Examples of the Future for Altadena
The WSJ carried a good story this morning about two cities and their rebuilds, worth considering but not necessarily indicative of what happens next.
This morning, there is a piece in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) describing the effects of two cities affected by major disasters, Panama City, FL and Paradise, CA. The take away is exactly what many in Altadena are concerned about- higher priced homes, gentrification, those who cannot afford to stay or rebuild moving away.
The push and pull of history is there for all to see. I would posit these are useful stories, but they are different than our experience however. We have looked at the issue differently.
The story uses examples of how it “used to be.” They could be “how it will be” if we are not careful and fall for the usual tools without community ownership and management. The tools they used got the results you see. However, while history rhymes, it does not need to repeat itself.
For starters, we do not have CDBG-DR money on the scale either of those communities got. Second, we have economic engines which differ than theirs, if properly leveraged (i.e. NASA, JPL, Los Angeles Metro area, et cetera). Another piece, is we can shape the community’s input from the outset because it will not be dictated by federal/state money and their distribution priorities, using the model in AB 797 and not things like SB 782 which reduces community input. While we have the opportunity to hamstring ourselves, we also have the opportunity to pursue visions unlike anything done before.
I quote the section about Altadena to illustrate the pieces to remember:
“Climate gentrification”—the idea that climate change and natural disasters drive lower-income people out and let higher-income people rebuild or move in—has become a popular research topic. One study of the Paradise Camp Fire earlier this year found that the more than $1 billion of federal aid aimed at recovery “facilitated displacement and gentrification by enabling socially advantaged previous and new residents to return and rebuild (emphasis added).”
A 2020 analysis of severe tornadoes in the U.S. over a 30-year period showed that in their aftermath, affected neighborhoods became more white and well-off. The authors of a 2008 study of major hurricanes argued that in their wake, cities become “recovery machines” where entrenched forces and outside aid focus on recovering property rather than helping people land on their feet.
The dynamic is currently playing out in Altadena, Calif., a neighborhood decimated by the January wildfires (emphasis added), and Florida’s western coast, which was battered by successive hurricanes last year.”
Climate gentrification…interesting term. Federal money. Who are advocating for those tools? I wonder what brings that? Climate Resiliency Districts? Hmmm….
Pretty much right there folks. It does not have to be. If you use the same tools, you get the same results. Perhaps it is time to think a little different. Our inputs are now different, so we should be able to get a different result. Let’s get outside the box. We have AB 797 and its tools. We have discussed models to rebuild housing for those who will not be able to afford to rebuild. We have tools in California which allow for ways to get there (i.e. California Dream for All expanded).
The rest of the story discussed the economic development and prosperity resulting from the disasters, which is not all bad either. How we capture the coming “wave” is up to us. You know where the ideas are.
Worth a read if you have a subscription and if not, still worth a read if there are sites/apps which can get you the story. You have the gist of it here. Ponder it. Remember what we are doing is different. Let’s write our own story so the media can say, “they certainly do things different up there.” The Palisades, well, they are on the trajectory listed in the story, and since they are not mentioned in it, likely are not concerned, well, until the effects are seen.