After the Ashes: A Beautiful Altadena Podcast

Episode 3: Financial Engines for Recovery – Understanding AB797 and SB782

• Shawna Dawson Beer

Share episode

In our last episode, we covered a high level view of the legislative landscape and promised to come back with a more in-depth discussion of two key pieces of legislation that represent different approaches to financing Altadena's recovery: Assembly Bill (AB) 797 by John Harabedian and Senate Bill 782 by Sasha Renee Perez. 
 
These aren't just policy differences – they're competing visions of how money should flow to fire-impacted communities. One gives us a new way of harnessing private investment to stabilize property values. The other creates public financing mechanisms for infrastructure rebuilding. Both could transform how California recovers from wildfire, but in very different ways. 

Both bills are currently on Gavin Newsom's desk. Let's break them down. 

We start this episode with Steve's personal fire story and wrap with a local small business shout out to a new brick and mortar flower and gift shop, Adelaide on N Fair Oaks across from Fair Oaks Burger, recently opened by another Altadena resident who is also a total loss fire survivor. 

SPEAKER_01:

Can see you now. Welcome back to After the Ashes, the podcast that breaks down legislation and recovery issues after the wildfire. I'm Kimberly and this is episode three, where we're going to talk about financial engines for recovery. But before we dive into the legislation, we'd like to take an opportunity to share a story from the fire. So Steve, I think you're up for today. And you actually didn't have a total loss.

SPEAKER_02:

No, no, but I'm very fortunate.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. So if you would just want to share something that maybe you felt was a loss or something that was really traumatic or just, you know, something you want to share about the fire?

SPEAKER_02:

Well, I mean, look, I've got three kids and we've got a nine-year-old and, you know, she's still very much affected by it. No, I mean, our story was we live close to Eaton Canyon. So when we got the phone call, we were out to dinner because the lights were out and there was no power and it was getting dark and there was nowhere to eat. So we went out, we got a phone call from a neighbor and said, um, where are you? And we said, well, we're, you know, we're down at Oba down and, uh, you know, almost by Blair high school. And they said, uh, you need to get home. We're like, well, what's going on? They Eden Canyon's on fire. We're like, I'm sorry, what? And so it was one of those moments where it's five 30 at night, six o'clock at night, you're driving up there. And as you get closer and closer, you saw the glow and you're like, oh, this is not good. And, you know, we were able to get out and we were the first wave, you You know, there was, I don't think there was any evacuation notice. We just basically just all left. I don't think the sheriffs came through until some of the stories was closer to midnight. And, you know, the next morning I woke, that night I went to bed. There was like, there was no, there was no way I thought we were going to have a home when we woke up the next morning. And we got up there and there was smoke. And I was told that the club had burnt. St. Mark's School had burnt where my daughter attended. My boys had graduated from and I was on the board and basically I got calls from my wife check on this house, check on this house, check on this house and I'm driving around as much as I can up there but as soon as you hit lake it was just a wall of smoke and it was very scary but I vowed that morning I said the only thing I know is politics and that's what I can do best and I vowed that I'm going to give what I have to the city and to Altadena because this is what I can bring and so from that morning I've been working as you probably all those of you that don't know I have the sub stack but trying to educate and trying to you know make sure that our interests are looked after in this very nebulous world that we're into and I knew this was going to be a definite change for our city and a lot of people and I just said this is what I can give back and so since that time, that's been what I've been trying to do. So that's my story and I'm sticking to it. So anyway.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, well, we really appreciate it. I mean, you have a lot to offer and you've been really generous with your time. So it's great to have you.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, thank you. And thank you for all those who actually spend time reading all my crazy. So, and those now listening.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. So, well, in our last episode, we covered kind of a high level view of the legislative landscape and we did promise to come back with a more in-depth discussion of two key pieces of legislation that represent different approaches to financing wildfire recovery and Altadena's recovery sort of specifically impacted by these. So we want to look at AB 797 and SB 782 and just sort of understand some of the, yeah, just how they're similar and different and how they're going to impact us. So yeah, I'll hand it over to either Shauna or Steve to get us started.

SPEAKER_00:

I'm just going to frame it a before Steve runs with it. Do your thing. Do you want to run with it? No, no. I can actually go back to my coffee right now.

