The move comes after weeks of social media protest-a lot of it was aimed at claims that the bill was a vehicle for forcing housing with a low income in Pacific Palisades, one of the neighborhoods destroyed by the forest fires in January. None of the claims is true, the times reported.
Online speculation is said to have been pied after reality -TV personality Spencer Pratt – who lost his Palisades Home in the Fire – Tap videos That accused the account of Los Angeles County to grab land and to convert it into dense developments with a low income.
“I don’t even think this is political,” Pratt said in one video. “This is a common wood.”
Pratt said he had consulted an AI engine about the bill – of which he claimed he confirmed his fears. But the bill does not overwrite sole laws, forces dense housing or contains provisions on specific developments.
“It has become this total meme under the right -wing blogosphere and unfortunately picked up by some lazy journalists who do not bother to read the bill that say that this bill is trying to change the entire Palisades into a low income,” Allen told the Los Angeles Times. “People say I want to place a train line there. It’s insane.”
Much of the confusion seems to come from the legislative process. SB 549 was originally aimed at financing for housing with a low income. Allen changed it later to include language to set up the new Nature Brand Weeder Building Authority – a movement that is designed to achieve a strict deadline for the introduction of new legislation.
At the same time, California Gov. Gavin Newsom that the state would divert $ 101 million in existing low-income housing funds to Los Angeles priority to projects in the vicinity of burns that put aside units for survivors of fire.
This separate effort also does not transfer -laws at the zoning plans or forces any development.
“Let’s be clear: the state takes no one’s ownership away, sets a kind of mass re -use or destroys the quality and character of destroyed neighborhoods. Period,” Newsom said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. “Everyone who claims otherwise is incorrectly informed or deliberately lying. That is not only wrong – it is shameful.”
Yet distrust of residents continues to exist.
Pratt has sued the city and claims that civil servants have not maintained the infrastructure that is needed to fight the fire.
He said in a video: “We are a community affected by fire, not a policy sandbox. We do not support that the county will be a dominant landowner in the Palisades.”
All acknowledged that the bill had no consensus, especially about whether the new authority would apply to included areas such as the Palisades or only on non -recorded zones such as Altadena.
Mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass also opposed the bill and said that the city was not convinced of its effectiveness.
#California #Wildfire #Rebuilding #Bill #paused