u.s. senator

The firestorms that broke out in January ravaged two distinctly different stretches of Los Angeles County: one with grand views of the Pacific Ocean, the other nestled against the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

But so far, a push from congressional Republicans to investigate the Jan. 7 firestorm and response has been focused almost exclusively on the Palisades fire, which broke out in L.A.’s Pacific Palisades and went on to burn parts of Malibu and surrounding areas.

In a letter to City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, two U.S. senators this week intensified that investigation, saying they want an enormous trove of documents on Los Angeles Fire Department staffing, wildfire preparations, the city’s water supply and many other topics surrounding the devastating blaze.

U.S. Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asked for records related to several issues raised during and after the Palisades fire, including an empty reservoir and the failure to fully extinguish a previous fire that was later identified as the cause.

In contrast, the letter only briefly mentions the Eaton fire, which broke out in the unincorporated community of Altadena and spread to parts of Pasadena. That emergency was plagued by delayed evacuation alerts, deployment issues and allegations that electrical equipment operated by Southern California Edison sparked the blaze.

Both fires incinerated thousands of homes. Twelve people died in the Palisades fire. In the Eaton fire, all but one of the 19 who died were found in west Altadena, where evacuation alerts came hours after flames and smoke were threatening the area.

Scott and Johnson gave Harris-Dawson a deadline of Nov. 3 to produce records on several topics specific to the city of L.A.: “diversity, equity and inclusion” hiring policies at the city’s Fire Department; the Department of Water and Power’s oversight of its reservoirs; and the removal of Fire Chief Kristin Crowley by Mayor Karen Bass earlier this year.

Officials in Los Angeles County said they have not received such a letter dealing with either the Palisades fire or the Eaton fire.

A spokesperson for Johnson referred questions about the letter to Scott’s office. An aide to Scott told The Times this week that the investigation remains focused on the Palisades fire but could still expand. Some Eaton fire records were requested, the spokesperson said, because “they’re often inextricable in public reports.”

The senators — who both sit on the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs — opened the probe after meeting with reality TV star Spencer Pratt, who lost a home in the Palisades fire and quickly became an outspoken critic of the city’s response to the fire and subsequent rebuilding efforts. At the time, the senators called the Palisades fire “an unacceptable failure of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.”

The investigation was initially billed as a look at the city’s emergency preparations, including the lack of water in a nearby reservoir and in neighborhood fire hydrants the night of the fire. The Times first reported that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, located in Pacific Palisades, had been closed for repairs for nearly a year.

The letter to Harris-Dawson seeks records relating to the reservoir as well as those dealing with “wildfire preparation, suppression, and response … including but not limited to the response to the Palisades and Lachman fires.”

Officials have said the Lachman fire, intentionally set Jan. 1, reignited six days later to become the Palisades fire. A suspect was recently arrested on suspicion of arson in the Lachman fire. Now, the senators are raising concerns about why that fire wasn’t properly contained.

The sweeping records request also seeks communications sent to and from each of the 15 council members and or their staff that mention the Palisades and Eaton fires. At this point, it’s unclear whether the city would have a substantial number of documents on the Eaton fire, given its location outside city limits.

Harris-Dawson did not provide comment. But Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who serves on the council’s public safety committee, made clear that he thinks the senators are confused by Southern California’s geography — and the distinctions between city and county jurisdictions.

“MAGA Republicans couldn’t even look at a map before launching into this ridiculous investigation,” he said. “DEI did not cause the fires, and these senators should take their witch hunts elsewhere,” he said in a statement.

Officials in L.A. County, who have confronted their own hard questions about botched evacuation alerts and poor resource deployment during the Eaton fire, said they had not received any letters from the senators about either fire.

Neither Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger — who currently serves as board chair — nor Supervisor Lindsey Horvath had received such a document request, according to their aides. Barger represents Altadena, while Horvath’s district includes Pacific Palisades, Malibu and unincorporated communities affected by the Palisades fire.

Monday’s letter also seeks records “referring or relating to any reports or investigations of arson, burglary, theft, or looting” in fire-affected areas, as well as the arrest of Jonathan Rinderknecht, the Palisades fire arson suspect. It also seeks documents on the council’s efforts to “dismantle systemic racism” — and whether such efforts affected the DWP or the Fire Department.

Alberto Retana, president and chief executive of Community Coalition, a nonprofit group based in Harris-Dawson’s district, said he too views the inquiry from the two senators as a witch hunt — one that’s targeting L.A. city elected officials while ignoring Southern California Edison.

“There’s been reports that Edison was responsible for the Eaton fire, but there’s [nothing] that shows any concern about that,” he said.

Residents in Altadena have previously voiced concerns about what they viewed as disparities in the Trump administration’s response to the two fires. The Palisades fire tore through the mostly wealthy neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades and Malibu — home to celebrities who have since kept the recovery in the spotlight. Meanwhile, many of Altadena’s Black and working-class residents say their communities have been left behind.

