Our Fight Is With Speculation—Not Survivors

That distinction is critically important. No one wants a fire survivor struggling to rebuild wondering whether this legislation is making their life harder. No one wanst a family trying to create an ADU so they can afford their mortgage feeling like they’re somehow caught in the middle of a policy debate aimed at outside investors. Those aren’t the people we’ve been trying to stop. They never were.

At this moment, the most immediate and rapidly growing threat is not survivors rebuilding their own property. It’s the use of SB 1123 by outside speculative developers seeking to capitalize on a community still recovering from disaster.

That is where we need to focus. If we can temporarily pause that activity, we create something extraordinarily valuable.

Time.

Time for families to rebuild. Time for local planning. Time for Los Angeles County to finally create the survivor centered policies it should already be writing. Time to establish thoughtful ordinances for bungalow courts, ADUs, parking, emergency access, neighborhood compatibility, and infrastructure. Time to move from reacting to governing.

Our fight is with speculative investment exploiting a disaster before the community has had a fair opportunity to recover. Those are not the same thing. Our policies shouldn’t treat them as though they are.

Winning Today Makes Tomorrow Possible

Some have suggested that removing SB 9 represents giving something up.

I understand why it feels that way, but I see it differently. I see it as choosing the battlefield where we are most likely to succeed.

If SB 1090 passes in a cleaner, more focused form, we don’t lose the ability to advocate for better local planning. We don’t lose the ability to pursue county ordinances that create survivor pathways. We don’t lose the ability to come back to Sacramento to seek additional protections, longer timelines, or changes to future housing legislation.

In fact, we strengthen our position to do all of those things. Because we’ll be building on a victory rather than explaining a defeat.

Sometimes advocacy requires holding the line. Sometimes it requires compromise.

And sometimes it requires recognizing that winning one battle is exactly what allows you to fight—and win—the next one.

That is where I believe Altadena stands today.

What About Parity with the Palisades?

One of the questions I’ve heard more than any other throughout this process is a fair one.

“Why can’t Altadena simply receive the same protections the Palisades received?”

I understand that question. In many ways, I share the frustration behind it.

The Palisades received broad protections through an Executive Order, and many of us want to know why Altadena didn’t receive the same treatment.

The answer, unfortunately, is more complicated than it first appears.

The Executive Order protecting the Palisades relied heavily on legal authorities tied to its designation as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Altadena simply doesn’t have that same legal framework across the entire community. Whether we wish it did or not, that distinction matters.

It also means that—even with significant community pressure—the likelihood of obtaining an equivalent Executive Order under this Governor, or frankly under a future Governor like Becerra, is extremely small.

I don’t say that because I believe Altadena deserves less. Quite the opposite. I say it because I believe we need to focus our energy on solutions that are actually achievable now.

We need solutions designed specifically for Altadena, not solutions borrowed from another community with a different legal framework.

That is exactly what SB 1090 attempts to do. Is it perfect? No. Is it the final answer?Absolutely not.

But I believe it is the first meaningful step toward creating a recovery framework that reflects Altadena’s unique circumstances instead of waiting for a solution that is unlikely to arrive.

Waiting for the perfect solution has never rebuilt a single home. Our responsibility is to pursue the strongest solution available today while continuing to fight for a better one tomorrow.

The Community Unity We’ve Found Is Worth Protecting

Over the past several months, our community has accomplished something remarkable. Organizations that haven’t always agreed found common ground. Neighborhood leaders sat beside affordable housing advocates. Fire survivors worked alongside policy experts. Residents who often see the world differently came together around a shared goal: protecting Altadena’s recovery while preserving the opportunity for our neighbors to come home.

That didn’t happen by accident. It was built one conversation at a time. One meeting at a time. One difficult compromise at a time. Let’s not lose that now.

One lesson I’ve learned over the past eighteen months is that every disagreement inside our community eventually becomes someone else’s campaign material.

We saw it with the CalMatters story. We saw it again in the Orange County Register. I wrote letters to the editor on both of these. One will be published. One will not. I’ll let you guess which.

Those stories became the opening chapter in a narrative that was never really ours. YIMBY versus NIMBY. Housing versus exclusion. Right versus left. Growth versus preservation.

That has never been the conversation many of us have actually been having. Our conversation has always been about recovery. It has always been about making sure a community recovering from disaster isn’t forced to rebuild under rules written for ordinary times. And it has always been about creating thoughtful local planning instead of allowing speculation to dictate the future of Altadena.

Healthy debate has made this legislation better. But there comes a point when we have to stop debating one another and start focusing on the work still ahead.

I believe we’ve reached that point.

A Word About Leadership

Anyone who has followed me and my work knows I have never hesitated to criticize elected officials when I believe they’re falling short. In fact, I think that’s part of our responsibility as engaged citizens. The people we elect work for us and sometimes they need to be reminded of that. Sometimes getting what our communities need requires being loud. Sometimes it requires making people uncomfortable.

Accountability is not hostility. It’s democracy.

But I’ve also always believed something equally important.

Praise should be given when praise is due.

Criticism only has credibility if we’re willing to recognize good work when we see it. Over the course of this process, I’ve watched Senator Sasha Renée Pérez and her team engage with an extraordinary range of voices. People who agreed with one another. People who absolutely did not.

No piece of legislation was ever going to satisfy every competing interest. That simply isn’t how governing works. What I have seen, however, is a genuine effort to listen, adapt, and find the strongest path forward through an extraordinarily complicated political and policy landscape. That deserves recognition.

It doesn’t mean every one of us agrees with every provision. It doesn’t mean we stop advocating for improvements. It means we acknowledge good faith leadership when we see it.

I believe Senator Pérez has earned that.

Now I hope our community can do its part.

Let’s give her the strongest possible support as she works to get this legislation across the finish line with as little opposition as possible from outside interests, and even less from within our own community.

The Next Battle Is Already Here

If there’s one thing the last eighteen months have taught us, it’s that recovery doesn’t pause simply because we’re tired. We’re so tired.

Even as we work to move SB 1090 forward, another fight is already taking shape.

We’re learning that the Governor’s Office, working with legislators is pushing SB 254, legislation that, as currently written, could dramatically reduce wildfire survivors’ ability to recover non-economic damages from utilities.

Even more troubling, the proposal is reportedly being drafted to apply retroactively, potentially affecting existing claims, including those arising from the Eaton Fire.

If that becomes law, it wouldn’t simply change future cases. It could change the rules after the game has already begun. It could literally take money out of the pockets of survivors who have already endured unimaginable loss.

Let’s also remember something else. The California Wildfire Fund wasn’t created out of thin air. It exists because Californians have paid into it through our utility bills for years. Those are our ratepayer dollars. Our dollars.

Now, at the very moment survivors are trying to rebuild their lives, we’re facing the possibility that the legal landscape could shift beneath our feet.

That should concern not just us, but every Californian.

Ironically, this issue is already creating some unlikely alliances. Organizations that have often found themselves on opposite sides of insurance reform may soon stand shoulder to shoulder because this proposal could also affect insurers’ subrogation rights. Politics sometimes creates strange bedfellows. This appears to be one of those moments. And it serves as an important reminder.

Every day matters.

That’s why I and Beautiful Altadena will be the first to sign on to a broad show of unity and support with Joy Chen and Every Fire Survivor’s Network to demand better policy because we are David facing a mighty Goliath.

Never Forget Why We’re Here

Before I close, I want to leave you with one final thought.

Every debate we’ve had about SB 1090. Every conversation about SB 9. Every discussion about density, infrastructure, parking, emergency access, insurance, litigation, rebuilding timelines, utilities, and recovery.

All of it exists because our community experienced an unimaginable tragedy.

The official investigations into the cause of the Eaton Fire are still ongoing, and legal responsibility has not yet been determined.

At the same time, Southern California Edison has established a settlement claims process through which well over a thousand Eaton Fire survivors have already submitted or resolved claims outside of litigation.

Whatever ultimately happens through the courts, none of us would be debating disaster recovery legislation today if our community had not first endured this catastrophe.

That reality should never be forgotten.

Every policy conversation we have should begin with one simple question:

Does this help fire survivors come home?

If the answer is yes, we should pursue it. If the answer is no, we should rethink it. Everything else is secondary.

Why I Believe This Is the Right Path Forward

When I began writing this essay, I said I’d spent the last several weeks listening.

Listening changed my strategy. It did not change my values.

I still believe survivors should lead and shape the recovery and be allowed to speak for themselves. I still believe Altadena deserves thoughtful planning instead of piecemeal after the fact decision making. I still believe Los Angeles County has an enormous amount of work to do—from creating survivor friendly rebuilding pathways for ADUs and multigenerational housing, to adopting thoughtful ordinances for bungalow courts, parking, emergency access, and neighborhood compatibility.

Those conversations aren’t over. In many ways, they’re only beginning.

I also continue to believe we must protect the rights of fire survivors to rebuild in the ways that make returning home financially possible. That means homeowners. Renters. Multigenerational families. Seniors. Young families.

Everyone who is trying to find a way back to the community they love.

Those pathways should exist because our local government has the foresight to create them, not because survivors are forced to search statewide law for solutions that local leadership failed to provide.

That is work we must continue demanding from Los Angeles County.

But today, the question before us is narrower.

How do we protect Altadena while creating the strongest possible opportunity for SB 1090 to become law?

After weeks of listening, questioning, debating, and reflecting, I have come to believe the answer is clear. A more focused bill. A broader show of unity. A stronger chance of success. And then we keep going.

No, SB 1090 isn’t the bill any one of us would have written if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper. No, every concern has not been resolved. No, everyone will not walk away completely satisfied.

But isn’t that often the hallmark of a good compromise?

Everyone gives up a little. Everyone wishes one more thing had made it into the final version. And everyone ultimately decides that making meaningful progress together is better than standing still apart.

I believe that’s where we are today.

Recovery was never going to be won through one piece of legislation. It will be won through hundreds of decisions over many years. Some will require us to fight. Some will require compromise. Some will require us to recognize progress, even when it isn’t perfection.

This is one of those moments.

When the Eaton Fire happened, none of us asked to become experts in housing policy. Or utility regulation. Or insurance law. Or environmental remediation. Or legislative procedure. Or to become full time unpaid lobbyists and activists. Yet here we are.

