Newsom Vetoes Fire Prevention Bill, Citing Cost — While Spending $250M on Gerrymandering

man is a dumbass
SB 326 would have required “the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to prepare, and regularly update, a Wildfire Risk Mitigation Planning Framework (Framework), a Wildfire Risk Baseline and Forecast (Forecast), and a Wildfire Mitigation Scenarios Report (Report).” It also would have required “the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to provide local assistance to local governments to achieve wildfire risk reduction to achieve wildfire risk reduction consistent with the aforementioned plans” and to comply with “ember-resistant zone (known as zone zero) regulations.”

It would have required expenditures estimated in the tens of millions of dollars annually — to save, potentially, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage caused by wildfires. It passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously.

But Newsom vetoed the bill, citing the cost, claiming that it would disrupt his balanced budget for the state:

Despite that fact, Newsom is spending an estimated $250 million on Proposition 50, his proposal to set aside the congressional districts drawn by the state’s constitutionally-mandated independent redistricting commission,

The “zone zero” regulations are controversial because they require homeowners to remove certain kinds of vegetation and to clear space within a certain distance of their homes. But that was not the reason Newsom vetoed the bill.

Future of the party.

The number one goal/priority of all politicians everywhere:

Re-election

Cope said:

The number one goal/priority of all politicians everywhere:

Re-election

Click to expand...

sure but the legislature passed it unanimously .

This article makes a facially invalid argument. It says the costs are only in the tens of millions, but also cites the veto text: "The requirements of this bill would trigger substantial, ongoing costs that are not accounted for in the budget." I don't know what that refers to, but it might be things like how do you enforce zero-zero? Drone Force?

bythoughts said:

This article makes a facially invalid argument. It says the costs are only in the tens of millions, but also cites the veto text: "The requirements of this bill would trigger substantial, ongoing costs that are not accounted for in the budget." I don't know what that refers to, but it might be things like how do you enforce zero-zero? Drone Force?

Click to expand...

can you think of many budget priorities other then runaway wildfires?

I know nothing about this legislation other than it seems weird to have unanimous consensus from the state body only to be vetoed by Govenor. Since Newsom is eyeing higher office I'm guessing he's thinking this will somehow make him look bad? Maybe some CA peeps can chime in.

anatta said:

can you think of many budget priorities other then runaway wildfires?

Click to expand...

Fascinating that you are complaining about not putting in more regulations on something.

Threegoofs said:

Fascinating that you are complaining about not putting in more regulations on something.

Click to expand...

And complaining about gerrymandering.

anatta said:

can you think of many budget priorities other then runaway wildfires?

Click to expand...

Just curious- what percentage of the budget for fighting wildfires in California should be paid by the Federal government, considering most of the forests in California are on Federal lands?

If it did pass both houses of the CA state legislature unanimously, then they should be able to override his veto.

The only 'plan' CA has on wildfires is: Blame & fine the power company so they can pass those costs on to the rate payers.

anatta said:

sure but the legislature passed it unanimously .

Click to expand...

Newsome is looking higher. The legislators are looking locally.

Both have the same mindset, just with a different set of voters.

To be clear, I find Newsome vetoing it detrimental to his constituents, however they are likely highly partisan and will gladly pat him on the back, as their homes burn.

dmpi said:

The only 'plan' CA has on wildfires is: Blame & fine the power company so they can pass those costs on to the rate payers.

Click to expand...

What plan has the Federal government got to fight wildfires on Federal lands in California?
Has Trump got armies of forest managers raking and grooming?

anatta said:

SB 326 would have required “the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to prepare, and regularly update, a Wildfire Risk Mitigation Planning Framework (Framework), a Wildfire Risk Baseline and Forecast (Forecast), and a Wildfire Mitigation Scenarios Report (Report).” It also would have required “the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to provide local assistance to local governments to achieve wildfire risk reduction to achieve wildfire risk reduction consistent with the aforementioned plans” and to comply with “ember-resistant zone (known as zone zero) regulations.”

It would have required expenditures estimated in the tens of millions of dollars annually — to save, potentially, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage caused by wildfires. It passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously.

But Newsom vetoed the bill, citing the cost, claiming that it would disrupt his balanced budget for the state:

Click to expand...

From KQED: https://www.kqed.org/science/199878...ildfire-planning-experts-say-cost-is-an-issue

In a letter from the Senate Appropriations Committee, Cal Fire estimated it would cost more than $100 million a year to build its own model to assess and forecast risk. SB 326 would have allowed the agency to use an off-the-shelf model for around $20 million a year.

Click to expand...

With that large a gap in costs, one could question how suitable the off-the-shelf model would be.