SPEAKER_02:

No, no, you're good. You know, I think I've talked about these so

SPEAKER_00:

much. We have all spent time talking about these so much. And this is, to go back to our last couple of episodes, these two bills, in particular, Perez's 782, are what Serena Covarrubias and I were, and others were up in Sacramento recently when the assembly, when this was all on the assembly floor and hearing two bills. try and discuss and broach and have some sort of voice for Altadena because, you know, ultimately these aren't just about policy difference. They're competing visions of how money flows into places for recovery and anything that happens here because this is so significant, so substantial, so much money, so many billions of dollars is going to inform what fire recovery looks like elsewhere. We are going to create a template effectively for how this is done. And I think, and Steve, you'll get into it, but this effectively is two different financing mechanisms Right? Yeah. For how to

SPEAKER_02:

get the money. But they're not mutually exclusive.

SPEAKER_00:

Correct. But if it's, you know, not to minimize or oversimplify, but one brings private investment in.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

Yes. To try and stabilize our property values. Yes. And all these other fun things. Yes. Right? Yes. We've got to rebuild. And the other creates new public financing through new mechanisms that are, however, connected and administrated by the same mechanisms, in our case specifically, Right.

SPEAKER_02:

So, I mean, the way I would think about it is similar to what you're saying, Shawna. 797 is a little more decentralized. I think that's where you're going with this. Like, that is more, there's more control at the organizational level, whereas 782 is sort of the public-private relationship. you know, what do they call them? Like a joint powers authority type model where it's a county-driven initiative that is going to catalyze money coming from other sources. But I think where you're driving at is the difference between the two from the competing vision is how centralized does it need to be? Does it need to be government-centric? Or can we be a little bit more on the ground and have a little bit more flexibility? And that, I think, Yes, I think that's a great way to distinguish the two bills. However, it doesn't mean that they're mutually exclusive. I personally think there are things about 782 in particular that is more of the same and is very repetitive, and we'll get into some of the details about that. But again, both bills are going to be part of our recovery, and it's just important to understand some of these nuances for us as we're looking to implement so you understand how these tools can be used.

SPEAKER_00:

And for anyone who's just joining us today and perhaps didn't get a chance to catch the first two episodes, I want to reframe the fact that, you know, as Steve is saying, these are going to be the two mechanisms for recovery. The way we're saying, the reason we're saying these are going to be the two mechanisms is because they're not going to be exclusive. Correct. But they have effectively passed.

SPEAKER_02:

This is no longer a debate. 797 still has to clear the assembly. But yeah, the governor still has to sign 782. That has not happened. And, you know, 7 will also probably have to be signed by the government. Well, will have to be signed

SPEAKER_00:

by the government. Yes, but all signs point to both of these pushing through at this stage. So now it comes down to how they are administered and how and where Altadena has any kind of feedback or any kind of input into how this process looks for us and what happens next. Right, and I

SPEAKER_02:

think that that's important, right? Let's start with 782. And what 782 will do is it will create what's called a Climate Resilience District. And for those of you that don't understand, it's the EIFD, which is... Enhanced Infrastructure Financing

SPEAKER_01:

District. Economic, right? No, enhanced. Enhanced, that's right, correct.

SPEAKER_02:

So the EIFDs already exist, and that's why 782 was sort of interesting. And what it did was it broadened the zone that could be used for the Enhanced Infrastructure District, but it also was able to remove what's within the regular legislation for the EIFDs. There is a veto capability of the community, and that veto capability was removed moved as well from 782. And quite frankly, that's where I felt the most risk was involved because the community is going to be given a plan, given two meetings in which to voice their opposition or criticisms, and then that's it. There's nothing we can do to stop it. And the EIFD will also be brought in to incorporate the cities of La Cunada and Sierra Madre and Pasadena as part of this 120% district as opposed to just the 100% that would normally be the case. So I think that that's another important component of this because I think Altadena needs to understand that the vast majority of the appreciation of the value that's going to be used for the land, because it's going to be a tax increment finance district, that's what the CRD really focuses on, is going to be Altadena. And while other districts might be able to participate, it's Altadena where the vast majority of the money is going to be. And we're not going to be pulling money out from other communities. It potentially can be taken out of our community. And I think that that's something we need to be very mindful of. And we don't have a veto to stop it if that's going to happen. So I think that that's something that Altadena needs to be very, very aware of. And that was one of the things that we talked about. We wanted to see that there was a mechanism in place to stop such an eventuality if it were to happen. But... such as the legislative process.

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, and I know as we've discussed this, we've talked about it and framing it in terms of La Cunada, right? Because 782 does create this mechanism and this political body attached to L.A. County and administered by L.A. County, the same folks who did such a great job handling us before the fire. And I'm going to stop right there. I'm getting the look from Steve. Time and

SPEAKER_02:

place.