In both areas, however, there has been growing concern that now-barren lots will be swiftly purchased by wealthy outside investors, including those who are based outside of the United States.

Scott, in a news release issued this week, said the congressional investigation will also examine whether Chinese companies are “taking advantage” of the fire recovery. The Times has not been able to independently verify such claims.

The rich, to paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, are different. In California, they lose a lot of very expensive, very high-profile political races.

Over the past 50-plus years, a half-dozen fabulously wealthy men and women — William Matson Roth, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina among them — have clambered atop their hefty cash piles and, despite any significant political experience, tried to launch themselves into the office of governor or U.S. senator.

Every last one of them failed.

Others with at least some background in elected office — Michael Huffington, Jane Harman, Richard Riordan to name a few — sunk a goodly chunk of their fortunes and came up similarly short in their efforts to win one of California’s top two political posts.

That history is worth noting as the very-well-to-do Rick Caruso eyes a possible entry into the wide-open race to succeed Gavin Newsom. Caruso recently told my colleague Julia Wick he was “very seriously considering” both a gubernatorial run and a second try for Los Angeles mayor.

“I’m running down two parallel paths,” the billionaire developer said. “As we speak, there are teams very busy working on both of those paths.”

(Wealthy businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, another political first-timer, has been campaigning for governor for months, spending liberally to little avail.)

There’s a common disclaimer in the field of investment — “past performance is no guarantee of future returns” — which certainly applies here.

Still, as waiting-for-Caruso replaces waiting-for-Kamala among political gossips, it’s worth asking whether there’s something — floating in the air, mixed in the water or soil — that has made California such an inhospitable place for so many lavishly monied candidates. Unlike, say, Illinois or New Jersey, which elected billionaire neophyte JB Pritzker and multimillionaire Frank Lautenberg, as, respectively, governor and U.S. senator.

Part of the reason could be the particular political climate.

“If you’re the rich outsider, you have to show up in an election cycle where people want the outsider,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who worked for Meg Whitman’s failed 2010 gubernatorial campaign, which cost a cool $180 million.

(Yes, $180 million. The former tech CEO coughed up most of that sum at a time California’s median household income was about $61,000.)

All that lucre couldn’t override the prevailing sentiment among discontented voters who were ready, after nearly eight years of the uber-outsider Arnold Schwarzenegger, to embrace the tried-and-true experience of the reemergent Jerry Brown.

That said, there’s a lengthy enough record of futility to suggest more is at work than the changeable mood of a fickle electorate.

Garry South believes California voters are of two minds when it comes to super-rich candidates. In 1998, the Democratic strategist helped Lt. Gov. Gray Davis maneuver past two moneybags, billionaire former airline executive Al Checchi and Rep. Harman, to win the governor’s race. Four years later, South led Davis’ successful reelection campaign against another multimillionaire newcomer, William Simon Jr.

“Part of them kind of admires someone who went out and made a killing in our capitalistic society … and walked away filthy rich,” South said of voters’ dueling impulses. “But they also have a suspicion that, because of their wealth and because of the benefits that it confers on that person, they don’t really know how the average person lives.”

Call it an empathy gap.

Or, perhaps more aptly, an empathy canyon.

“If somebody has $150 million sitting around they can dump into a campaign for public office,” South said, channeling the skeptical sentiment, “what understanding do they have of my day-to-day life?”

Bill Carrick, a consultant for Harman’s 1998 campaign, agreed it’s incumbent on a rich candidate to “have something substantive to say and be able to articulate why you’re going to make people’s lives better.”

That’s no different than any other office-seeker. But unlike less affluent, more relatable candidates, a billionaire or multimillionaire has a much heavier burden convincing voters they know what they’re talking about and genuinely mean it.

Don Sipple, who helped elect Schwarzenegger governor in California’s 2003 recall election, said wealth often comes with a whiff of privilege and, even more off-putting, an air of entitlement. (To be clear, Schwarzenegger won and replaced Davis because he was Arnold Schwarzenegger, not because of his personal fortune.)

A lot of California’s failed rich candidates, Sipple said, appeared viable — especially to political insiders — “because of their money. And they really didn’t have anything to offer beyond that.”

“It’s the same as somebody who goes out and tries to earn a job,” he went on. “You never deserve it. You’ve got to out and work for it. And I think voters make the distinction.”

Of course, wealth confers certain advantages. Not least is easy access to the extraordinary sum it takes to become well-known in a place with more eligible voters — nearly 27 million, at last count — than the population of all but a handful of states.

California is physically immense, too, stretching approximately 800 miles from north to south, which makes costly advertising the only realistic way to communicate in a statewide top-of-the-ticket contest.

There’s another old aphorism about wealth, credited to the burlesque star and actress, Sophie Tucker. “I’ve been rich,” she famously said, “and I’ve been poor. Rich is better.”

That’s undeniably true, so far as it goes.

The singer and comedian never tried to be governor or a U.S. senator from California.