Ordinary citizens have become policy advocates because we had no other choice. That is one of the great tragedies of this disaster because this should not be our job. But it is also one of Altadena’s greatest strengths.

We showed up. We learned. We organized. We disagreed. We listened. We adapted. And together, we will move legislation that many people believed would never make it this far. That alone is remarkable.

Now let’s finish the job.

Let’s pass SB 1090.

Then let’s hold Los Angeles County accountable for the planning it should have done years ago and must begin doing now.

Let’s protect the rights of fire survivors.

Let’s fight any attempt to weaken those rights in the months ahead.

And let’s never lose sight of the principle that has guided this community from the very beginning:

The people who lived through this disaster should have the strongest voice in shaping what comes next.

Everything else should follow from there.

Author's Note: The watercolor illustrations accompanying this essay are the work of artist Keni Arts, whose beautiful plein air paintings have documented our community for decades. Following the Eaton Fire, Keni—a fellow Altadena resident who also lost his home—began his moving Beauty For Ashes series, returning to the streets each week to paint the places we lost and the community now rising again. I'm deeply grateful for his generosity telling our story through the visual arts. To learn more about Keni, explore his work, or support his art, please visit Keni Arts.

18 Months Later

This week marked 18 months since the fire and the latest numbers paint a sobering picture. Drawing from reporting by CBS News and Los Angeles Times on research from United Policyholders and Department of Angels, we look at where recovery really stands:

• Nearly two-thirds of survivors remain displaced
• About 100 homes rebuilt and nearly 1,800 structures under construction
• Nearly 3,000 permits issued, including more than 1,200 ADUs
• Nearly half of survivors have lost—or expect to lose—their insurance within the next year
• Just 28% believe they'll fully recover
• Nearly half of burned lots have reportedly been sold to developers

We also revisit the rebuild itself, asking how many of those ADUs are intended for family use versus rentals, and unpack LA County's restrictive short term rental rules and tax requirements.

Who's Rebuilding Altadena and the Palisades?

We look at the County's affordable housing initiatives, nonprofit acquisition strategies, and what increasingly looks like a nonprofit-led model for redevelopment.

We also discuss what may be the biggest story no one is covering: a $250 million Private Activity Bond package in the Palisades for a newly created nonprofit called Uplifters to create affordable housing... with 65  $4 million dollar homes?  If that's happening there... when does it come to Altadena?

We revisit Shawna's Substack on rebuilding without an urban or economic development plan—and Steve's earlier Substack, The First Rumbles, which now feels increasingly prophetic.

Community, Representation & Power

The Eaton Fire Collaborative announced its Long Term Recovery Group (LTRG) Board appointments. Spoiler, neither Steve nor Shawna nor the Altadena fire survivors they campaigned for were elected, reinforcing concerns that recovery decisions continue to be driven by organizations rather than survivors.

We also discuss:

• PUSD tree removals and the governance questions raised
• Prang's tax promises and a local builder's cautionary tale
• The heartbreaking CBS story of Mark Rodriguez, who died by suicide amid rebuilding struggles, and why these losses deserve to be counted.

Legislation Watch

The biggest story of the past several weeks has been SB 1090. We recap the community outrage, the press conference, the trip to Sacramento, and Beautiful Altadena's position. We support SB 1090—with the amendment, with the urgency clause, and without the 180-day vesting language for outside developers – not as it is currently written. 

We also discuss SB 9, SB 1123, SB 1116, and AB 2005, how they intersect, what's coming, and why the fight over Altadena's future is just beginning. The broader lesson? Our community still lacks infrastructure, including meaningful communications structure.

Too many residents don't know what's being proposed or decided until it's already happening and too late. That's why Beautiful Altadena Alerts is coming soon.

What's Next

Shawna jokes that this chapter has been so demoralizing and depressing she now takes refuge in working on her dreaded inventory because even that's less soul crushing than this. (Be the dog, not the cone).

We close with the question that ties this entire episode together.  Follow the money. Disaster recovery funding can become cover for a multitude of sins. It can be used to quietly fund priorities that have little to do with survivors—from legal settlements to nonprofit windfalls—while communities continue to struggle to understand where recovery dollars are actually going. We'll continue following the money, tracking the legislation, and connecting the dots in next week's episode.

Small Biz Shout Out

This week's shout goes to the growing list of Altadena small businesses that are open and need our support (and I'm still talking about espresso tonics!). 

Stop by Altadena Watch, where Shant is back, and make a point of shopping local whenever you can. Every dollar spent locally helps rebuild the community we love.

Check out Austin Scott's newest mural at George's Convenience (formerly George's Liquor), where community painting days are underway. Rebuilding isn't just homes it's preserving the culture and spirit that make Altadena, Altadena.

Don't forget Beautiful Altadena Office Hours, happening every Wednesday from 11am–1pm at rotating Altadena coffee shops. Check the Beautiful Altadena Instagram, Facebook page, or group for the latest schedule and locations.

Happy Summer Solstice. Happy Father’s Day. Happy International Yoga Day.

On the longest day of the year, we should be outside enjoying our neighborhoods, our parks, our patios, our families, and the simple joys of Southern California summer.

Instead, millions of Angelenos are checking air quality maps, closing windows, canceling plans, running air purifiers, and wondering exactly what they’re breathing as toxic smoke from the Boyle Heights warehouse fire spreads across the region.

I had every intention of spending this Summer Solstice writing about something more uplifting, like all of our beautiful Juneteenth celebrations.

Instead, I spent the morning driving to yoga only to have class canceled because staff were concerned about the smell of smoke inside the studio. Large industrial fans were running in the room and they ultimately decided they weren’t comfortable asking people to spend an hour intentionally taking deep breaths and inhaling whatever happens to be floating through the air right now. A short time later, the entire gym was closed because an oily film had reportedly settled onto equipment throughout the facility.

This was in South Pasadena.

Miles from the fire.

Sound familiar?

Many of us learned after the Eaton Fire that some of the heaviest contamination from our disaster landed well outside the burn area in communities like Eagle Rock and Northeast Los Angeles. Yet most people living there had no idea. No warnings. No guidance. No insurance coverage. No support.

Contamination doesn’t care about city boundaries. The smoke didn’t care about ZIP codes. The fallout didn’t stop at the edge of the disaster zone. And yet our systems continue to act as though these events affect only the communities where the flames are visible. They don’t.

Today, residents throughout Los Angeles are experiencing the same uncertainty many of us experienced after January 8. What exactly is in the air? What are we being exposed to? Who is responsible? And why does it feel like no one is looking out for us?

Meanwhile, residents in nearby unincorporated communities are discovering another painful reality. They are not receiving the same treatment as some of their incorporated neighbors.

Reports continue to surface of inconsistent notifications, uneven resource distribution, and a lack of clear public communication. Residents are asking why they aren’t receiving the same protections, resources, and urgency afforded elsewhere. They deserve answers and, like us, they deserve better.

The looming question is why a company with a documented history of environmental and labor violations was allowed to continue operating in a manner that created this risk in the first place, not unlike how SCE was allowed to continue to get away with what it did – and continues to get away with since the Eaton Fire.

This is’t just another fire story. It is a story about oversight. Accountability. And who bears the consequences when government fails to act. The story feels familiar because it is familiar.

For decades, communities like Boyle Heights, East Los Angeles, and Altadena have been expected to accept a different standard of governance than wealthier and more politically connected communities. When disaster strikes. When pollution spreads. When warnings fail. When resources are distributed unevenly. When major decisions are made without meaningful community input. The same communities carry the burden. The same communities are expected to simply accept it.

East Los Angeles recently fought for incorporation and lost after an uphill battle against a system that has little incentive to surrender control.

Altadena continues to discover the consequences of having no local government, no local accountability, and no meaningful seat at the table when decisions are made.

At some point we have to ask ourselves, How much longer are unincorporated communities expected to accept taxation without representation?

Because whether the issue is environmental contamination, wildfire recovery, public safety, land use, infrastructure, housing policy, or disaster planning, the answer cannot always be that decisions will be made somewhere else and local residents should simply be grateful for whatever happens next.

The lesson from Boyle Heights is not simply that disasters happen. Disasters happen everywhere. The lesson is that communities without political power are often the last to be warned, the last to be heard, and the last to receive protection.

Communities without meaningful representation often find themselves fighting the same battle. Trying to convince the people making decisions that their lives matter just as much as everyone else’s.

Subscribe now

Back to Recovery Before Density

SB1090 is now moving through the State Legislature. Supporters describe it as a housing bill. For many Altadena residents, it is a recovery bill.

In recent weeks, a coalition of community organizations, preservation advocates, recovery leaders, and concerned residents has come together in support of SB1090 as a temporary recovery measure that gives Altadena time to rebuild before permanent decisions are made about the community’s future.

This effort includes concerned residents working through Altadena Recovery Watch, our Beautiful Altadena, Altadena Heritage, Sustainable Community Development Corporation, and other community stakeholders who may not agree on every issue but share a commitment to a thoughtful, survivor led recovery.

SB1090 provides a temporary pause through 2030 on certain state housing laws so Altadena can recover on a level playing field with communities impacted by catastrophic wildfire. It gives displaced families time to rebuild and return home. It protects local decision making during recovery. It preserves existing rebuilding options under the Community Standards District (CSD). It supports equitable recovery across neighborhoods. And it prevents irreversible changes while schools, roads, utilities, water systems, and essential infrastructure are still recovering.

Importantly, SB1090 does not impact affordable housing. It does not impact ADUs or JADUs. It does not impact mixed use and multifamily housing in designated transit corridors including Lake, Fair Oaks, and Lincoln. It does not impact Community Land Trusts. And it does not stop future growth.

This is not about stopping housing. It is about timing, fairness, and recovery.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED

Most troubling of all, Altadena is still being treated differently than Pacific Palisades.

Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-32-25 providing wildfire recovery protections for Pacific Palisades. Those same protections were not extended to Altadena despite both communities suffering catastrophic wildfire losses. Equal treatment should not depend on ZIP code. Equal protection should not depend on political influence. If these protections are appropriate for Pacific Palisades, they should be appropriate for Altadena.

Submit Your Letter of Support NOW

Support letters must be submitted by: Tuesday, June 24 at 5:00 PM

The easiest way to participate is through the Assembly letter portal: altadenarecoverywatch.com. It takes approximately two minutes to do this using the Altadena Recovery Watch website.