SPEAKER_00:

I think this is the time. in the place, but I also think that our listeners likely agree and know exactly what I'm talking about, and we don't need to belabor that, any of those points. That said, the way that we keep discussing this is because it creates this mechanism for, as you've just said, the money to flow in and out, and it's ultimately going to flow out of Altadena.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, it potentially could. It could. There is no way to stop it.

SPEAKER_00:

Correct. And, you know, you and I have discussed, you know, we look at La Cunada, right? If this allows us to potentially take money out of La Cañada or Sierra Madre and other neighboring towns in the same way that there's the possibility now for this money to be taken via increased property tax out of our community to take care of other communities. How is that going to play out? And why would La Cañada in particular not be speaking out about this? Because they don't want us to take their money. And the reason they're not is because they know it's not their money that will be taken. It is ours. You

SPEAKER_02:

know, I did a sack on this because I thought it was important to run the numbers. I I think, you know, what happened was during the lead up to this bill getting through the Senate, there was a lot of talk in the community about how this was going to affect Altadena. And the idea was this notion, and again, there are people that are very knowledgeable about these issues and live in these communities that didn't even understand it, that we would be able to pull the wealth out of a La Cunada, rob Peter, you know, rob from the rich and give to the poor, essentially. I mean, you know, that's, I think, how it was being sold to some community groups, really doesn't exist. I mean, I think I ran the numbers in that roughly the number being pulled out of La Cunada on an annual basis is potentially about$10 million in total money that could be if you had, if everything worked out perfectly. In other words, the property tax was essentially zero and they sold the house at the median price with the normal flow of turnover in La Cunada. It was maximum$10 million, which we won't get the total amount because they still take care of locking out of schools, locking out of sheriffs, et cetera. So we get probably two or three of that money, two or 3 million. That's not going to rebuild Altadena. And in fact, that is, you know, a tip essentially to Altadena. Whereas I think the number in Altadena, because we have 6,000 properties that are going to, you know, that have been affected by this. And again, I know we're talking property owners. And again, there is, you can argue, you know, with the numbers and you can look at, I think rough order of magnitude, we're pretty close. You're talking about a hundred million dollars in Altadena versus a couple million dollars in La Cunada. And if I'm in La Cunada, I join this in 30 seconds and say, yes, I want to be part of the CRD because, hey, I've got people on septic and I'll put a couple million dollars in to get somebody to put septic out because this community resilience district or climate resilience district includes me as well as Altadena. And while Altadena is still part of this, I am. So I think that this was something that I was very concerned about. It got dismissed for whatever reason. And I think it's something that still leaves a gaping hole in this bill and what this bill will create. Let's see what they come up with in terms of the infrastructure management type model that they put together, the plan they give us and how they choose to manage this. But I will tell you people from La Cunada asked me, how do we get to be a part of this? Because it's a pretty good deal for us.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, that's really interesting. Interesting. I'm just wondering, that was such a great explanation of a little bit of how the district works, but I'm wondering if you could give maybe just a little bit of more specifics on how the mechanics work. So for those of us who are still catching up and are new to, you know, kind of understanding

SPEAKER_00:

everything. Actually, the way I want to position that question, if it's all right. Sure. Explain how we finance an EIFD. Yeah, that's exactly

SPEAKER_02:

what I want to know. Tax increment financing. So what that means is you're borrowing today against what tomorrow's value will be. So if a property is worth, let's just say you bought your property in 1975, and you're paying$1,000 on that property. And again, this is going to be something we're going to bring back when we talk about the assessor. Now that property is sold and somebody builds a$2 million house on that property. Well, your property tax is going to be roughly, what,$20,000? So that difference is something that is bondable. And so what happens is there's a projection that goes into this and you go bond it against the future property tax revenue. And then the community is able to use that money to then potentially do whatever community enhancement And then the Climate Resilience District has, you know, basically it's about infrastructure, but it's also about other community-based initiatives down the road.

SPEAKER_00:

So is it an accurate read of that, that we effectively then finance our own recovery through our property tax?

