A recent tweet by Kevin Dalton on July 30, 2025, ignited renewed debate, stating, "This is Gavin Newsom‘s recipe for a land grab." The comment points to ongoing controversies surrounding California Governor Gavin Newsom's administration and its handling of post-wildfire recovery efforts, specifically concerning land use and development. Critics allege that recent legislative actions constitute a "land grab" under the guise of disaster relief.
The term "land grab" first gained prominence in January 2025, when Governor Newsom issued an executive order aimed at protecting fire victims from "predatory real estate speculators." This order sought to prevent unsolicited, undervalued offers for destroyed properties, with Newsom stating at the time that "As families mourn, the last thing they need is greedy speculators taking advantage of their pain." The measure was presented as a safeguard against exploitation.
However, the focus has since shifted to Senate Bill 549 (SB549), which has become central to the renewed "land grab" accusations. This bill mandates that at least 40 percent of the total funds received by a district under its provisions must be allocated for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for households with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income. This provision has drawn significant criticism from various groups and political figures.
Critics, including former U.S. Special Envoy Richard Grenell, have accused Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of a "bait and switch" tactic. Grenell stated on social media that Newsom "lied" about not intending to build low-income housing facilities on land where homes had burned down. Opponents argue that SB549 is designed to change the character of fire-affected communities, such as the Palisades, by replacing former single-family homes with higher-density, low-income housing.
The controversy highlights a contentious intersection of disaster recovery, housing policy, and property rights in California. While the state aims to address its housing crisis and rebuild after devastating wildfires, critics contend that the methods employed, particularly through legislation like SB549, prioritize certain development goals over the rights and preferences of displaced homeowners. The debate continues as the implications of these policies unfold across affected regions.