Call Governor Newsom TODAY

Ask Governor Newsom to extend the same protections provided to Pacific Palisades to Altadena.

Governor Gavin Newsom
(916) 445-2841

Suggested message:

“I am calling to request that Governor Newsom extend the same wildfire recovery protections provided to Pacific Palisades to Altadena. Recovery should not depend on ZIP code. Altadena deserves equal treatment and equal protection.”

Attend the Sacramento Hearings

July 1 at 9:30 AM
Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee

July 1 at 1:30 PM
Assembly Local Government Committee

Organizations: We Need Your Voice Too

Individual letters matter. Organizational support may matter even more.

We are actively encouraging additional neighborhood groups, nonprofits, preservation organizations, environmental groups, faith communities, business organizations, recovery organizations, and civic groups to join us in this effort.

The reality is that this legislation faces significant opposition from well funded statewide and county organizations that do not live here, did not experience the Eaton Fire, and will not live with the long term consequences of the decisions being made for Altadena.

If survivor voices are going to be heard, we need a broad coalition willing to stand together and stand for us.

This is not a NIMBY versus YIMBY issue. It is not a pro-housing versus anti-housing issue. It is a recovery issue. It is a fairness issue. And it is a community self-determination issue.

Please don’t assume someone else will do it. They won’t. We all need to step up.

The deadline is June 24.

Looking Beyond the Immediate Deadline

While the June 24 letter writing deadline comes first, the broader conversation about Altadena’s recovery, rebuilding, and long term future will continue well beyond this critical week.

For residents who want to learn more, ask questions, engage in discussion, or participate in ongoing advocacy efforts, the Altadena Town Council is hosting an emergency community meeting focused on rebuilding, SB1090, and efforts to secure equal treatment for Altadena through an Executive Order from the Governor.

Altadena Town Council Emergency Community Meeting
Balancing a Reasonable Rebuild

Wednesday, June 24
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
The Collaboratory
540 W. Woodbury Road
Altadena, CA

Topics include:

• Discussion and debate regarding SB1090
• Coordinating advocacy efforts around a Governor’s Emergency Executive Order
• Community questions and public discussion
• Next steps for Altadena’s recovery

Unable to attend in person? A virtual community meeting will also be held:

Virtual Town Hall
Monday, June 29
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Register online via Zoom

If you support SB1090, please do not wait for the meeting to take action. Submit your support letter before the June 24, 5:00 PM deadline first. Then join the conversation about where Altadena goes from here.

About That Smoke… Protect Yourself and Your Family

Until this fire is fully extinguished and air quality conditions stabilize, please take precautions. Many of us unfortunately received a crash course in toxic smoke exposure after the Eaton Fire. We know that what you can see is not always the full story, and what you can’t see can still be harmful.

AQI maps are useful, but they are not always enough. Conditions can vary dramatically from neighborhood to neighborhood and even hour to hour depending on wind direction, topography, and localized smoke plumes.

For that reason, I strongly encourage everyone to monitor hyper-local conditions using PurpleAir and other neighborhood level monitoring tools.

Some practical steps to consider:

• Run HEPA air purifiers whenever possible.
• Keep doors and windows closed when smoke conditions are present.
• Replace HVAC and air purifier filters more frequently than usual.
• Limit strenuous outdoor activity.
• Bring pets indoors whenever possible.
• Consider wearing an N95 mask during prolonged outdoor exposure.
• Wash exposed skin and hair after significant outdoor exposure.
• Pay attention to symptoms including headaches, eye irritation, coughing, sore throats, dizziness, fatigue, or breathing difficulties.

Most importantly, don’t assume conditions are the same everywhere. One neighborhood may be completely clear while another a few miles away experiences significant smoke exposure. A shift in wind direction can change conditions in a matter of hours.

Look out for yourselves. Look out for your neighbors. And don’t wait for an official alert to take reasonable precautions. Too many of us have learned that lesson the hard way. The only real health advisory we’ve seen has come from the statewide California Department of Public Health advisory so do your own diligence on this one.

A Quick Personal Note

Thanks for sticking with me here. I know this has been a lot. Honestly, I know many of you are probably opening these emails hoping for updates on rebuilding, local businesses, community events, gardens, restaurants, travel stories, or literally anything other than another disaster, another government failure, or another urgent call to action. Trust me. So am I.

The last eighteen months have asked more of this community than should ever be asked of any community. Yet here we are. Still showing up. Still helping one another. Still fighting. And still refusing to let other people decide our future for us.

So thank you. Thank you for reading. Thank you for caring. Thank you for continuing to engage even when the topics are heavy, the news is frustrating, and the asks keep coming.

I promise we’ll get back to celebrating what makes Altadena special. We’ll get back to highlighting local businesses (you can catch our Small Biz Shout Outs at the end of every podcast). We’ll get back to history, gardens, food, small biz, and all the reasons we chose to build our lives here.

But first we have to save what’s left of our town. And I’m not going to stop fighting for this community because it is worth fighting for. Altadena is worth fighting for. Our neighbors are worth fighting for. And every community being treated as expendable by the people entrusted to protect them is worth fighting for. No one organization, neighborhood group, or resident can do this alone. If we want a survivor led recovery and a safe community to return to, we need to show LA County and Sacramento that Altadena is united and we will not back down.

Now here’s some good news for your Sunday!

Something important happened at the Altadena Town Council meeting last night that we should all be talking about.

The room was filled to capacity long before the meeting began. Hundreds of residents showed up. Hundreds more (estimates range from 450 to 600) who couldn’t get into the hundred person space spent hours standing outside listening on speakers and phones because there simply wasn’t enough room inside. ABC7 was there interviewing residents while a news helicopter circled overhead documenting the turnout. Regardless of where you land on the issue, one thing was undeniable. Altadena is waking up to their new reality.

The meeting was largely focused on a discussion about Senator Sasha Renée Pérez’s newly introduced SB 1090 legislation being presented as a response to community concerns about the impact of state housing laws that push density on Altadena’s recovery.

But by the end of the evening, many residents were left with a different conclusion. The problem isn’t SB 1090. The problem is that eighteen months after the Eaton Fire, Altadena still doesn’t have a comprehensive recovery plan.

A Debate About Housing That Isn’t Really About Housing

The public conversation keeps getting reduced to a debate over individual bills.

SB 9. SB 1123. SB 1116. SB 1090.

One side is portrayed as pro-housing. The other is portrayed as NIMBY and anti-housing. That framing misses the point entirely.

This community is not debating whether California needs more housing. We need more housing.

This community is asking why a disaster recovery zone is being subjected to a series of statewide density mandates before recovery is complete and before residents have even been given a clear vision for what recovery is supposed to look like.

Those are not the same conversations.

Thousands of families remain displaced. Many are still fighting with insurance companies. Many have not yet begun rebuilding. Others are trying to decide whether they can afford to return at all. At the same time, state laws and county complicity continue to create pathways for developers and increased density throughout Altadena.

We Were Promised More Than This

Following the Eaton Fire, residents were repeatedly assured that recovery would be survivor centered. We were told by our county Supervisor that rebuilding would honor what was lost. We were promised Altadena’s Community Standards District (CSD) would be used as the guide. We were told the character of the community would be protected. Governor Newsom spoke about a recovery effort comparable to a Marshall Plan.

Yet eighteen months later, there is still no publicly articulated long-term recovery strategy. No comprehensive rebuild framework. No economic development plan. No clear explanation of how housing policy, infrastructure planning, water systems, our failing electrical grid, evacuation concerns, transportation, commercial revitalization, historic preservation, and community character fit together into a coherent vision for the future.

Instead, residents are being asked to evaluate major policy changes one bill at a time and worse, after the fact. That is backwards. A plan should come first and legislation should follow. So why is Altadena not getting that?

This Is Not An Argument Against Affordable Housing

One of the most frustrating aspects of this debate is the false choice being presented to residents. Either support these density bills or oppose affordable housing. Either support lot splits and increased density everywhere or oppose housing opportunities.

That is not the choice before us.

Altadena has long supported diverse housing types. Many residents support affordable housing. Many support nonprofit housing efforts. Many support community land trusts. Many support affordable housing for seniors, teachers, essential workers, and young families. The real question is not whether housing should be built. The question is how and where.

Personally, I believe we already have a framework capable of accommodating thoughtful growth while protecting the community that existed before the fire.

It’s called our Community Standards District (CSD).

Rather than treating Altadena like a blank slate to solve the state’s housing crisis, we should be using the tools we already have to guide recovery, encourage affordability, support nonprofit development, and create housing opportunities in ways that are consistent with community planning and infrastructure realities. And if parts of the CSD don’t meet the moment, there is nothing stopping us from making amendments to ensure it does.

We do not need a legislative sledgehammer like SB9 where a scalpel like our CSD would do.

Ultimately This Bill Fixes Nothing

There is another uncomfortable reality that has surfaced in these conversations and meetings.

Even if SB 1090 were adopted exactly as proposed, many of the projects residents are concerned about would continue moving forward. The current voiding of projects is temporary. The legislation is not retroactive. It would not affect many projects already in the pipeline. And it would not take effect until 2027.

That leaves residents asking a reasonable question. What protections exist between now and then? And what will protect us when the moratorium ends and we’re still in the middle of a rebuild? The answer remains unclear. Which brings us back to the same issue. The problem isn’t one “fix it” bill. The problem is the absence of a recovery framework inclusive of the entire community.

Recovery Before Density

This is what one of the signs last night read. It also said, If it’s good for the Palisades, it’s good for Altadena.

Those messages resonated because many residents continue to ask a simple question. Why was Pacific Palisades granted relief from these state housing mandates through the Governor’s executive orders while Altadena was not?

We know this came down to a matter of classification. All of the Palisades is considered a High Severity Fire Risk Zone while only a small swath of Altadena is. This is a known fact. Which begs the question, why wasn’t this addressed by our leadership 18 months ago?

If the state recognized that disaster recovery required flexibility and temporary exemptions in one fire impacted community, why wouldn’t that same principle apply to another community that suffered catastrophic losses and remains in the midst of recovery? That question has never been adequately answered.