SPEAKER_02:

A portion of it, yes. Again, just in the conversations I've had, and again, it's not every ounce, every cent of that increase goes into the Climate Resilience District. They only get a portion of it. Okay. It's just that portion is enough that you can use. You probably get 20% or 30%, and then you can only borrow a portion against that number too. Again, investors are not going to go, oh, I'm going to presume it's going to be 100 cents on the dollar. They're going to say, no, no, I'm only going to loan you against 50 cents on the dollar. So, I mean, how much we actually pull from this, the numbers will be all over the map. You know, I've talked to folks in the elected positions or in the government positions, and they throw around numbers, but I haven't seen any statistics that– offset what we have projected about$100 million or so. which is not chump change, but I mean, it's not going to rebuild. No, definitely not. Certainly not going to do some of the initiatives that people are expecting.

SPEAKER_01:

So I'm wondering now that we just talked about the economics, Shauna, unless you wanted to ask more questions about 782, but I'd love to kind of compare in here now how the mechanics of AB 797

SPEAKER_02:

work. Okay, so that's a different bill. So AB 797 was conceived... the idea to protect homeowners. In the immediate aftermath of the fire, there was a lot of concern about people losing homes or being forced to sell at below market rates. I mean, I remember the LA Times had a story about family in the Palisades and their focus was there initially. And there was a disconnect at the time about what the value, the insured value of the home or the structural value of the home and the land underneath.

SPEAKER_03:

And

SPEAKER_02:

a lot of people were sitting there in shock and just saying, I don't know what to do. And the assemblyman, Harabedian, was working on some discussions around CRA and how can we utilize CRA, Community Reinvestment Act. So what it is is as a married man, I'm voluntold to do a lot of things. Banks are voluntold that they have to comply with the Federal Reserve requirements to give a certain portion of loans to disadvantaged communities. And that can be any number of things. It can be philanthropy. nonprofits, underserved communities, buying subprime loans, et cetera, et cetera. A lot of them loan through what are called community development financial institutions or CDFIs. So the idea being CRA is a very large bucket of money. In the last numbers I saw from the FDIAC, which was 2022, the CRA loans from banks was about$250 billion, which is a significant number. At the height of COVID, it was over 400. So there was a delta there. And a lot of banks have to comply with, the banks have to comply with CRA if they want to expand in a market. So, and it's very market specific. but So when we were discussing this, the question was, okay, how can we utilize CRA? And CRA, interestingly, has certain benefits, or sorry, the regulations give some flexibility to CRA compliance in disaster areas for 36 months after a disaster is declared. And so when the assemblyman was looking at this, the question was, okay, if we're going to get money to people, homeowners, if they can't rebuild because they didn't We didn't have insurance because a significant number of people in Altadena did not have insurance.

SPEAKER_00:

Or were significantly underinsured, which is virtually everyone. Right.

SPEAKER_02:

But if you had no mortgage, you probably didn't carry property insurance. And the question was, okay, what do I do? And the concern then, as it is now, is that speculators are going to come in and acquire the land. And so the question was, okay, is there a way we can acquire that land, give people the option,

SPEAKER_03:

If

SPEAKER_02:

they wanted to sell, they can get liquidity for their land. And whatever settlement works out with SCE on the structure, that's going to be up to them. But at least today or in the immediate aftermath of the fire, people would be able to move and they would have enough capital to take wherever they wanted to go. The hope was that that bill was going to go through with the initial emergency package, the$2.5 billion that came in February, so that immediately people can start to have that optionality. But the other thing that that bill did was it would establish a floor. And that's another important thing is that when you look at disaster recovery, if you look at the property values in the Urban Land Institute, they had a graph at the end of the study they did in March. It's a U shape. And the question was, can we flatten out the U so that people can not have to worry about the property value decreasing to such a level if they're selling at the low? And you know, what's a fair number and without creating a moral hazard, you know, the other side of this is that, you know, there has to be some give and take here, you know, by having, let's just say you, what would your property worth January 6th, 2025 before the fires hit? And not the property being the underlying dirt. We're not talking about the structure. And the idea being, if you have to sell, at least there's a floor there that you're not having to sell at a below market price. You know, the, again, the LA times has had stories throughout the spring talking about how property owners are having to figure out creative finance solutions or selling, you know, and the hope was that nobody would have to sell below what that property was worth January 6th. And initially we had a little bit of a bump and then now the values have started to decrease a little bit. And again, Realtors will dispute all this.

SPEAKER_00:

I don't think they will. We've got more on the market. Yeah, that's pretty simple. The market's getting flooded and it's going to continue to get flooded until supply and demand.

