Newsom's Failure to Protect: A Governor's Misplaced Priorities in the Wake of Deadly Fires
revelations about Newsom's financial ties to PG&E – including over $500,000 in advertising services to his winery and significant campaign contributions
Op-Ed by Carmine Lombardi
In the aftermath of California's devastating wildfires, one would expect the state's leadership to prioritize the safety and well-being of its citizens. However, recent documents and investigations have revealed a troubling pattern of behavior by Governor Gavin Newsom that suggests a different set of priorities altogether.
At the heart of this controversy lies Newsom's relationship with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), a utility giant responsible for some of the deadliest wildfires in California's history. Despite PG&E's culpability in these disasters, Newsom's actions have consistently favored the corporation over the victims and public safety.
The governor's support for PG&E began with the signing of AB 1054, a law that effectively bailed the company out of bankruptcy. This move was followed by the Newsom administration's quiet recertification of PG&E as a "safe" company, granting it access to a state insurance fund for wildfire damages. These actions raise serious questions about the governor's judgment, especially considering PG&E's recent history of causing deadly fires.
Newsom's involvement in PG&E's bankruptcy plan further underscores his apparent bias. The plan, which he helped steer, favored the corporation at the expense of fire victims. Shockingly, it included paying victims partly in PG&E stock, which turned out to be worth less than advertised, resulting in an $80 million loss for those already devastated by the fires.
The governor's decision to hire Jenner & Block, a law firm with previous ties to PG&E, to draft the bailout bill without competitive bidding only adds to the ethical concerns surrounding his actions. This move, coupled with revelations about Newsom's financial ties to PG&E – including over $500,000 in advertising services to his winery and significant campaign contributions – paints a picture of a leader whose decisions may be influenced by corporate interests rather than public welfare.
Perhaps most alarming is Newsom's alleged interference with independent state regulators in favor of PG&E. The California Public Utilities Commission's approval of PG&E's bankruptcy plan under Newsom's administration raises questions about the independence of regulatory bodies meant to protect the public interest.
The limited accountability faced by PG&E for its actions is particularly galling. Despite pleading guilty to 84 felony counts of involuntary manslaughter for the Camp Fire, the company was fined a mere $4 million – a pittance compared to the devastation caused and lives lost.
As Californians continue to grapple with the threat of wildfires and the need for reliable, safe utilities, they deserve leadership that prioritizes their safety and well-being. Governor Newsom's actions in relation to PG&E suggest a failure to provide that leadership. It's time for a serious reevaluation of priorities and a renewed commitment to protecting the people of California, not just corporate interests.
Once is happenstance
Twice is a coincidence
but 3,4,5,6 issues simultaneously…unexplainable really
In the world of investigative journalism, a pattern is emerging that cannot be ignored. What began as isolated incidents has now become a troubling trend, raising questions about the integrity of our institutions and the safety of our communities.
The first red flag appeared when firefighters battling the recent Los Angeles wildfires reported poor water pressure in hydrants, with some running dry. This could have been dismissed as a unfortunate coincidence, a one-off failure in the face of overwhelming demand. But as the crisis unfolded, it became clear that this was no isolated incident.
As the flames raged, up to 20% of the city's hydrants went dry, forcing firefighters to abandon their use altogether. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power cited water demand four times higher than normal for 15 consecutive hours, leading to a critical drop in water pressure. This explanation might have sufficed, were it not for the subsequent revelations that painted a more complex picture.
The plot thickened when it came to light that three one-million-gallon tanks in the Pacific Palisades area, crucial for maintaining hydrant pressure, experienced multiple shortages. Simultaneously, the 117 million-gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir was closed for repairs when the fire broke out, depriving crews of a vital water resource.
As if these issues weren't enough, power outages in areas like Altadena left hydrants dry, unable to pump water to elevated tanks needed for firefighting. The confluence of these problems stretches the bounds of mere coincidence, hinting at a systemic failure in emergency preparedness.
Adding another layer to this unfolding story, major insurance companies like State Farm, Allstate, and Chubb have begun a mass exodus from California's wildfire-prone communities, either stopping new policies or not renewing existing ones. This retreat has left thousands of homeowners vulnerable, forcing many to rely on the state's FAIR plan, which offers less coverage at higher costs.
The timing of this insurance crisis, coinciding with the water supply issues, raises troubling questions about the state's ability to protect its citizens in the face of natural disasters. As droughts and Santa Ana winds exaggerates wildfire risks, the compounding of these problems suggests a deeper, more systemic issue at play.
Governor Gavin Newsom's call for an independent investigation into the water supply issues faced by firefighters acknowledges the gravity of the situation. However, it also underscores the need for a broader inquiry into the interconnected failures that have left Californians increasingly vulnerable.
As this story continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the repeated failures in infrastructure, emergency response, and insurance coverage demand more than just explanations. They require a comprehensive reevaluation of how California prepares for and responds to wildfires, and a hard look at who bears the responsibility when systems designed to protect citizens fail so spectacularly.
end of segment
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to trivialize the devastating impact of wildfires or the suffering of victims. Our hearts go out to all those affected. The purpose of this critical analysis is to foster thoughtful discussion and encourage better preparedness for future disasters. We believe that constructive criticism is essential for improving our collective response to such crises and ultimately saving lives and property.
our opinions are not our sponsors opinions
the editorial department is sole and separate from the promotions department
we extend prayers to the victims of these terrifying flames