By Gabby Kim
When the flames of the Woolsey Fire burned across the Malibu coast in 2018, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection was forced to seriously reassess its approach to quick-response and preemptive infrastructure. $6 billion in relief efforts later, Los Angeles battles yet another wildfire crisis, which California Governor Gavin Newsom describes as potentially “the worst natural disaster the U.S. has ever seen”. With over 92,000 forced evacuations in the span of little over a week, California residents are once again confronted with the harrowing reality of California’s raging wildfires. As we watch flames rage through thousands of homes and schools, Mother Nature’s message becomes increasingly clear: we cannot keep rebuilding what is lost. The continuous devastation of communities throughout the state has attested to the futility of expending state resources on the reconstruction of damaged sites. The focus is no longer on addressing the aftermath of these fires, but instead on mitigation and aversion in the first place– and how to ensure that in the process, the state does not leave its most vulnerable communities exploited.
While a primary focus highlighted on the news, the impact of wildfires extends far beyond the threat of evacuation. The reverberations of fires within the state have highlighted the susceptibility of marginalized communities, especially in meeting the demands necessitated by these natural disasters. For areas with underdeveloped transportation systems, residents are faced with a near-impossible chase of life or death in their evacuations. Areas like Watts and South Gate, where a noted lack of funding is allocated towards personal and communal transportation, have historically suffered consequences of delayed transit. For these areas, the need for advancements largely factors into the poor addressing of matters like health issues as a result of the fires.
Perhaps the most outstanding issue is the housing displacement and the indirect implications it bears on gentrification. As wealthier residents from more directly affected regions (e.g. Brentwood or Malibu) are forced to look to neighboring urban areas for temporary living, it enforces pressure on the housing market, especially in neighborhoods similar to Watts or Inglewood, where original housing prices sit at more affordable in comparison. The increase in demand and the potential to drive up market prices are what makes it difficult for long-time, lower income residents to remain in their homes. The accompanying push for further development poses an additional threat to local businesses in addition to job security.
The reverberations of California’s wildfire season ripple well beyond property damage. The lack of attention to disadvantaged areas in the community has and will continue to allow a high influx of wealthier groups from fire-prone areas in. Our past methods of repair, while heavily planned, have been ineffective at addressing the surmounting pressure on local housing scenes. The consequence has been a burdensome cycle of community displacement, imposing unwanted alterations on the social fabric of neighborhoods short of more updated systems. These factors in combination with each other contribute to an escalating community crisis. As we encounter these circumstances once again, we are invited to reconsider our response. Rather than falling into the habit of surface-level restoration, we are accountable for creating equitable solutions. This means prioritizing affordable housing initiatives as well as supporting local scenes to strengthen their permanence within a community. Then, we can start to create true progress in the ongoing fire crisis.
LAMPLIGHTER 