For many residents, this is not simply a debate about housing policy. It is a debate about fairness, consistency, and whether all disaster survivors are being treated equally. If recovery should come before density in one community, then recovery should come before density in every community.

What Could Actually Change The Situation

Many residents left the meeting with the realization that legislative carve outs alone may never fully address the issue. The reality is that if the state believes disaster recovery communities deserve special consideration, that authority already exists.

A temporary disaster recovery zone exemption or executive action from the Governor’s Office could immediately pause the application of certain density mandates while recovery remains ongoing. So why has that not happened? And why are our county and state electeds not asking for this on our behalf?

Whether one agrees with that approach or not, it is a conversation that deserves to happen openly because the current approach is creating uncertainty for everyone.

Homeowners. Renters. Business owners. Nonprofits. Affordable housing advocates. Investors. Builders.

Everyone is operating without a shared roadmap.

What Happened This Week Matters

The most important thing that happened this week was not the introduction of this bill. It was seeing hundreds of residents engage in a conversation about the future of their community.

For more than a year, a relatively small number of people including myself and my After the Ashes podcast co-host Steve Sachs have been raising concerns about these issues.

This week demonstrated that awareness is growing and those concerns are now being shared much more broadly.

That doesn’t mean everyone agrees. Nor should they. Healthy communities debate difficult issues. But meaningful recovery requires something more than debate. It requires a plan.

Until Altadena has a comprehensive recovery plan that addresses housing, affordability, infrastructure, economic development, public safety, historic preservation, and community character together, these conflicts will continue.

The biggest thing missing from Altadena’s recovery isn’t housing policy.

It’s a recovery plan.

This conversation also highlights why so many residents continue to raise the topic of incorporation. Regardless of where you stand on that issue, the frustration underlying these debates is increasingly clear. Altadena remains an unincorporated community of more than 40,000 residents, yet we have no local city council, no mayor, no planning commission directly accountable to us, and no ability to control many of the decisions that shape our future.

When residents ask who is responsible for creating a recovery plan, advocating for our interests in Sacramento, protecting our Community Standards District, coordinating economic development, or ensuring that local priorities are reflected in policy decisions, the answers are often fragmented and unclear.

At its core, this is not just a debate about density. It is a debate about self-determination. Who gets to decide what Altadena becomes? Who gets a seat at the table? Who speaks for the community when critical decisions are being made?

Those questions have become increasingly difficult to ignore in the wake of the Eaton Fire.

Thanks for reading.

I’m writing this from Portugal where everywhere I look, I see reminders of home.

Not the architecture. Not the language. The landscape.

Hills. Towering trees. Magnolias. Redwoods. Camellias. Lantana. Trumpet flowers. Nasturtium. Bougainvillea spilling up and over walls. Jacarandas exploding with purple blooms in every direction. Wildflowers from clover and daisies to reddish poppies filling every available space. Birdsong. Peacocks! In many ways, it looks remarkably like we did before January 7.

Portugal also shares something else with us. An increasingly uncomfortable relationship with wildfire.

Like us, Portugal has experienced devastating fires that have threatened communities, destroyed homes, taken lives, and forced difficult conversations about climate change, land management, emergency preparedness and public safety. But one thing becomes immediately apparent when you spend time here.

Unlike us, they are trying.

Portugal has made significant investments in wildfire mitigation and response. Aggressive vegetation management visible when you drive through the countryside. Fuel reduction programs. Community protection initiatives. Expanded firefighting resources. Modernized emergency response systems. Public education campaigns. A record expansion of the national firefighting infrastructure. Continuous investment in preparedness before the next fire inevitably arrives. Not because they have unlimited resources, but because they decided it was a priority.

Which raises another uncomfortable question for those of us here in Los Angeles County. If Portugal can do this, why can’t we? We live in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, in one of the wealthiest states, in one of the wealthiest counties. The problem is clearly not a lack of money, even if our electeds burning it would like to spin it that way. After the Eaton Fire, billions of dollars have been discussed, allocated, announced and spent.

The problem isn't money. It never has been. It's something far more difficult to solve. Leadership. Governance. Priorities. The willingness to invest in prevention instead of constantly paying for failure.

The willingness to build systems that work before a disaster instead of throwing our hands up afterward on why they didn’t. Or worse, putting our heads in the sand and pretending it didn’t happen while learning and changing absolutely nothing.

Because standing here, thousands of miles away, looking at a landscape that feels so familiar, it becomes impossible not to ask. Why do other places seem capable of learning from catastrophe while we continue debating whether one even occurred?

More to come on this when I am back – along with discussion of the latest LAT reporting on the overwhelming failure of the fire response, some discussion on the NBC investigative story on Governor Newsom's $2.5 billion fire recovery fund that never made it to fire survivors, and my thoughts on how the next LA county CEO actually has an opportunity to completely rewrite the script, but is there anyone with the spine to do it – but some thoughts need to be put to paper in the moment.

Five hundred days since thousands of us fled into the dark with no meaningful evacuation coordination, no functioning communication systems, no clear leadership, and no understanding of what was about to happen to our town.

Five hundred days later, many of the same questions remain unanswered.

This weekend, a member of Beautiful Altadena posted something that stopped me because it captured exactly where so many are finding themselves when everyone asks if we’re rebuilding:

“As we’re about to lay our foundation in the next week or two, and after the Simi fire this past week, I’ve been struck with this overwhelming anxiety about moving back and what happens during the next fire.

I keep wondering who the leadership is going to be that stands up and says, ‘Here’s what went wrong and here’s exactly how we’re going to fix it.’

Where is the plan that says here’s an alert system with redundancies and regular testing that works every time. Here are water systems that still function if the power goes out. And if those systems fail, here’s the backup plan.

Water trucks. Neighborhood safety chains. Pool maps. Communication systems. Support for vulnerable homes. Real coordination.

Where is the person saying here’s our new fire chief, what we demand of them, here’s how departments will communicate with each other, and here’s how we become the best and most prepared fire recovery story in the world.

So I’m asking sincerely, who is running, who is organizing, and who are we voting for, team? We can’t control the next fire but we can control who we vote for to get us ready for it.”

My response was blunt, because after 500 days there is no dodging our reality.

There is no one to vote for so long as we remain under the thumb of the county, and it has become abundantly clear over the last 500 days that the county has little interest in meaningfully addressing or correcting what went wrong.

That reality is one of many reasons more than half of displaced Altadena has not even considered rebuilding yet.

It is also the reason many of us, people who never intended to become activists, policy advocates, investigators, or organizers, have effectively taken on that mantle full time since the fire. The hard questions demand real answers and solutions. And so far, no one in power has been willing to offer them.

Our Brand is Gaslighting

Over the last several weeks, we’ve watched a remarkable series of events unfold.

NBC Nightly News aired a national story featuring Army Corps whistleblowers and extensive reporting on the rushed and incomplete cleanup effort in Altadena. A corresponding digital investigation laid out what many of us here have feared and been documenting for over a year. Altadena did not receive the same cleanup standards that other recent urban wildfire zones received. Not even close.

Unlike communities impacted by the Woolsey Fire in 2018, Altadena did not receive comprehensive 6” lot-line to lot-line scraping. We did not receive universal post remediation soil testing. We did not receive broad re-remediation where contamination remained. Instead, we received a rushed cleanup effort optimized for speed and optics. And now we are being told to trust the same institutions that failed us in the first place.

Shortly after the NBC reporting aired, the EPA finally issued a press release on the long withheld soil testing information many in the community had assumed was quietly shelved because the findings were too politically inconvenient to release publicly. The press release congratulated the agencies involved on a “successful” cleanup effort while notably failing to release the underlying data in any meaningful public-facing way.

Insiders continue to state the original findings were deeply troubling and that the methodology itself, including blended soil sampling practices to dilute the visibility of contamination hotspots, is problematic.

Then came the LA Times headline that said the quiet part out loud.

“Feds declare Eaton fire cleanup was a success. Their testing shows otherwise.”

That headline alone should stop every Californian in their tracks.

This isn’t just about Altadena. It is about whether public agencies can fail catastrophically, declare success anyway, and simply wait for public exhaustion to set in.

They Investigated Themselves and Found They Did Nothing Wrong

Shortly after that news broke, LA County released yet another “investigation” into the fire response. The report conceded conditions were chaotic. But disaster response plans are literally built around the assumption that conditions will be chaotic. That is the entire point.

The report also concluded there was no discrimination or bias in the response impacting historically Black West Altadena despite overwhelming evidence showing that the communities west of Lake bore the brunt of the destruction and experienced some of the most catastrophic response failures.

The report was riddled with holes, inaccuracies, omissions, and in some cases outright falsehoods. One glaring example – the continued insistence that the fire did not jump Lake Avenue until after 5 a.m.

We know that is false. We have timestamps. We have photos. We have videos. We have neighborhood group chats documenting spot fires west of Lake around 1 a.m. and entire streets actively burning by approximately 2 a.m.

Hundreds of residents witnessed this in real time. And yet the official narrative continues anyway. At this point, the gaslighting is not incidental. It is structural. And the one thing that is clear, is that we really are living in a post-truth reality.

Enter the Attorney General

Yesterday, on day 500, I spent more than two hours speaking with investigators from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office as part of the ongoing civil rights investigation into the disparate impacts of the fire response in Altadena west of Lake.

For context, I am part of the Altadena for Accountability coalition and strategy team that spent months helping organize, pressure, document, advocate, and push for this investigation to happen in the first place.

This investigation did not emerge out of nowhere. Community members fought for it. Hard. A coalition of disparate fire survivors, activists, and survivors turned activists, led largely by Black women and Essie Justice, worked tirelessly to get this historic, precedent setting investigation into a failed disaster response launched.

An important note is that this investigation does not hinge on proving intent. It hinges on disparate impact. And that impact is undeniable.

Read the Essence story on the Black women in Altadena leading the accountability movement that I could not be more proud to support and stand with.

That interview itself was one of the more difficult things I’ve done in the last 500 days. Walking chronologically through our neighborhood group chats, evacuation decisions, timestamps, photos, videos, eyewitness accounts, emergency failures, communication breakdowns, and the lived reality of what happened while many of us were desperately trying to figure out whether to flee, shelter in place, or help our neighbors survive. Reading through those messages and reliving that night again was brutal.