Again, from the KQED link:

Meanwhile, a related bill also sponsored by Becker, SB 254, will have the state’s wildfire fund administrator model utility risk and make suggestions about how to prevent fires and manage utility costs after Newsom signed it last month.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the below link in Breitbart leads nowhere, so no substantiated source for the following. Prop 50 is being put to a popular vote on November 4. (Mailed my ballot yesterday.)

anatta said:

Despite that fact, Newsom is spending an estimated $250 million on Proposition 50, his proposal to set aside the congressional districts drawn by the state’s constitutionally-mandated independent redistricting commission,

Click to expand...

The following is speculation as to controversy over mandated vegetation removal near structures in at-risk areas. Los Angeles County already has similar, if not identical, regulations. However, during Santa Ana winds at 100 mph, as we had last January, damn little can be done except hope and pray that construction codes requiring non-flammable and fire- resistant building materials are effective against the effects of global climate change.

anatta said:

The “zone zero” regulations are controversial because they require homeowners to remove certain kinds of vegetation and to clear space within a certain distance of their homes. But that was not the reason Newsom vetoed the bill.

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

What plan has the Federal government got to fight wildfires on Federal lands in California?
Has Trump got armies of forest managers raking and grooming?

Click to expand...

250 M would be a good start for the rakers and the groomers, don't you think?

anatta said:

man is a dumbass

Newsom Vetoes Fire Prevention Bill, Citing Cost -- While Spending $250M on Gerrymandering

Gavin Newsom has vetoed a fire prevention bill over costs -- while spending $250 million on a vote to gerrymander congressional districts.

www.breitbart.com

SB 326 would have required “the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to prepare, and regularly update, a Wildfire Risk Mitigation Planning Framework (Framework), a Wildfire Risk Baseline and Forecast (Forecast), and a Wildfire Mitigation Scenarios Report (Report).” It also would have required “the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to provide local assistance to local governments to achieve wildfire risk reduction to achieve wildfire risk reduction consistent with the aforementioned plans” and to comply with “ember-resistant zone (known as zone zero) regulations.”

It would have required expenditures estimated in the tens of millions of dollars annually — to save, potentially, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage caused by wildfires. It passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously.

But Newsom vetoed the bill, citing the cost, claiming that it would disrupt his balanced budget for the state:

Despite that fact, Newsom is spending an estimated $250 million on Proposition 50, his proposal to set aside the congressional districts drawn by the state’s constitutionally-mandated independent redistricting commission,

The “zone zero” regulations are controversial because they require homeowners to remove certain kinds of vegetation and to clear space within a certain distance of their homes. But that was not the reason Newsom vetoed the bill.

Click to expand...

Trump gave it to him out of the twenty billion he's giving away to V.

Threegoofs said:

Fascinating that you are complaining about not putting in more regulations on something.

Click to expand...

what does this mean? Obviously something is terribly wrong with the wildfire situation > i dont pretend to know. I'm in Florida
But we all saw the fires and I heard reports hydrants were shut off

venice_ca said:

From KQED: https://www.kqed.org/science/199878...ildfire-planning-experts-say-cost-is-an-issue


With that large a gap in costs, one could question how suitable the off-the-shelf model would be.

Again, from the KQED link:



Meanwhile, the below link in Breitbart leads nowhere, so no substantiated source for the following. Prop 50 is being put to a popular vote on November 4. (Mailed my ballot yesterday.)


The following is speculation as to controversy over mandated vegetation removal near structures in at-risk areas. Los Angeles County already has similar, if not identical, regulations. However, during Santa Ana winds at 100 mph, as we had last January, damn little can be done except hope and pray that construction codes requiring non-flammable and fire- resistant building materials are effective against the effects of global climate change.

Click to expand...

Brietbart assumes Prop 50 is a done deal. Everything I understand politically agrees - so no point in going over that.

Also I can't begin to argue the logistics, but your link has several key ideas in there that Newsom vetoed.

And the last paragraph about costs (since this seems to be a main objection)

While Becker has not committed to reintroducing a new version next year, he acknowledges the issue is only growing more urgent — especially as the costs of wildfires become stratospheric. Damage from this year’s Los Angeles fires, for example, is estimated to be over $100 billion.

Click to expand...

anatta said:

what does this mean? Obviously something is terribly wrong with the wildfire situation > i dont pretend to know. I'm in Florida
But we all saw the fires and I heard reports hydrants were shut off

Click to expand...

There is something wrong. Its called 'building in forests prone to fires' and also 'drought induced by climate change'.

Hydrants werent shut off, they went dry because water was being used faster than could be replenished.

What my post meant is that you seem to be cheering for regulations no matter the cost, based on your reflexive hate for Gavin Newsome, yet as you clearly acknowledge, you dont even pretend to know anything about it.

Threegoofs said:

There is something wrong. Its called 'building in forests prone to fires' and also 'drought induced by climate change'.

Hydrants werent shut off, they went dry because water was being used faster than could be replenished.

What my post meant is that you seem to be cheering for regulations no matter the cost, based on your reflexive hate for Gavin Newsome, yet as you clearly acknowledge, you dont even pretend to know anything about it.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said anything about no matter the cost.