SPEAKER_02:

And so what people have said to me is, Steve, I want to sell. And I'm like, just give it 30 days. Just wait. I mean, you've held out this long. Just wait. Because if this bill goes through, which it should, this may determine, revalue how you're selling your home or your property if you're choosing to go that route you know and it might you know it could be worth tens of thousands if not more to the property owners which for a lot of people that's you know that's very important so the idea was that this bill could potentially give the tools to get there utilizing bank money and the banks would understand this because for the banks if they're putting their money into CRA even if the property doesn't appreciate or appreciates very little they're still not losing money which is a big part of their intent with CRA is they're still supporting a community. They're stabilizing the community. They're being a part of that and they won't lose money in the process. And those of us that have lived through Northridge, I didn't live through it. My dad was living here. I

SPEAKER_01:

lived through

SPEAKER_02:

it. Yeah. So you know that eventually the property will come back and probably be higher. It's just a question of this is a liquidity issue as opposed to an investment issue. So we thought that the banks were a great source of funds because philanthropy was going to be tapped out. Federal government wasn't coming in with money. But more than that, we Where else could we use CRA? This is something that everybody can get their head around. Banks understand land. They can do that very easily. They can assess the land value, say, this is what I'm going to loan against. I know what I got. But the idea being now you understand that, look at how we can do this. And we're not going to have to service the debt. And that's the other piece to what 797 is about, is it's about an appreciation of the value and a sharing of that profit so that the investor isn't taking money in the day-to-day day rather they're holding out to win the property value recovers and then they can get a return on that investment and that's a very different model because again banks from a regulatory perspective struggle to put money into an investment under CRA so they don't want to have ownership so this model or this security creates a mechanism so that we can not do it do not only you know real estate but as we look to rebuild Altadena and other areas that this is a model we can apply farther beyond.

SPEAKER_00:

Do you want to talk about Opportunity Zone funding attached to that? Or is that a whole other episode?

SPEAKER_02:

Oh, that's a whole other episode. But the way you got to look at it from a very basic level is the CRA is your 80%. So when you go buy a house, you got to have 80%, you get your 80% mortgage and then you get 20% has to come from equity in some form. And then, you know, we get creative how we do it. Some people come in with less. Some people have, you know, other sources that get you to that number. So CRA gets us 80. Now the question is, where's the 20 going to come from? So I, you know, in discussions with folks, I've had various, I break this down into four different channels. And those that have read my sub stack probably know this already. There's low to moderate income homes, the ones that need to be rebuilt. So for those, those are homeowners that want to rebuild, but they still own the land, but it's going to be, you know, a struggle. They need help to get back up. So CRA can be a part of that capital stack over there. Then there's those that have Let's just say they're underinsured. So how much that, that's more of a spectrum issue, you know, in terms of like, there are some that are vastly underinsured and there's some that are underinsured, but you know, they need some help to get there from a financing perspective. Okay. We think CRA can plug in there too, or these models. Then there's the utilities, you know, and in my, in infrastructure, my idea was I didn't really want to see 782 come in because I thought that we could have done this through local 501c3s and, you know, deploying that money out. 501c3 is a challenge. But utilizing that kind of a model where there's a community ownership model and we use CRA to help rebuild and then give investors an opportunity to participate. Which would

SPEAKER_00:

have been the

SPEAKER_02:

ideal. That was my thinking because then we would have had more community control over that. And then the final piece is economic development. And that's small businesses, rebuilding, bringing businesses in, how are we going to track them. CRA can be a big part of that too. But as Shauna said, each of these buckets, what's that 20% going to look like? And that's where We've had to be in Washington when Shauna and Serena are up in Sacramento. I was in DC talking to legislators about opportunity zones. So opportunity zones are another model where it's an inducement for investors to come into underserved communities. And disasters have never been part of that underserved community. Now, legislators have tried to do this in the past. It happened in 2019 after the hurricanes in Florida and the fires out here in Wolseley, which we'll talk about in another episode, because that's come up in the LA Times this week as well. But there was an attempt to look at that and it never got through. But now that opportunity zones are permanent, the idea being, we need to find that 20%. And if we're not getting CDBG money, we're going to need to have investors come in. How are we going to do it? And so that's where I've been in DC having discussions with legislators about what we can do at a federal level. But that's still doesn't preclude what we can still do at a state level as well. Because as we all know, there are some conflicts between the federal government and California these days. And maybe we have to look a little bit more internal to try to solve some of our problems too. Okay, so that was a lot of information.