But every timestamp matters. Every photograph matters. Every video matters. And every interview matters. Together they form a body of evidence that directly contradicts the false narrative the County and LA County Fire continue telling both the media and the public.

If you are an Altadena fire survivor with a personal experience share, you can contact the DOJ to schedule an interview at eatonfireinfo@doj.gov.ca

The Recovery Economy

I attended a POLITICO Live event this week featuring Mayor Bass and Supervisor Barger. As expected, there was much discussion about the “recovery.” But listening to many of these officials speak after everything we have experienced remains surreal, their talking points are so disconnected from reality. I have never seen people lie with such ease. Like subterfuge is the air they breathe. The gaslighting has become governance.

Meanwhile, many fire survivors continue waiting for meaningful assistance while hundreds of millions of dollars circulate through an increasingly opaque recovery ecosystem of agencies, nonprofits, consultants, intermediaries, administrators, and political entities.

The people most impacted are often the last to see meaningful relief.

We are witnessing “trickle-down recovery” that’s about as effective as trickle down economics. Money flows downward through layers of institutions while survivors remain stuck fighting insurance companies (yes, still, I’m on adjuster #13 with State Farm), displacement, contamination concerns, permitting nightmares, rising construction costs, and emotional exhaustion.

Others including my After the Ashes podcast cohost Stephen Sachs (AltaPolicyWonk) have spoken extensively about the growing concerns surrounding nonprofit structures and the handling of recovery funds, so I won’t belabor that here. But by now, most people recognize the uncomfortable truth. There are still enormous unanswered questions about where all of the money, including the Fire Aid money, has gone. And even bigger questions about where the $22 billion in recovery dollars needed is coming from. Spoiler, no one knows.

The County Is Failing The Rebuild Too

If all of that were not enough, the County is now actively failing the rebuild itself. And not in isolated ways. 500 days later, there is still no coherent vision for rebuilding Altadena responsibly, safely, equitably, or sustainably. And there is no plan for how to address our already antiquated and woefully insufficient infrastructure in light of the coming densification with larger homes plus ADUs on nearly every rebuilt property.

Instead, what we are watching unfold is a chaotic free for all with no meaningful plans or oversight, next to no enforcement, and a total lack of accountability. It’s often described as the Wild West up here and the shoe fits.

Our Community Standards District (CSD) – one of the few mechanisms we had to preserve some semblance of community character and planning consistency – has effectively been made into roadkill. Residents begged for temporary suspension or modification of SB9 during the rebuild so that overdevelopment would not permanently reshape a fire-ravaged community during its most vulnerable moment.

Despite the fact that Barger could use Governor Newsom’s Executive Order to suspect SB9 for our rebuild here anytime (as was done for the Palisades) those pleas have gone nowhere as it becomes more and more clear the County’s only priority is raising the parcel tax to line its coffers.

Meanwhile, code enforcement and inspection capacity has become almost non-existent. There are reportedly only five inspectors overseeing one of the largest urban wildfire rebuilds in California history. They are overwhelmed. And insiders continue to report they are being pressured to move projects through quickly and cut corners wherever possible.

The result is predictable. Plans being passed riddled with errors. Code violations being missed entirely. Improper grading and lack of soil compaction for new foundations. Improper setbacks. Questionable unpermitted retaining walls. Construction happening out of sequence. Major issues slipping through plan check and inspection.

And when neighbors raise concerns, the county increasingly responds by calling it a “civil matter.” That phrase has become shorthand for, “We are not going to govern.”

Instead, residents are being told they will have to sue one another in court to resolve issues the county should have prevented in the first place through competent planning, inspection, and enforcement. It is actively pitting neighbor against neighbor.

And it raises an obvious question. What exactly is the County’s role here? Because right now many residents are asking themselves, What are we paying property taxes for?

We did not receive a functioning emergency response. We did not receive a competent disaster recovery. We did not receive meaningful environmental remediation. And now we are not even receiving a properly governed rebuild process. So what exactly is this system delivering besides bureaucracy without accountability?

At some point we have to be honest about what this actually is. This was not a “natural disaster.” There was nothing natural about it. The fire was ignited by a rogue utility. It was then allowed to become an urban catastrophe under the watch of an entirely unprepared and deeply dysfunctional County emergency response system. And now the same County governance structure that failed during the fire is failing during the rebuild.

This is not just disaster recovery failure. It is unnatural disaster governance failure.

Altadena Is Not The Exception

I continue to believe the deeper issue here is governance itself.

Unincorporated Los Angeles County is simply too large, too centralized, and too detached for meaningful local accountability in the modern era. Especially in an age of climate disasters, housing pressures, insurance collapse, infrastructure strain, and increasingly complex emergency response needs.

And this is why I continue advocating not just for Altadena’s incorporation, but for a broader rethinking of how California governs unincorporated communities altogether.

Ultimately, I don’t think Altadena is the only town that needs to incorporate.

I think communities like ours all across California should.

What we are experiencing is the inevitable failure point of an oversized County governance model trying to manage wildly different communities with vastly different needs from a centralized power structure that is too far removed from the people most impacted by its decisions.

The current system concentrates too much power in too few hands with too few checks and balances. For context, the LA County annual budget is $48.8 billion compared to LA City’s that is less than $15 billion. And after 500 days, it has become painfully obvious that communities like Altadena are expected to absorb the consequences while having almost no meaningful control over the systems governing them. That is not sustainable.

The future model I envision is one where towns like Altadena function more like states interacting with a (functional) federal government.

Local communities would maintain meaningful local governance, planning authority, emergency preparedness systems, rebuilding priorities, land use protections, direct accountability to residents, and their own budgets.

Meanwhile, the County would shift toward functioning more as regional infrastructure and support entity — coordinating large scale transportation, utilities, watershed management, funding administration, and regional services.

Communities closest to the problems should have the greatest authority to solve them. Not the least. Right now we have the opposite. The Eaton Fire exposed that this system no longer works, if it ever truly did.

Altadena is not the exception. It is the warning. We are the canary in the coal mine.

This is Not a Partisan Issue

This isn’t a matter of Democrats versus Republicans. This is about power, accountability, and whether communities retain any meaningful ability to shape their own future before the next disaster arrives.

I know there are people here from across many spectrums. I know some of us will disagree on plenty of things. But this should not be one of them.

Fire does not check party registration. Wind does not care who you voted for.
And failure at this scale does not belong to one ideology—it belongs to a system that has grown too comfortable avoiding consequences.

This is about competence. This is about leadership. This is about whether our government exists to protect people—or just itself.

– An excerpt from my speech at the “They Let Us Burn” speech in the Palisades on January 8, 2025

So Where Do We Go From Here?

Honestly, I don’t entirely know yet. Some days it’s hard to know where the fire ends and where we begin again. But I do know this. The last 500 days has forever changed us. Some of us lost homes. Some lost businesses. Some lost health. Some lost family. Some lost trust in institutions we once believed would protect us.

But many have also found purpose, community, courage, and clarity.

The Attorney General investigation gives me some hope. Not because investigations alone solve anything, but because accountability is at least the beginning of change.

And if there is one thing the last 500 days have made painfully clear, it is that the status quo is unacceptable. We can either continue pretending this system works while the disasters after the disaster continue to unfold, or we can demand something fundamentally better.

Not more performative policy. Not PR spin. Not more task forces. Actual structural change. Next time it won’t be Altadena. Next time it will be your town and you deserve better than this too.

The Most Altadena Thing of All

Recently, someone began transforming the illegal contractor signage littering our public rights-of-way into giant cardboard poppies. The same junk signs the County has largely refused to meaningfully address. The same signage residents have complained about for months while being told enforcement has effectively been “relaxed” because the county lacks the resources or political will to manage it during the rebuild.

Another visible sign of governance failure. Another burden shifted onto the community itself. And yet somehow, in true Altadena fashion, our people turned blight into art.

That feels symbolic of these last 500 days. The County creates chaos. The community tries to create meaning from it. Again and again and again.

But at some point, resilience cannot continue meaning “surviving institutional failure.” At some point, resilience must also mean demanding systems that actually function. Communities should not have to endlessly compensate for governments unwilling or unable to do their jobs. That is ultimately what this fight has become about. Not just recovery or accountability or even just Altadena.

It’s whether ordinary people still possess the ability to shape the future of the places they love before those places are permanently reshaped for them.

If we want to keep Altadena wild and feral and weird, incorporation is our only path back.

A Podcast Note

One final note. Steve and I will be taking a short hiatus from “After the Ashes” while we are both traveling, but we’ll be back in mid-June with a lot to discuss. And there is no shortage of things to discuss.

Until then, if you haven’t caught up yet, now’s the perfect time. We’re currently up to Season 2, Episode 16 with forty episodes published. The archive tells the story of this recovery in real time. And as we like to say, we have receipts.

Five hundred days later, the story is still unfolding. And unfortunately, so is the disaster.

Another Media Roundup and we hate to say it, but we told you so.

Everything we warned is now playing out in real time. Steve breaks down the latest in his SRP CRD “Frankenstein” is Alive, and how the policies we flagged have materialized with consequences. The State Farm investigation, fine, and license questions and ask the obvious: who actually benefits? (Hint: not fire survivors.) See Shawna’s breakdown on the Beautiful Altadena Substack, along with her recently published guide on how to dodge bad contractors. 

A Tragic Death & the NPO Money Trail

News out of the Palisades following the tragic death of Larry Vein, founder of Pali Strong, and the controversy over a $500K FireAid grant he reportedly hadn’t asked for and was trying to return. One of the most uncomfortable but necessary conversations remains where is the money is actually going? We examine the fiscal sponsorship model and how funds are skimmed at multiple levels. Steve breaks down “laundering appropriations” and “supply funds,” and how similar dynamics are playing out in disaster recovery. Year two is often the hardest for disaster survivors and we are in it. Check in with yourself and each other. Don't forget 988 is there for anyone who needs support. No one needs to suffer in silence. 

