Above, I am providing a picture of Pacific Palisades, after the fire. A Letter to the Editor, in the January 20, 2025, edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, references the famous statement that has inspired my headline - "those who do not learn from history are condemmned to repeat it."
I have a thought - perhaps workable; perhaps not - about how it might be possible not to repeat history in the burned over areas in Pacific Palisades, and in Altadena, and in similar disaster-struck communities. First, though, before suggesting my idea, let me give you a look at that letter from the Chronicle. If you are a Chronicle subscriber, this link should get you to the original.
L.A. repeats mistakesLos Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has issued an executive order to “clear the way to rebuild homes as they were” and allows rebuilding “like for like.”
So, let me get this straight. Neighborhoods full of 90-year-old tinderboxes just burned to the ground and Los Angeles is fast-tracking recreating them as was.
Those who do not learn from history …
Ian Keay, San Francisco
The point that Ian Keay is making is a serious point. If many of the homes that burned down in Pacific Palisades (leaving behind what we see above) were, as Keay indicates, built ninety years ago, it should be obvious to everyone that things are "different" now. They are different in lots of different ways, too, and the existence and impact of continuing global warming is certainly one extremely relevant change. Isn't Keay on target in suggesting that we should actually be thinking about whether or not it makes sense simply to rebuild a new edition of what has just burned down? Individuals and families who lost their homes are definitely debating this question.
One thing that might well make sense would be to require that any replacement housing be constructed to a different standard. Shouldn't replacement housing be constructed to be as "fire safe" as we can design it to be? Permitting reconstruction to move ahead on a "like for like" standard, in other words, does quite likely lead to a future duplication of what has just happened in the immediate past.
I want to suggest something even more far-reaching. Considering the scope of the disaster that Los Angeles has just suffered (and the picture at the top shows us just a very small piece of of that disaster), wouldn't it make sense to try to "think outside the box"? Shouldn't we be willing at least to think about doing something different, post disaster, instead of simply doubling down on what was done in the past? That is the basic suggestion that Keay is making, the way I read his brief letter. It seems to me he's right.
So, here is an "outside the box" idea that I think local, state, and national officials should be thinking about - and that affected property owners, and insurance companies, and others should be thinking about, too.
Typically, and Keay's letter indictes that this is what the Mayor of Los Angeles is contemplating, the rebuilding of Pacific Palisades (and other similar disaster areas) is going to be considered as an exercise in letting every individual who lost their home rebuild an individual replacement home, right where the old one was, on a "like for like basis." Everyone acts "individually."
Instead of that "individualist" approach, wouldn't it quite possibly make more sense to take on rebuilding the whole area as a problem of "community redevelopment"? In other words, what if Pacific Palisades (and other disaster-struck areas) were rebuilt as a joint project, instead of expecting literally thousands of individual property owners to undertake reconstruction, one by one, on an individual basis?
This approach would allow a complete reenvisioning of the possibilities - and here's what I consider a key point. EVERY property owner whose home was destroyed would be made an economic partner in the rebuilding project. The rebuilding of the disaster area could be managed as a whole, and instead of reconstruction requiring the rebuilding a thousand or more individal homes, in just the format in which they were organized prior to the fire - with the typical cross-hatched, linear streets, one lot, and then another, and then another - the development could proceed as an integrated whole.
Higher density construction in some places within the overall area could mean public parks or comparable spaces could now be provided. Infrastructure costs could be reduced. The redeveloped property, as a whole, could well be more valuable than the individual homes, added up, were before the disaster. However, instead of driving away the property owners who can't afford to undertake individual rebuilding of their homes, and so are compelled to sell out to speculative "private equity" companies that buy at distressed prices, and then later sell back "high end," every property owner would be a shareholder in the overall development.
I am suggesting that this community fire disaster can best be responded to by a "community level" response, looking ahead towards rebuilding what has been lost, instead of by an uncoordinated response by literally thousands of those who have been individually caught up in this disaster. I don't say that this is absolutely the right way to rebuild. But I do say that this "community" approach to responding to the disaster is definitely worth thinking about.
We know the history. Are we "condemned" to repeat it?
We are not. We could do something new, maybe something never even thought of before. So, to comandeer a phrase I have used in other blog postings, and that I think is the essence of good government, let's "consider the alternatives."
Image Credit:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!