'we Can Have Seven Homes Or We Can Have 70.' In Wake Of Los Angeles Wildfires, Homeowners And Developers Clash

LOS ANGELES — After the Eaton fire tore through Neil Tyler’s home in Altadena, he and his wife quickly set out to rebuild.

They designed their new house to resemble the old one and, with the framing complete, expect to return in the spring.

But recently the 41-year-old attorney discovered a developer’s plans to build 10 houses on a neighboring lot. It is one of more than a dozen such proposals Tyler said he and other residents have identified. If allowed to go forward, he worries the projects will encourage more developers to follow with a sea of subdivisions, erasing the patchwork of quirky, tight-knit neighborhoods that defined Altadena before the blaze.

“I can’t foresee ever feeling like we’ve recaptured the dream house,” Tyler said. “Because it’s not just the house, it’s the community we fell in love with.”

The distrust of what Tyler calls “predatory developers” has united wildfire survivors from Altadena’s foothills to the winding streets of Pacific Palisades and the Malibu coastline, which were equally devastated in last year’s blazes.

And it has spilled into the recovery’s politics.

State lawmakers are pursuing a new round of limits on denser rebuilding, arguing that developers are taking advantage of special rules never meant for them. The effort comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom, pushed by residents to curb investor activity, issued an executive order last summer banning a state duplex law in Pacific Palisades.

“The disaster survivor who literally was living in a home that is now gone through no fault of their own deserves a little bit more grace than an opportunistic investor,” said Ben Allen, a Democratic state senator representing Pacific Palisades and parts of Malibu. “There’s a special status for these folks who lost everything.”

Yet these proposals are colliding with California’s broader drive for more housing amid a long-running shortage and the realities of a frustrating rebuild that is unfolding slowly as homeowners struggle to cover daunting construction costs. Developers working in the burn zones say they’re building housing that survivors will want and that broader Los Angeles needs. And some victims of the wildfires worry that attempts to reel in developers could depress property values or complicate opportunities to build additional homes on their properties.

Developers often become flashpoints in the aftermath of natural disasters, said Zachary Lamb, an assistant professor of city and regional planning at University of California, Berkeley. Tensions emerge with the need to attract investment and know-how to restore homes and businesses, he said.

“Developers obviously have a profit motive that’s built into their work. But they also have expertise,” said Lamb, who has studied post-Katrina New Orleans and other recoveries.

The January 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires destroyed 16,000 homes, businesses and other structures, burning a stretch of beachfront houses along the iconic Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu and one of Los Angeles’ centers of Black homeownership in Altadena. The significance of these and other areas intensified concerns that land grabs could produce pricey, out-of-scale houses or leave lots vacant as investors wait for values to rise.

Within weeks of the fires, “Not For Sale” signs popped up on charred lots, giving rise to a rallying cry in Altadena and Pacific Palisades. Anxiety has escalated as homeowners, particularly in Altadena, have been bombarded with unsolicited offers from real estate investors looking to buy their properties. When LA Mayor Karen Bass celebrated the first completed rebuild in Pacific Palisades in December, survivors howled in protest because it was a spec house.

And as lot sales have increased, so too has concern over the role developers and outside investors will have in the rebuild. More than 1,000 vacant lots — about 10 percent of those that burned — have been sold in Pacific Palisades and Altadena as of June, according to an analysis from real estate firm Redfin. Half the sales have gone to investors, the data shows, with their share rising over time.

Tyler and hundreds of his neighbors packed an emergency Altadena Town Council meeting in June to share their indignation over, among other things, the fact that state laws meant to spur denser building had been shelved in wealthier Pacific Palisades but not Altadena.

State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat who represents Altadena, responded with SB 1090, which would pause the construction of duplexes, and 10-unit subdivisions, such as the one planned near Tyler’s home, in the community during the recovery. Lawmakers are expected to debate the bill when they return to the Capitol following summer recess next week.

“It will protect Eaton fire survivors and allow them the time they need to rebuild their community without the overpowering influence of predatory developers,” Pérez said at a Sacramento rally this month.

But developers say the anger at them is misplaced.

Sean Beddoe, co-owner of Stone West Homes, said the subdivision law makes it possible for companies like his to produce starter homes for survivors and other Los Angeles buyers. Stone West has bought seven lots in Altadena and wants to put up about 10 houses averaging 1,750 square feet on each.