County vs Community

We dive into the growing disconnect between what the County’s top-down system wants and what the community is actually asking for — a gap that’s coming to a head. We’re seeing it everywhere:

 • Pushback on car wash and storage projects
• PUSD plans to demolish the historic Eliot campus, sparking petitions (and why petitions alone won’t cut it — calls and emails do)
• Ongoing SB9 fallout, lot splits, McMansion creep, and projects like Punahou
• Continued chaos around SCE undergrounding, with residents on Alzada organizing for answers

There’s still no economic development plan and where is the West San Gabriel Valley Plan? Before the next wave of funding hits, it’s time for the Altadena Town Council and community leaders to come together for a Hail Mary, to take charge of directing this rebuild ourselves. If we don’t, the same systems that got us here will decide for us what comes next.

Small Biz Shout-Out

Steve's ode to the dive bar and why we need the Rancho. Netflix Is a Joke bringing live comedy to Eagles Hall this week raising funds and giving fire survivors a much needed laugh. Check out the Rebuilding the Block market nightly from 6–8pm and grab a slice from BLK CRUST Pizza who used to pop up at the Rancho. 

This episode was recorded on Thursday, May 7. 

Thousands of Altadena families in unincorporated Los Angeles County are facing ground-up rebuilds, major remediation, grading, retaining walls, soil replacement, utility work, and a hundred other expensive decisions. Some excellent local contractors are doing honest, quality work, and many of them are working around the clock. But there simply aren’t enough of them, and that gap has created a real opening for out-of-area contractors, opportunists, and in some cases outright bad actors.

Everything below has come up in our neighbors-only group. These aren’t hypothetical concerns. We’re seeing bad contracts, unlicensed work, poor workmanship, permit problems, soil dumping, trespassing, and neighbors who already need legal representation. The elders in our community are especially vulnerable.

If Los Angeles County won’t adequately protect homeowners during this rebuild, we need to know how to protect ourselves and each other.

Start With the License — But Don’t Stop There

The first thing you want to do with anyone you’re considering hiring is check their license through the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB). A license alone isn’t enough.

You need to verify:

• The license is active and in good standing

• The classification matches the work being done

• Bonding is current

• Insurance is current

• Workers’ compensation is current

• There are no open disciplinary actions

• Past complaints, lawsuits, or enforcement actions don’t show a pattern

• All subcontractors are licensed for their specific trade and carry their own workers’ compensation coverage

Don’t skip the subcontractors. Ask whether the contractor uses their own employees or subcontractors, and verify that all subs are also licensed for their trade. A fully licensed GC can still run crews without proper workers’ compensation coverage — and if someone is injured on your property under those circumstances, you may bear liability. Request certificates of insurance from subcontractors, not just your GC.

License Classification Matters

• B — General Building Contractor: required for new home construction and major structural projects

• B-2 — Remodeling Contractor: not licensed to manage a full ground-up rebuild

• Specialty licenses (electrical, plumbing, concrete, roofing) cover only those specific trades
  

Don’t assume someone can legally build your home just because they have a license. Verify the contractor license type (there are many) and the exact scope allowed under their classification directly with CSLB.

Dig into the Name Behind the Name

Online reviews matter, but they’re only the start. Check:

• Google and Yelp reviews

• Business filings

• Civil court records

• News mentions

• What neighbors in our group are saying, both referrals and warnings

• Whether they previously operated under a different company name
  

We’ve seen neighbors hire companies with glowing reviews, only to find out the same people had run another company under a different name, with terrible reviews and unresolved complaints. If a company has rebranded, find out why.

Demand Proof of Real Past Work

Anyone can show you glossy renderings or photos from the week a project finished. The real test is how work holds up years later. Ask to see:

• Completed rebuilds or major projects you can visit in person

• Homes that are several years old, not just finished

• Past client references you can actually call or meet

• Projects similar in size and complexity to yours
  

Then go look. Talk to former clients. Ask what went wrong, not just what went right. No human references, no real projects to visit — that’s a major red flag.

The “Owner-Builder” Trap

This one keeps coming up in our group. Contractors — or people posing as general contractors — push homeowners to pull permits as owner-builders. They’ll say it’s faster, easier, more efficient. It’s not. When you pull an owner-builder permit, you take on the responsibility that a licensed GC would otherwise carry:

• Managing subcontractors

• Site safety obligations

• Insurance exposure

• Workers’ compensation risk

• Code compliance responsibility

• Liability when something goes wrong
  

This gets worse if unlicensed or uninsured workers are on site. As the permit holder, you may be treated as their employer of record. A worksite injury can become personal liability.

Don’t agree to owner-builder status unless you are qualified to project manage and fully understand the legal and financial responsibilities you’re signing up for.

Illegal Contractor Signage Say It All

Illegal signage is common all over Altadena right now. Some contractors pull it down when told. Others treat the fines as a cost of doing business. And rather than enforce the rules (which clearly state nothing larger than 6 square feet, no vinyl banners, no signage in easements or on public property, and no signs unless there is active construction) Los Angeles County decided recently to relax them because they couldn’t keep up. The result is more illegal signage, more clutter and more trash. A neighborhood that’s already been through enough getting treated like a free-for-all.

The county’s job is to protect residents from bad actors, especially in a disaster zone where they’re moving in fast. Relaxing the rules does the opposite. And too many contractors out here are taking advantage.

That tells you something about how they handle rules and codes, neighbors, and accountability in general. If someone disregards basic laws in public, ask yourself how they behave when no one’s looking.

Subscribe now

What to Know About Contracts & Money

• California law caps contractor down payments at 10% or $1,000, whichever is less

• Tie progress payments to verified milestones and passed inspections, not calendar dates or contractor requests

• Never release payment for a phase until the relevant county inspection has passed. A contractor who pressures you to pay before sign-off is a red flag

• If your GC doesn’t pay their subs, those subs can lien your property. Demand conditional lien releases from your GC and all subcontractors at each payment milestone, and unconditional releases at project completion

• Ask for bids broken down in CSI MasterFormat — the industry-standard structure organizing work by division: site work, concrete, framing, mechanical, electrical, and so on. Itemized estimates let you compare bids on equal footing and spot where scope is missing. A low bid usually means something was left out, not that someone found a better deal

• Watch for contract red flags: vague scope, no completion date, mandatory arbitration clauses, excessive deposits or fee schedules

• Require written change orders for every scope change, no matter how minor. Verbal agreements about added work, substituted materials, or schedule shifts are nearly impossible to enforce. If it isn’t in writing and signed before work starts, it didn’t happen

  ---

  The Cheapest Bid is Often the Most Expensive
  

  Hiring the wrong contractor isn’t just about crooked walls or bad finishes. The real costs often shows up later:
  

  • Foundation movement

  • Permit and code violations

  • Delayed certificate of occupancy

  • Costly litigation

  • Reduced resale value

  • Trouble getting or renewing insurance
    

  The cheapest bid can become the most expensive decision of the entire rebuild.

  ---

  Keep Your Own Records
  

  • Keep a construction log with dates, who was on site, what happened

  • Photograph and get video of every phase before it gets covered — soil import, soil compaction, foundation, framing, rough-in

  • Know what your options are if you discover a problem mid-construction versus after completion. The answers are different, and the window to act can close fast

The Inspection Crisis

Los Angeles County failed to warn Altadena residents when the fire started. It failed to stop the fire from burning our town unchecked for days. Now that same county, understaffed and overwhelmed, is responsible for inspecting and approving every step of our rebuild. And residents are already reporting what you’d expect: critical work moving forward with too little oversight, including blatant code violations that are passing multiple checks and inspections, especially with the loophole of “self-certification”.

That includes compaction, grading, foundation readiness, drainage, retaining walls, survey and setback compliance, and code compliance generally. If proper soil testing doesn’t happen before concrete is poured, problems may not surface until settlement, cracking, or seismic activity forces them into view.

We aren’t just experiencing this, we are hearing it from inside the system itself. In off-the-record conversations, a senior county inspectors describe an environment unlike anything they have seen in their careers. An unspoken expectation to be lenient and let things move forward, even when they might not otherwise pass. He was blunt that the county is woefully understaffed, and that the current pace and scale of approvals will leave behind years of issues to sort through. This reinforces a difficult reality. You cannot assume the system is catching what it is supposed to catch.

“Passed” does not mean protected. You need to verify that work is actually being done correctly and to code. If you don’t feel equipped to do that yourself, consider hiring an owner’s representative, construction manager, or independent inspector to watch out for you.

Plans & Builds Are Getting Approved That Shouldn’t

Another recurring issue we’re hearing: code-noncompliant plans and construction are getting approved, and homeowners find out after the fact.

Raise it with Los Angeles County and the answer too often is – it’s a civil matter.

That leaves homeowners stuck between contractors, designers, neighbors, attorneys, and bureaucracy, while the agencies that are supposed to manage this process and catch these problems absolve themselves of responsibility. This isn’t just about one property. It’s a county system that cannot manage a disaster rebuild at this scale, and that was already struggling to manage basic governance before the fire.

Share Beautiful Altadena

Dirt Work, Dumping & Contaminated Soil

This is another issue that deserves serious attention. We keep hearing about lots being developed without proper secondary debris removal and clearing. If you want to ensure your site is safe for the long haul, you can follow the EPA’s more stringent recommendations* that include:

• 6” scrape of your entire property, lot line to lot line

• 2’ (or more) cap of clean material

Other issues that continue to be raised include:

• Illegal dumping on vacant lots

• Unverified fill dirt being imported

• Fire contaminated material moving from one property to another

• Contaminated soil hidden under clean fill and buried under new foundations
  

If soil leaves your property, ask for:

• Trucking receipts

• Disposal tickets

• Destination records
  

If soil is brought onto your property, ask for:

• Source or supplier information

• Clean fill certification

• Soil testing and a report from a geo firm
  

If material is being used for structural or flat work, ask for:

• Compaction records from a geo firm

• Geo records that include a moisture and density report to ensure proper compaction occurred before you begin over x, compaction and construction
  

Using someone you know you can trust for this work is critical and you can’t assume your contractor has it handled or is it doing it the right way because many are not since no one knows better. Import and export quantities should be clearly outlined in any proposal or contract for dirt work and you need to know where it came from and where it’s going. You’re paying for this. You have every right to expect proper documentation.

* It’s worth noting that past fire cleanups in our state, as recently as the Woolsey Fire in 2018, the Army Corps of Engineers’ cleanup included a 6” lot line to lot line scrape, post remediation soil testing, and additional remediation as needed. Our community got none of that and are now left holding the bag. Act accordingly.