SPEAKER_00:

It's helpful information. And I think, at least for me, it would be great to understand, I think, again, in the context that these things are going to move forward with all likelihood. So what is kind of our best case scenario vision for how these two things can work together and play out for the community. And connected to that, really, I think the big piece of that question then is what kind of advocacy does Altadena need to be doing for itself right now? How do we do that? What should we be asking for that doesn't exist? As we were talking about earlier, and again, we're trying to top line this and not get too, even in a deep dive, not too deep. But for example, the fact that with 782, some amendments have been made. We did get some amendments. We didn't get every amendment we asked for or wanted, but some amendments have been made that make a significant difference. So the point being that there is a mechanism through community pushback and feedback to achieve

SPEAKER_01:

those things. Exactly, and maybe you could explain that to the listeners too. I don't know if everybody knows what you mean by we got some amendments.

SPEAKER_02:

So when you write a bill or you start and where you end is very different. And if you go into the bill, you could see they make changes, legislators will, based upon feedback through committees through different houses, so the Assembly and the Senate. So in each stage, each vote typically has amendments that are brought in and incorporated to, we call it regular order. If you ever hear somebody use the term regular order, what it means is it's based on feedback, you're amending a bill to make it more refined. And when legislation is done properly, you go through regular order, you'll have multiple amendments. The bill will look very different than when it started. The hope is the substance stays the same, but the form has changed. Because that means you had a good bill in the first place and good policy. But when we hear all the stories about bad legislation, typically they bypass regular order and that's when we have some of the problems that occur. So the idea being when 782 was done and going through the various stages, advocates can come and say, submit comments and discuss the issues and bring them to the attention of the legislator and the committees. So it goes through various committees that have jurisdiction over that bill. So local government, for instance, was 782. 797 went through judiciary and what else did they go through? I think finance. But the idea being that these are the committees that would have most experience being able to evaluate these bills and determining whether the policy is right or wrong and effectively to stop it if it's a problem. So 782 was amended and the final amendment I think is the most significant because it ensured community oversight. We got term limits on the time that the board, which is appointed by the county, that they can serve on that board, which is only four years, which is a lot better than just indefinite. They also incorporated community ties to these board members. So they have to either be a resident or homeowner or a business owner in that community. And I think there's one more, but I can't remember off the top of my head. But the bottom line being that you have to have a presence in the community. You can't just be a carpetbagger, as they like to say, somebody from outside the community coming in. And I think that that's an important thing because A, Altadena needs it. B, you understand the community. And C, you have a stake in what the outcome is going to be. So I think that these are all factors that are very important for, you know, the amendments. I still would have liked the veto, but I guess, you know, that's politics, right? You can't get everything you want.

SPEAKER_00:

And does this sunset at any point or end at any point or these kind of indefinite structures that we are buying into in perpetuity?

SPEAKER_02:

Well, I think it, no, I don't think there's a sunset. John's bill, sorry, 797 has a sunset built in, but this one does not. And I think But I think there are ways we can take control. I mean, if it's not meeting the needs of the community, the community can push legislators to sunset the bill. I mean, that can happen. So, I mean, it's just going to be more cumbersome than if we had done it right from the start, but such is life, you know, you can only do so much.

SPEAKER_00:

So when it comes to a community exerting their pressure to accomplish what they want to, especially as people start to understand this, and many of us, for a and will continue to be in some respects. But it's never too late to speak up to some degree. So how does the community do that? How do we structure advocacy?

SPEAKER_02:

Well, I think a lot of it's going to be in how we structure the... Again, our influence is going to be... We have less leverage now, I guess is the best way to put it. You can't go and file a lawsuit and say, you guys are violating the law that was created in SB 782. So now we have to rely on... inference and you know just community quote noise and you know hope that the supervisor or the county and you know the people that are implementing this listen to the community in terms of who they appoint to this community climate resilience district and that the plan is the right thing for the community and yes you can make noise you can embarrass them I hate to have to do it but that unfortunately is how the system works sometimes that, you know, go to the media, make noise, put your, put your hand up if you don't like what you're seeing. Show up in Sacramento. But the bottom line is at this point, you know, the bill is done and there really is no mechanism to bring it back or bring back any kind of control. I mean, we just have to rely on the good old fashioned way of doing things.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah. And I want to just add to that, that there's a lot of community organizers and a looking at legislation. And so I think that that's, as you're saying, making community noise, that that's another way. So I think that it's exciting that Altadena has a lot of groups and a lot of people who are really passionate about that. I just wish they'd been passionate

SPEAKER_00:

three months ago. Sorry. Say it again. I'm going to keep- It's

SPEAKER_02:

real fast, legislating.