Beddoe said the company was encouraged to pursue its plans in part by a brochure put out by Los Angeles County that touted the rebuilding opportunities in Altadena under the subdivision law, SB 1123. Then in the spring, he said, county planners abruptly stopped the permitting process. The developer has since sued over the decision. (County officials say they voided three permit applications for subdivisions and are not accepting new ones after consulting the state housing department and concluding the law doesn’t apply to lots surrounded by other vacant parcels.)

The uncertainty has led Stone West to abandon plans to buy two more lots, including the one behind Tyler’s home.

If its SB 1123 projects cannot proceed, Beddoe said, the company will build large, expensive single-family homes instead.

“We can have seven homes or we can have 70 homes,” Beddoe said. “So the question is, which one helps the neighborhood recover from the fire more?”

Beddoe said profit does not make developers’ role illegitimate.

“The guy that cleared the lots, the guy that cut down the trees that were burnt, the guy that swept the streets after the fires, all these people made money,” he said. “That doesn’t mean what they were doing was wrong. We are simply trying to build homes in a city that has a massive housing shortage.”

Concerns about investor influence are playing out along the coast as well.

New Zealand billionaire toy magnates Nick and Mat Mowbray have spent $111 million on 16 burned lots along Pacific Coast Highway, according to LA county records. The brothers want to manufacture prefabricated luxury homes at their factory in China and ship them to Malibu where they’ll be assembled on site, said Marcel Fontijn, their U.S. representative.

Fontijn said the brothers love Malibu and plan to keep one house for themselves, while selling the others.

“Every single home across the 16 lots will be individually custom-designed to match its specific site conditions and preserve the unique architectural identity of the Malibu coastline,” Fontjin said.

Still, he’s acknowledged the skepticism of their plans.

“When you hear 'foreign investor', when you hear 'China-built housing' — these are two things that you don't want to hear in your neighborhood," Fontijn told Realtor.com last fall.

Malibu residents have reacted to the Mowbrays’ plans with indignation and incredulity. The brothers are using state laws that allow property owners in disaster zones to increase the size of rebuilt homes by 10 percent without undergoing additional review from local and state regulators.

Citing the Mowbrays, Allen has introduced legislation, SB 1229, to give those regulators greater oversight for such rebuilds along the coast — but only if the builder isn’t the original owner.

“The main reason we want to speed up the rebuild process is because of deep sympathy for the folks who lost their homes,” he said. “Now you’re seeing developers coming through, trying to buy up some of this property and take advantage of the waived permitting requirements.”

Survivors fear land purchases by developers with ready capital will continue to accelerate as neighbors abandon plans to return. Financing gaps, dwindling insurance payouts, costly labor and materials and delays in securing long-term federal recovery funding have all complicated rebuilding for residents.

At the same time, the situation has evolved into more complicated views about density and the role of developers.

Some Altadena residents initially wary of investors changed their minds after watching one firm complete well-appointed homes.

And survivors in both communities are taking advantage of permissive state laws to add units to their own properties. More than one-third of permit applications in Altadena include at least one accessory dwelling unit as do one in five applications in Pacific Palisades, according to a POLITICO analysis of rebuilding data.

Shirley Weaver Taylor, who bought her home in Altadena in 1979, has relied on the state’s duplex law, SB 9, to build a second home where her 500-square-foot garage once stood. With it nearly completed, she plans to rent the unit to relatives or close friends while living in the rebuilt main house.

Taylor, 77, understands the concerns about developers in Altadena, but called Pérez’s legislation to ban SB 9 “a big mistake.”

The law, she said, gives, “the common man and woman the opportunity to do something.”

The proposals to limit denser projects in LA fire zones face an uncertain future.

In December, the pro-development group YIMBY Law sued over Newsom’s executive order that banned SB 9 duplexes in Pacific Palisades and other highest-risk fire areas. Malibu and Pasadena used the order to prohibit duplexes in its neighborhoods affected by the Palisades and Eaton fires, respectively.

But now officials in both cities are taking steps to reverse that decision as part of a proposed settlement. The lawsuit remains pending for Pacific Palisades.

YIMBY organizations, which have gained influence as part of the push for growth in Sacramento, also are opposing Pérez’s bill, arguing that the density laws can help underinsured owners rebuild and ease the housing shortage. Newsom, meanwhile, has signaled he may not be keen to sign Allen’s bill if it makes it to his desk. The governor has repeatedly criticized the California Coastal Commission for impeding development, and Allen’s legislation would give the commission additional regulatory authority.

POLITICO Data/Graphics Editor Sean McMinn contributed to this report.