Protect Your Lot

Ongoing reports include trespassing, theft, property damage, boundary disputes, encroachments, and confusion around recently sold or absentee-owned lots. If your lot is vacant, consider:

• A professional survey properly recorded with the county

• Temporary fencing

• No trespassing signage

• Lighting and cameras

• Regular photo documentation

• Frequent site checks
  

Don’t wait until something happens. In a years-long rebuild environment, proactive protection matters. No power or wifi? No problem. Neighbors are using solar powered trail cameras that would work incredibly well on the hill.

Look Out for Your Elder Neighbors

Older residents are carrying a lot right now: insurance claims, grief, displacement, decisions about whether to rebuild at all, and contractors who recognize a vulnerable homeowner when they see one.

Predatory tactics are real. High-pressure visits. Contracts signed under stress. Bids accepted without comparison. Demands for illegal deposits. It is happening here.

If you have elder neighbors, don’t just check in. Actually help. Sit with them through contractor meetings. Look over bids together. Verify a license before they sign anything. A second set of eyes costs nothing and can prevent a disaster inside a disaster.

There are extra penalties for contractors doing anything illegal when a person is 65+. If you believe an elder neighbor is being financially exploited, Adult Protective Services, the CSLB and the DA’s office are real options. You don’t have to be certain. A call is enough.

Where the Rebuild Actually Stands

There’s visible activity, especially now that county has allowed construction to expand to seven days a week, and you can follow the progress daily on the county dashboard. But the reality is:

• The majority of parcels haven’t started

• Many owners are stuck in insurance disputes

• Many can’t afford to rebuild and are dependent on a lawsuit settlement

• Many are waiting on plans, permits, financing, or a decision about whether they will stay at all

• Many with approved permits aren’t actually building for a multitude of reasons
  

Seven to ten years. That’s the estimate, and it doesn’t feel wrong. For the thousands of residents who never left, or who came back because they had nowhere else to go, that’s not an abstract timeline. It’s their daily life right now.

Renters who couldn’t afford to move. Homeowners whose standing structures were too damaged to sell and too uncertain to leave. People who simply refused to abandon the community they’ve spent their lives building. They’re living inside a construction zone. The dust, the traffic, watching their town change block by block, carrying grief and uncertainty with no end date in sight. We’ve said it before and we’ll keep saying it – it’s a crisis of its own, and it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

These neighbors are owed the same consideration we give to rebuilding families. Clean and safe construction practices. Dust mitigation. Respect for hours and noise limits. Respectful contractors and crews who don’t treat our lots and occupied streets like an open job site. And a community that doesn’t forget them in the conversation about what we’re all rebuilding for.

What We Owe Each Other

We lost our homes, our businesses, our trees, our culture, our history, and our neighbors. We didn’t lose each other.

The county failed to protect us when it mattered most. No warnings. A fire that burned unchecked for days. At least nineteen neighbors who died in their homes. We have demanded accountability for that and we will keep demanding it. That same standard applies to what comes next. The rebuild is not a fresh start for the institutions that failed us. It’s another test. And a test that so far, they are failing.

Everyone in this process needs to understand what’s at stake. Rebuilding Altadena means rebuilding it right. Honest contracts. Legal work. Clean sites. Respect for neighbors and the community. Accountability when things go wrong. Protection for elders. Enforcement of our codes and our CSD (Community Standards District). Government that actually does the job we pay it to do.

And just as importantly, if you are rebuilding something different than what previously existed—whether that’s a larger footprint, a second story, or adding an ADU—you owe your immediate neighbors a proactive, upfront conversation about what’s coming. We are hearing too many stories of people being completely blindsided by new construction going up right against property lines that was never there before, blocking views and eliminating privacy. By the time they realize what’s happening, it’s too late for them to adjust their own plans, protect light and privacy, or even ask basic questions. Communication is not just courteous, it’s part of being a good neighbor in a community that is healing from trauma and rebuilding together.

Right now, too much of the burden has fallen on residents. That’s not how disaster recovery should work. Until it does, we keep doing what we’ve been doing since January 8, 2025. We stay on it, we look out for each other, and we don’t back down.

Protecting Altadena is part of rebuilding Altadena. Stay strong, neighbors.

BA Office Hours

In case you missed it, we are hosting weekly “Office Hours” on Wednesdays from 11am to 1pm at coffee shops in Altadena. The most radical act of resistance is community. Bring your questions, your stories, and meet your neighbors. All are welcome.

• Los Angeles Times: Anger over Southern California Edison’s undergrounding work in Altadena boiled over as residents called for a temp halt to the project
• CalMatters: Californians continue paying some of the highest taxes in the nation, but for what?
• “Gavin Newsom’s Empire of Fraud” City Journal report and broader questions about leadership and spending in California
• LAist: California still hasn’t signed the Olympics bailout promise so where is Gavin? Has he quiet quit his job?
• LA County’s proposed $48.8B budget and the context of LA City $14.85B and the State $348.9B
• Edgar McGregor on County’s March 25 meeting on Eaton Canyon
• Multiple outlets report on federal investigations involving dead and missing scientists tied to Caltech and JPL 

And zoom out to the national picture: rising debt, extreme wealth concentration, billionaires becoming richer while ordinary people carry the burden, and the growing sense that we are watching history unfold in real time as class tensions rise.

Legislation Watch

There is a lot moving. We break down key bills. 

• AB 1642: science-based clearance before occupancy standards for standing structures, schools, and commercial areas (passed first committee)
• AB 1759: well-intended but flawed legislation that risks reinforcing bad policy
• SB 1076: insurance coverage for homes meeting wildfire standards (killed in committee)
• SB 1301: stronger protections against surprise non-renewals (headed to appropriations)
• SB 877 / SB 878: more transparency, delay penalties, and consumer protections (advanced, long odds)
• SB 982: climate damages bill allowing AG action against fossil fuel companies (failed)
• Congressman Vince Fong’s fire tax relief extension act
• LA County’s new Commercial Acquisition Fund
• Barger backing $9.9M and 44 new OEM hires — still too little, but why now?

Zone 0 & Land Use Convos

We cover new Zone 0 updates and the bigger land use questions shaping Altadena’s future. Shout-out to neighbor and listener Rich Rieber for hosting fire hardening workshops for La Crescenta neighbors. Spotlight major Altadena Land Use Committee conversations and invite members to join us on the podcast. Plus, SCE’s new rebuild hub on N. Fair Oaks

Projects discussed:

• Proposed Car Wash – 2185 Lincoln Ave
• Mobil Redevelopment + Car Wash – 15 W. Woodbury Rd
• Affordable Housing – 2214 Windsor Ave
• CORE Community Center – Lincoln Ave & Archwood

Small Biz Shout-Out

This weekend is Webster’s Centennial Celebration happening Saturday 4/25, 12–4pm featuring Rhythms of the Village, live music, artists, pet adoptions, kids’ activities, local food, and even 26-cent drinks. 

This episode was recoded on April 23.

• La Movida del Agua! Altadena Water Wars is back and talking consolidation
• Mayoral race: Raman making moves, Pratt surging?, and what the latest dynamics may mean
• Governor’s race: Swalwell’s campaign ending stumble, Mahan blowing his moment, Trump endorsing Hilton, and a rapidly shifting field; Antonio and Katie making labor moves, and with Swalwell out, signs that Democrats are consolidating around Becerra but can he win?
 • Politico’s takedown of the Altadena recovery efforts and broader questions about leadership
• Politico and the Los Angeles Times both acknowledging progress is slow, while Barger continues pointing to a lack of money
• The New York Post claiming “Thousands of Permits Approved After Trump EO” and our reaction: say what now?

Where’s the Money?

We spend time breaking down the alphabet soup of recovery funding and what these tools actually mean. CDBG, TIF, DRF, CRA. 

What money exists, what money is being pursued, what money is being left on the table, and why so many leaders still seem committed to playing small ball.

We also look at the increasingly strange political reality of Barger, Bass, and… Trump? as banks begin circling the rebuild conversation in a much bigger way.

What’s Happening on the West Side

Steve walks us through developments in the Palisades and beyond, including Lindsey Horvath’s Rebuild Authority push; the latest on CRD (our take: not happening); Jeremy Padawer’s Palisades crusade; and the billions in sales tax revenue the state stands to make from the rebuild

Small Biz Shout-Outs

This week’s shout-out goes to Bar Betsy, which just opened last week two doors down from Betsy on Mariposa. An all-day concept with great pastries, brunch, lunch, girl dinner, amazing coffee, and the natural wine program you already know and love from Betsy.

We’re also shouting out June Bug Tattoo, a displaced Altadena business now located at 4315 Eagle Rock Blvd — a women-owned collective worth supporting.

And a reminder: Beautiful Altadena Office Hours continue weekly on Wednesdays from 11am to 1pm. Check our @BeautifulAltadena Instagram or Facebook group for the latest schedule and locations.

This episode was recorded on April 23, 2026. 

The Races Ahead

We dive into the Governor’s race, including a look at Matt Mahan’s visit to Altadena and why he missed the moment. We break down his platform, who we think is actually positioned to win, what candidates are getting wrong, and what they would need to do to get it right.

We also touch on the Los Angeles Mayor’s race, where Steve believes Karen Bass still has the advantage, and the growing question of who may emerge to lead the County as the next CEO.

Legislation Watch

We run through key bills and policy efforts now in play:

• HR 5366 – Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2025, seeking to extend tax relief for survivors, thanks in large part to fire survivor advocates from Paradise's Camp Fire continuing to fight for all of us
• John Harabedian’s hearing on extending the Mortgage Forbearance Relief Act
• AB 1642, from John Harabedian and EFRU (Eaton Fire Residents United), focused on wildfire contamination standards for standing structures including homes, schools and commercial structures
• SB 1352, Prang’s property tax legislation, and what it could mean moving forward

Rebuild Reality

We revisit the County rebuild dashboard and the broader affordability crisis staring survivors in the face. Between Insurance battles, taxes, debt taken on to rebuild and rising costs everywhere, how are ordinary families supposed to afford to remain here after all of this?

We also share a little fire survivor humor from the community, including the surreal experience of browsing Zillow listings for burned lots with marketing copy like “Old Fence Poles!” You can't make this stuff up, folks. Sometimes you laugh because the alternative is screaming.