What should be abundantly clear though is Newsome would RATHER spend 250M on getting re-elected, and helping his party and his likely run for the Presidency by gerryamndering, rather than do something to help save the billions of dollars these fires have/will cause.

Threegoofs said:

There is something wrong. Its called 'building in forests prone to fires' and also 'drought induced by climate change'.

Hydrants werent shut off, they went dry because water was being used faster than could be replenished.

What my post meant is that you seem to be cheering for regulations no matter the cost, based on your reflexive hate for Gavin Newsome, yet as you clearly acknowledge, you dont even pretend to know anything about it.

Click to expand...

I dont have to understand the minutia - I do know the costs according to the article posted (#15) was 100 billion
for the Palisades fire. I'm not mindlessly cheering for or against regs. Clearly something is wrong and the unanimous bill passed was vetoed on costs? how do you put a dollar amount on wildfires that wipe out entire neighborhood? You can't. So to say the bill was too expensive is ludicrous

anatta said:

Brietbart assumes Prop 50 is a done deal. Everything I understand politically agrees - so no point in going over that.

Also I can't begin to argue the logistics, but your link has several key ideas in there that Newsom vetoed.

And the last paragraph about costs (since this seems to be a main objection)

Click to expand...

You do understand that the Santa Ana winds last January were clocked at 100 mph — embers were blown a mile+ away from the blaze. That is how the blaze quickly spread from Pacific Palisades to the beachfront homes in Malibu, burned through the Palisades, and then threatened the adjacent areas of Brentwood and Santa Monica. The second day of the fires, the winds abated enough that aircraft was able to be used to drop retardants or water.

As for the Eaton Fire in Altadena, lawsuits are proceeding against the local utility company, Southern California Edison, for improperly implementing protocols during dangerous conditions. There are videos of the flames starting near a So Cal Edison tower in the San Gabriel Mountains. (Please note that a good part of the San Gabriel Mountains is federal land/forests.)

Some fires cannot be successfully fought due to combinations of unique conditions which produce a “perfect storm,” as happened in January 2025 in Los Angeles County.

What can realistically be done when 100 mph winds are blowing embers far and wide into chaparral, or forested land (San Gabriel Mountains), that has received less than an 1” of rain in the past 7 or 8 months? When fire-fighting aircraft are grounded due to high winds? When blowing embers are endangering firefighters, and possibly igniting blazes behind their lines? When a utility company fails to follow established protocol regarding power lines?

You have not addressed the CA Senate Bill 254 that was signed into law and does fund studies.

Nor have any critics of California addressed the key role that global climate change played in these catastrophic fires.

Breitbart is dishonest in mentioning the $50 million figure without addressing specifics. Was this money from the state’s treasury? Campaign contributions? The cost of running a special election?

Since DJT is intent on slashing as much federal money as possible from flowing into California, Prop 50 is a measure of self defense against further retaliation against our state.

Please remember that Prop 50 establishes a temporary measure with a defined expiration date.

anatta said:

man is a dumbass

Newsom Vetoes Fire Prevention Bill, Citing Cost -- While Spending $250M on Gerrymandering

Gavin Newsom has vetoed a fire prevention bill over costs -- while spending $250 million on a vote to gerrymander congressional districts.

www.breitbart.com

SB 326 would have required “the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to prepare, and regularly update, a Wildfire Risk Mitigation Planning Framework (Framework), a Wildfire Risk Baseline and Forecast (Forecast), and a Wildfire Mitigation Scenarios Report (Report).” It also would have required “the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to provide local assistance to local governments to achieve wildfire risk reduction to achieve wildfire risk reduction consistent with the aforementioned plans” and to comply with “ember-resistant zone (known as zone zero) regulations.”

It would have required expenditures estimated in the tens of millions of dollars annually — to save, potentially, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage caused by wildfires. It passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously.

But Newsom vetoed the bill, citing the cost, claiming that it would disrupt his balanced budget for the state:

Despite that fact, Newsom is spending an estimated $250 million on Proposition 50, his proposal to set aside the congressional districts drawn by the state’s constitutionally-mandated independent redistricting commission,

The “zone zero” regulations are controversial because they require homeowners to remove certain kinds of vegetation and to clear space within a certain distance of their homes. But that was not the reason Newsom vetoed the bill.

Click to expand...

Another conspiracy theory? At least the source indicates a conspiracy theory.

anatta said:

I dont have to understand the minutia - I do know the costs according to the article posted (#15) was 100 billion
for the Palisades fire. I'm not mindlessly cheering for or against regs. Clearly something is wrong and the unanimous bill passed was vetoed on costs? how do you put a dollar amount on wildfires that wipe out entire neighborhood? You can't. So to say the bill was too expensive is ludicrous

Click to expand...

If you actually read your link, you’d understand that the cost was indeterminate, and that’s why it was vetoed. I’d guess it’s going back to the Congress to be clarified.

Ya think you’d actually be somewhat informed about your own post, but I guess that’s asking a lot.