California's plan is to buy up beach homes threatened by 'rising sea levels'.
Hurricane Hilary came along at just the right moment.
As Hilary Clinton pummels California—oh, sorry, I mean Hurricane Hilary—consider this:
In 2021, Scientific American announced California’s plan to Buy Up Beach Houses Threatened by Rising Sea-Levels.
State Sen. Ben Allen (D) is advancing S.B. 83, which would create a revolving loan fund for buying vulnerable homes. The fund would provide low-interest loans to beach cities, which then would offer dollars to homeowners. No one would be forced to sell.
How thoughtful! No one would be “forced” to sell. If the Biden Totalitarian Regime (BTR) wants something, it will take it, one way or another. Better take the money while you can and relocate into this cute little prison apartment in this 15-minute city—or else.
How about homes damaged or destroyed by wildfires? The article goes on:
Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D) suggested the state should look at the program for other homes threatened by climate impacts.
"I have a cabin that burned down recently in a wildfire," she said, "and I don't think I should rebuild. ... It would be great if no one rebuilt, and the government bought my land I just took it out. So I think we should be thinking about ... other areas like our wildfire-prone areas."
Whether or not Hilary is as devastating as they say it will be, dumping as much as 10 inches of rain, the fear porn surrounding it will propel people into giving up their homes for some cash—that will soon be meaningless anyway. And this is just the beginning.
How about all those celebrities owning prime real estate in places like Malibu Colony? Will they sell, too? Whether they do or not, you can be sure they are waiting out the storm on their vast ranches in Montana or Wyoming, where locals can no longer afford to live thanks to them.
It’s possible that the “wildfires” (which aren’t wild), occurring in countries around the world serve several purposes in regard to the WEF’s plans: incite fear of so-called global warming/climate change; destroy homes in outlying rural/suburban areas to force people to move/relocate closer to large cities; destroy forests as a source of fuel for heat, lumber for housing, etc.; and, as in the case of the fires in Maui, clear an area that’s been selected as the site of a future “Smart City”. If people lose their lives in the fires, it’s become known that their plans include reducing the global population. Most importantly, these fires will have people turning to their government for help, to “save” them. (Dependency upon government is essential to their plans.) Of course, the government will have to take steps to prevent people from rebuilding in “wildfire prone” areas; change building codes/regulations so that new housing contains only “smart” technology; etc. Many have speculated that there were changes made to zoning regulations in regard to the land that was burned in Maui. Coincidence?
And if the threat of rising sea levels doesn’t work, there’s always fires, just like in Maui! I’m sure wildfires on the CA coast would be just as effective, burning only lower income homes and magically avoiding the homes of the elites!