SPEAKER_00:

Yes, it does. Yes, it does. Well, there were a lot of us who were asking all of these orgs to please step up and engage months ago when we really could have had a bigger push. And for a hundred reasons, people didn't want to, didn't want to touch it didn't understand it or very understandably a lot of the orgs you know some of my personal favorites were really busy doing the work you know and with their boots on the ground actually not in meetings not having these conversations because they're too busy actually taking care of the people they actually take care of yeah which I have a tremendous appreciation for but there were other opportunities that regrettably were lost and sometimes that is going to be an ongoing frustration

SPEAKER_01:

yeah for all of us right I think y'all I'm just still even learning so coming late to the table a little bit on this. But we do have a really strong community. I guess that's what I want to highlight is that, you know, we have these opportunities going forward, you know, and just learning from Steve and some of the ways that we can be really good and effective advocates. Yeah. That our community can rally around.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. And it's a process now. And so we're going to have to see how this shakes out. We're going to have to see what decisions are made and how they're made. And, you know, as Louis Brandeis said, sunlight's the best disinfectant. So, unfortunately, we're going to have to shine a lot of sunlight onto these dark corners to make sure that our community is properly taken care of in all the ways, shapes, and forms.

SPEAKER_00:

Absolutely, because make no mistake, this is about money. It is a lot of money in counties' hands.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, as much as it's about money, it's about control over what this is going to look like for the next 10 years and beyond. I mean, it's so in-depth. I mean, the 10 billion dollars As I say to everybody, look, this is a county where, and again, it's not a smite against them. It's just the reality is where$100 million deals are big deals. This is$10 billion, folks, that it's going to be to rebuild Altadena or more. I'm sure there's people at the county who are listening to this saying, he doesn't even know what he's talking about. I mean, I know the number is going to be over$10 billion. And so what does that look like? I mean, we have$40 billion coming. That's what our ask was from the feds. So, I mean, it's got to be. you know, these numbers are much bigger than what people are used to. And it's not just a question of adding zeros, you know, and commas. It's managing this type of a project is so large. And so how that's going to be done and, you know, what that's going to look like and with the tools that we have today, it's very different than it was in 1994 and when Northridge hit and the rebuild that occurred then.

SPEAKER_00:

What did that cost? Do you know offhand?

SPEAKER_02:

I don't know. And again, it's inflation. Yeah,

SPEAKER_00:

I know. I was just curious what the... equivalent would be today, but we'll have to Google that later.

SPEAKER_02:

You had different government at the time. You had, you know, county, city, state. I mean, at that time, it was just city. You didn't have to really combine a county with a city, as we have here with two separate disasters. You had a different government in California at the time. You had a different government in D.C. at the time. So, I mean, it's, and I think relationships were probably a little better at end than they are now. So, and I think, you know, to the disaster complex in the business industry that's created, and we'll talk about this in another episode coming up, it's matured to a level where post Katrina, you know, these, these events are profitable for governments and it's important that people understand that too. So, you know, understand that there's a lot of stakes involved here and the stakes are pretty high. And so the community is going to have to really use its voice to be effective because there's a lot of noise around this and there's a lot of interest involved.

SPEAKER_00:

So I knew this episode would run long. Sorry. No, don't be sorry because these are all important conversations and I wish that we could go on for another hour to really get into both of these and some of the nuances. There's a sub stack if you want to read it. Yes, there is. But the goal is not to put you to sleep unless that's what you're listening to this for, in which case you're welcome.

SPEAKER_02:

Come on, our voices are so serene. Our dulcet tones. Or whatever it is.

SPEAKER_00:

But I was going to say... To wrap up this particular conversation, what do you think is our best case scenario now? What is the best possible outcome for Altadena in these circumstances?

SPEAKER_02:

Well, I think a lot of it's going to determine on what 782's organizational structure is. If the things that we've been asking for are incorporated by the grace of God and our supervisor, you know, we're okay. I think, you know, we can still incorporate a lot of the things that we asked for. It may not have been in the original idea. legislation. That would be best case scenario. And I think that we look at 797 and say, hey, not only is this about acquiring land, but look at how we can use this tool for so many other things. And we don't need the state or the county. I mean, we can place that money and the banks can get their CRA credit through nonprofits. So we can have community-based nonprofits that can do a lot of this too. So I think that would be the ideal if it was me, if I was for a day which I like to play every once in a while and if I was leading that's what I would be shooting for right now

