Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) is, once again, shifting the conversation from the recent fires in Pacific Palisades to broader topics like climate change and insurance, yet he doesn’t address his administration’s part in the unfolding disaster.
This week, Newsom pointed out that California is “both blessed and cursed” regarding climate risks, emphasizing that the state is “at the forefront of climate change.” He discussed the simultaneous challenges of droughts and floods, stressing that “places that are hot are becoming even hotter” while “dry areas are getting drier.”
He referred specifically to the recent wildfire, saying, “In January, in the middle of winter in Los Angeles, we experienced one of the most destructive wildfires in U.S. history.” With winds reaching 160 mph, he noted that people’s primary concern is now how to insure their homes amidst the aftermath.
Newsom’s remarks have come under scrutiny as both victims and lawmakers challenge his leadership and accountability in light of the devastation. About 7,000 structures were lost, and 12 lives were claimed in the Pacific Palisades and Malibu regions. He has faced criticism from federal authorities, legal actions from displaced residents, and widespread discontent from those who felt his administration didn’t act decisively enough.
After the fire, Newsom seemed to deflect responsibility during visits to evacuation sites, suggesting that residents’ failure to evacuate was a significant concern. He remarked, “The fact that people haven’t yet evacuated and aren’t following warnings shows how crucial it is to heed evacuation orders.”
However, soon after, it became evident that residents were struggling with traffic congestion and inadequate planning. Roads were packed, limiting police presence because many officers were rerouted to secure President Biden’s visit to Los Angeles. Some people had no choice but to leave their cars behind and escape on foot. Firefighters even had to use a bulldozer to clear a road blocked by abandoned vehicles before the fires spread.
In response to a lawsuit from numerous residents claiming the state had neglected to monitor the burn scars from the earlier Lachman Fire, Newsom’s office described the plaintiffs as “opportunistic.” The governor maintained that “the state did not ignite this fire,” instead alleging that an individual, Jonathan Rinderknecht, was responsible and that his arrest would offer a sense of “closure.”
Yet, that response didn’t sit well with residents and their lawyers. They argued they had video evidence of a “smoke bomb” producing visible smoke before winds exacerbated the situation. Local attorney Alexander Robertson criticized the state, saying, “They simply failed in their duty,” and accused Newsom of avoiding responsibility.
Victims and advocates have also pushed back against the notion that the fire couldn’t have been prevented. Spencer Pratt, who lost his home, has been vocal about the state’s inadequate response. He argued that with basic precautions, the damage could have been minimized. Pratt specifically pointed out the failure to manage brush at Topanga State Park, where the fire reportedly reignited, and stressed that while federal land issues contributed to the disaster, Newsom should be held accountable for the state-controlled areas where it all began.
