President Trump, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass rarely are unanimous on anything. But all three have taken steps toward allowing victims of the January firestorms in Los Angeles County to rebuild their communities essentially as they were before.

In both places, this would mean large quantities of single family housing and few multi-family apartment and condominium buildings.

But the seemingly innocuous aims announced by these leading politicians may soon run afoul of housing density factors playing no role in rebuilding that’s followed other major California blazes. Some of these were the 2018 Camp fire that leveled Paradise, the Tubbs fire covering parts of Napa, Sonoma and Lake counties in 2017 and the 2018 Woolsey fire that destroyed a large swath of Malibu.

The new factors include recent state and local laws demanding vastly increased density in new housing and a plethora of low- and middle-income units.

In the modern era, no other event has created nearly as much newly buildable land as the January infernos, which turned more than 16,000 structures to ash.

A clear majority of former residents in both Altadena and the Pacific Palisades district of Los Angeles want to rebuild their communities much as they were pre-fire.

But laws adopted since the previous huge burns demand both density and economic diversity. Newsom could suspend some of those laws if he chooses, just as he exempted properties leveled by the Palisades fire, which also decimated many extremely pricey Malibu homes, from normal coastal zone regulations. He has not done that.

Here’s one basic reality the recent laws don’t recognize: If density increases in burn footprints, the number of prospective victims in the inevitable future fires there will also leap.

Some planners are already saying there should be less development, not more, in these areas because of their histories of repeated fires. The recent laws don’t figure this in.

For example, two 2021 state laws known SB 9 and SB 10 allow developers to erect three-story buildings along all major thoroughfares, regardless of locale. Permits for such construction are nearly automatic under the rules. They can sometimes rise as high as eight floors.

But the most important street in Pacific Palisades, the storied Sunset Boulevard, previously had virtually no buildings of more than two floors in the Palisades.

Higher-rise structures might enable more economic diversity, but would also put many more residents at risk.

Yet, there’s little or nothing about risk in the one-size-fits-all laws that whizzed to passage.

Meanwhile, city ordinances in Los Angeles and other places go at density differently, focusing on economics. One local law dictates that all units in buildings put up before 1978 would need to be replaced with units “affordable” to low-income renters even if previous tenants had high incomes.

Another law, governing post-1978 structures, would require that landlords prove all pre-fire tenants were high income. If they can’t, new units could only be built if they’re affordable for extremely low income, very low income or low income households in direct proportion to city-wide percentages in those economic categories.

This might let some household cleaners and gardeners live much closer to work than before, but would also put many more people at risk in a place of frequent fires.

The new residents would fall into economic classes below nearby neighbors planning to rebuild in single-family zones. That is, unless developers buy up significant numbers of suddenly vacant lots and build up to six units on each, where there was previously just one home. That’s also permitted almost automatically by recent state laws.

On the other hand, few previously-burned communities have had as many residents with access to political, financial and cultural power as Pacific Palisades and Altadena, power that may be used to resist the new laws.

All of which means rebuilding these two communities may prove far more complex both financially and morally than after previous fires, where recent laws did not apply.

Legislators and local officials could change some of this and let the stricken communities try to recapture their former character. But how likely is that when many lawmakers were elected on platforms demanding ever more housing density and diversity?

Thomas Elias’ email is tdelias@aol.com