Small Biz Shout-Outs

This week we’re encouraging everyone to shop local for Spring, Easter, and Passover at Adelaide, Carciofi and Altadena Beverage / Zinnie’s Table

Plus, Some Weekend Events

• Sierra Madre Wisteria Festival — featuring Altadena favorites Kat’s Macarons and Cleo’s Critter Care
(March 28, 12pm–5pm)

• Electric Fever at Eagles Hall
 (Saturday, March 28 at 7pm)

• No Kings Rally at Altadena Community Church
 (10:30am–12pm)

This episode was recorded on March 26. 

We also tackle the latest funding twist: CDBG-DR money is on hold, adding more uncertainty to an already slow and uneven rebuilding process.

One thing feels undeniable: we are living history right now — on multiple levels.

Media Roundup

The whistleblowers are coming out.

We dig into major new reporting from LAist and the Los Angeles Times, including revelations that raise even more questions about the official response to the Eaton Fire.

Stories discussed include:

• A county employee allegedly with “a long history of sleeping on the job” was overseeing emergency workers sending evacuation alerts during critical moments of the fire, according to a whistleblower complaint filed by Nick Vaquero of the County Office of Emergency Management.
 • New reporting that officials considered warning Altadena earlier — but chose not to because the situation was not yet considered “life threatening.”
 • A look back at the Los Angeles Times’ comprehensive fire coverage hub, which collects key reporting on the fires and aftermath in one place.
• Why these stories matter, what they reveal about decision-making, and why public trust continues to erode.

Power, Policy & Ongoing Chaos

We also touch on:

• Edison executive pay and record profits, now drawing scrutiny across multiple outlets
• Insurance back in the spotlight
• The return of Zone 0 debates even as many pockets of Altadena were clearly helped by mature trees, not harmed by them
• Prang’s SB 1352 Legislation
• La Viña HOA drama and new tensions at the Country Club
• LA County’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the virtual kickoff meeting on April 8

On the Ground in Altadena

We talk about driving around Altadena and the unsettling feeling that history is being written in real time and not always for the better.

Meanwhile:
 • Dirty soil concerns continue
 • Code enforcement appears absent in the rebuild
 • And according to the County, nearly everything is now a “civil matter”

We also discuss the County’s shiny new Altadena Road to Recovery StoryMaps.ArcGIS rollout — a polished PR exercise that often feels disconnected from the reality many residents are experiencing on the ground.

Small Business Shout-Out

This week’s shout-out goes to the Altadena Library Goes Mobile initiative with the Curiosity Connection, helping bring library services directly into the community while the main branch rebuild moves forward.

And a reminder: Beautiful Altadena Office Hours continue every Wednesday from 11am–1pm at a rotating Altadena coffee shop near you.

This episode was recorded on March 26. 

With Steve back in Washington, DC, reporting on the drama, the intrigue, and full-on mishegas, we dive into another important conversation: The difference between EDA and CDBG-DR funding models, and why what happens in Altadena could shape disaster recovery policy nationwide for years to come. 

We revisit a lingering question that refuses to go away. Why is there still no economic development plan for Altadena and why does the County seem uninterested in creating one?

National Attention & Relevance. Has the national news cycle already moved on. We’re seeing major stories — even ones tied to national issues — getting passed over because there’s simply too much else happening. So what now? How do we keep Altadena’s story visible and relevant beyond our own echo chamber?

Politics & Accountability. We take another look at the Governor’s race, including:
• Gavin Newsom’s alignment with Karen Bass
• Bass' own polling that positions Spencer Pratt as her leading challenger
• And the question of who else is actually viable in this field

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s investigation is actively underway, with residents reporting outreach from the AG’s office requesting interviews about their experiences the night of the fire. A clear sign that this process is moving forward in a meaningful way. 

A Community. Shawna shares a reminder to stay connected through Beautiful Altadena's Stories where daily coverage includes community news, events, citizen journalism, resources, classes, grants, financial updates, local business updates, some humor, and more. You can follow along on both our public Facebook page and Instagram. We post literally hundreds of items every week! 

This week’s Small Business Shout Out goes to Sidecca, where you can find Shawna’s vintage 70s style Altadena shirt many have asked about. While their storefront has not yet reopened following flood damage after the fire, they continue to operate through pop-ups and online and are well worth supporting. More on their website and follow them on Instagram for the latest. 

With Steve in Washington, DC, we start with updates from the ground there, including the ongoing EDA push and Barger’s Rebuild Authority motion, and what those efforts signal about how recovery decisions are being shaped at both the local and federal level.

We also revisit the Governor’s race, Rick Caruso’s Steadfast LA, what’s currently unfolding in the Palisades, and how those dynamics may (or may not) translate to Altadena.

On Federal Funding & Control. We ask the big question. How will federal funding actually be implemented in Altadena? Can the County realistically serve as the manager of those funds after everything that’s happened, especially now, with new scrutiny following the Attorney General’s investigation? Do we need County and State oversight of federal dollars, or is there another path forward that doesn’t rely on the same systems that have already raised serious concerns?

Policy & Ongoing Issues. We get back into: 

 • More on Zone 0, and the practical reality of requiring a 5' defensible buffer around homes when many properties don’t even have 5' easements
• The word on the street Altadena Water Wars may be making a return. Are they, aren't they? We’ll believe it when we see it

A community reminder from Shawna that Beautiful Altadena Office Hours are happening weekly on Wednesdays from 11am–1pm at rotating local coffee shops. Bring your questions, your stories, your resources, and be with your people. 

This episode’s Small Business Shout Out goes to Parker and Hardy Californians— a local native plant specialist supporting Altadena’s recovery through soil bioremediation, specialty seed mixes, and now a full suite of native garden landscaping plans designed to complement a range of home styles. Learn more on their website and follow them on Instagram @hardycalifornians. 

In the Media Roundup, we dig into the latest headlines and the ongoing fight for attention: 

• With Pacific Palisades in spotlight, Altadena fights for attention and post-fire justice
• The Mayor’s cover-up narrative
• Fired Fire Chief Kristin Crowley suing the City of Los Angeles

And we discuss media objectivity vs. clickbait and how quickly the national news cycle has moved on, even as the crisis here continues

Policy, Power & Ongoing Chaos

Steve weighs in on the EDA and the broader financial landscape, noting that LAUSD’s budget exceeds that of the City of Los Angeles, yet both are effectively “out of money.” Our take on the throughline is plenty of money, no controls — and everyone asking for more.

We also touch on:
 • The Governor’s race and shifting political dynamics
• More State Farm issues and insurers continuing to dodge responsibility
• Ongoing Zone 0 confusion and policy noise
• SCE removing some of Altadena’s remaining trees during undergrounding efforts, with what appears to be little to no County oversight
• Kathryn Barger’s Rebuild Authority motion
• And in the Water Wars, Las Flores passes a fire recovery surcharge without notice or shareholder vote following January’s contentious meeting

Shawna comments on the importance of community and creating relationships despite our differences and how, for many, this fire has been super glue holding people together in unexpected ways and shares the launch of Beautiful Altadena Office Hours, now happening weekly on Wednesdays from 11am–1pm at rotating local coffee shops including Unincorporated Coffee, Highlight Coffee and Altadena owned Lavender & Honey. 

This episode’s Small Business Shout-Out goes to Bevel Coffee, celebrating the grand opening of their new brick-and-mortar on Allen. Also happening on Saturday 2/28: 

• Altadena Library Groundbreaking 
• Hands in the Soil, Through the Fire Procession at Loma Alta Park

Editor’s Note

Starting with this episode, we’ve shifted our recording setup and are now remote and on the road instead of in-studio. It was a heavy month of travel, sickness, and life, which is why episodes have gone up later than usual. The podcast is not going anywhere and we fully intend to get back to a more timely cadence! 

We open with the rapid rise and even faster disappearance of the anonymously penned Altadena Water Wars Substack by “JJ Gittes.” It vanished almost as quickly as it appeared but we kept receipts. Shawna pulled the full archive and reposted every word under a dedicated Altadena Water Wars tab.

We dig into the escalating chaos surrounding Altadena’s three mutual water companies:

• Las Flores Water Company drew record attendance at its January 22 meeting where residents pushed back on a proposed $3k fire charge just to remain solvent, with no clear financing or long-term infrastructure plan.
• Rubio Cañon held its packed February 3 meeting requesting a rate hike and fire charge in perpetuity, a proposal that would cost customers more than Las Flores’. Tensions ran high with shareholders openly discussing board recalls.
 • Lincoln Water Company meets February 5. They’ve gone on the defensive warning shareholders to get info only from them and restricting attendance echoing Rubio’s response after media showed up at Las Flores.

All three mutuals were in Sacramento asking the state for funding despite claims their private status makes them ineligible for public dollars. Meanwhile, they’ve declined to pursue private capital. The question remains, why? Calls for consolidation continue and increasingly look like the only viable path forward, especially for Las Flores, which has the smallest service area, suffered the greatest losses, and was underinsured. Bottom line: shareholders have more power than they realize. Boards can be challenged. Votes can be forced.

Media Roundup

• Gavin Newsom’s national moment (The New Yorker, Vogue) and his new “centrist” positioning
• A strong LAist report on post-fire rent laws that exist on paper but aren’t being used
• A surprising moment of agreement with Rick Caruso
 

And an open invitation to all gubernatorial candidates. Come see us to see the real Altadena, not just what the establishment wants you to see

A rebuild check-in. 599 buildings under construction, 6 completed, and just four county inspectors overseeing nearly 9k rebuilds. Inspectors reportedly handling 20–30 inspections per day. Corners being cut. Things falling through the cracks. Why is nothing being done more than a year out?

Editor’s Note: Due to a tech glitch, a short portion of our density discussion is missing. Here’s context. On one stretch of Maiden Lane alone, pending water meter requests alone one lot proposed for 11 units, another for 8, and another for 4. Before accounting for ADUs which will be nearly universal. Where is the infrastructure plan to support this?

Small Biz Shout-Out

Goes to the Fraternal Order of Eagles Altadena Aerie, 455 E. Woodbury. A vital hub for community aid after the fire, home to the Beautiful Altadena mural by Austin Scott and one of the most authentic spaces left in town.

Note: This episode was recorded on February 3, 2026