SPEAKER_00:

and here we are I think if we can I want to wrap up this episode with a little bit of a nod to some of our small business if you know anything about me and my personal history through my various careers companies etc I have been a big booster of small business for a very long time and a small business owner myself and so I have been very keenly aware of what the reality was going to be for our small businesses not just in Altadena but also frankly in Pasadena and Sierra Madre and a number of other communities that depend on our 22,000 people who are displaced in our community to keep their doors open and that a lot of our businesses are going to struggle and many of them are not going to make it no matter how hard we try which is a painful reality so with that I wanted to actually start closing out all of our episodes with a shout out to a local business that you can support today I want to talk about Adelaide if you're not familiar with Adelaide Adelaide is owned by and I'm going to now I should have prepared for this instead of going off the cuff because I can see her face and can't remember her name. The owner of the shop who's a florist and she's incredible. She also is another one of our neighbors who had a home that was a total loss in addition to losing her business as a florist. She is not only back but she's doubled down on Altadena. She reopened with a full brick and mortar shop on North Lake and I'll pull up the exact address for you but her Her location is actually right across the street from Fair Oaks Burger, which most of you should be aware of where that is. She's at 2595 Fair Oaks Avenue. And for those who remember the Webster's family's shop called Hoopla that had to close just prior to the fire for other reasons, it's in that same little block, that same building actually. So Adelaide brings back the floral component. You can also find some amazing plants. I parted with too many dollars with plants because I am that plant lady And I was very excited to find gorgeous plants that were interesting. And she's also has a fantastic gift shop, some Altadena merch. It's just a really, it's a beautiful spot. I would say that the couple of times I've popped in there, it just gives me life to go in there because it's just, when you walk in, it's like it didn't happen. So if you want to feel good and support a local business, go check out Adelaide at 2595 North Lake in Altadena. They are closed on Mondays and Tuesdays, but open Wednesday through Sunday from 10 to 6 and it's absolutely worth your time and she's got so many beautiful things. What's that? Did she change her hours? I was just wondering if it was on Fair Oaks or Lake. Did I say Lake? I probably did because you can't fucking trust me to keep my thoughts straight in two minutes. Guys, I wish I could only blame Firebrain but it's also perimenopause and I've been asked to please restrict my perimenopause talk to a separate podcast forthcoming. So I will not have that conversation. But Kimberly's looking at me knowingly and so is Steve actually so that's all we need to know we're excited for that podcast it is on Fair Oaks thank you for the correction just north of where Pizza Venice was located and again really fantastic spot and everyone should go check it out and support and while you're up there go hit one of our other local businesses grab a local coffee grab a local bite to eat Altadena needs

SPEAKER_01:

your love yeah absolutely thank you Shauna well thanks everyone for listening to After the Ashes I'm Kimberly and we'll be back next week with episode 4 where we explore the intersection of state and federal government in wildfire recovery. We'll definitely look at the new LA Times article that came out about the fiscal mismanagement in debris removal, et cetera. So that's

SPEAKER_00:

a very current topic. For anyone who missed that, because go read it before you listen. Oh, good idea. Today, as we record this, is September 9th. This was the LA Times cover story on September 8th.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, above the fold.

SPEAKER_00:

Above the fold. right up, big fat front and center. The takeaway from that is that the federal government is suing the state.

SPEAKER_02:

Well,

SPEAKER_00:

no. Well, not entirely. It's a clawback of funds based on potential fraud related to the lack of removal of toxic material in wildfire zones. So this is going to be a very interesting topic I cannot wait to discuss.

SPEAKER_01:

Agree. Yeah, so read it ahead of time if you'd like. Do your homework. We'll see you next time. Do your homework. Good. Yeah, so in the meantime before episode four, we would love to hear from you about today's episode. So what do you think? Do AB797's investor-backed securities make sense to you? Do they make sense for your community? Would you support creating a climate resilience district where you live? What questions do you have about how these financing mechanisms actually work? Send us your questions, and you can reach us at... In

SPEAKER_00:

the same bat channel, same bat places. You can find us at Beautiful Altadena on Instagram, as Beautiful Altadena official group, and all of our subgroups on Facebook, if you happen to be on Facebook. On Substack. And then, of course, you can always find Steve, who is Alta Policy Wonk on Substack as well.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. And thank you. Until next time, stay safe.

SPEAKER_00:

Stay informed and stay engaged. And I'm going to use Steve's line and say, come back because the adults are in the room.