When the house burns down, someone has to show up

During the recent congressional hearing on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2027 budget, California Congresswoman Norma Torres asked a straightforward question: When would the administration submit a disaster recovery package for the California wildfire victims who lost their homes in January 2025?

HUD Secretary Scott Turner offered no timeline. Instead, he suggested that local leadership bore responsibility for the delay. This answer might have seemed reasonable in a different context, but it lands very differently when spoken to constituents whose homes burned more than four months ago and who are still waiting.

I want to be direct about something: Disaster relief is not partisan. The need for shelter transcends politics. And the mortgage industry, which sits at the center of every recovery conversation whether it wants to or not, cannot afford to treat it that way either.

The chain reaction nobody planned for

The Eaton Fire in Altadena and the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades ravaged 59 square miles, displacing thousands of residents and killing an estimated 440 people. Many Americans are still without homes and facing significant difficulty with recovery.

In March, the California Mortgage Bankers Association (CMBA) showed up to say exactly what needed to be said. CMBA CEO Paul Gigliottii — a trusted voice in this industry and someone I respect deeply — testified before the California Assembly Banking and Finance Committee and put it plainly: “Natural disasters don’t create one problem — they create a chain reaction across housing, insurance, and financial stability.”

That chain reaction is still playing out. Lawmakers heard directly from families navigating displacement, insurance delays and the complex, multi-year process of rebuilding. And while California’s Mortgage Forbearance Act, also known as AB 238, provides up to one year of mortgage forbearance for homeowners facing financial hardship from the January 2025 wildfires, the CMBA was clear that forbearance alone is not a recovery strategy. 

Extending forbearance without a defined path forward could increase financial strain on borrowers over time. Relief without structure is just a delayed crisis.

What federal accountability actually looks like

California contributes $275 billion more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding. Its residents in Altadena and the Palisades are not asking for something extra. They are asking for the disaster recovery support that every other affected community in America expects from its federal government.

Pointing to local leadership as the source of delay, as Secretary Turner did, may score a political point in one room. But in the rooms where loan officers are fielding calls from borrowers who cannot make payments on homes that no longer exist, it means nothing. Those borrowers need a coordinated federal response, not a deflection.

CMBA called for exactly that – a coordinated approach to disaster recovery policy that brings together state officials, insurers, housing stakeholders and the mortgage industry. That is not a radical ask. That is what functional disaster recovery has always required.

Why this is a mortgage industry issue

There is a tendency in our industry to treat natural disaster recovery as someone else’s problem. Until it isn’t. The California wildfires made clear that it is always our problem. Servicers, lenders and loan officers are on the front lines of what happens after a disaster: fielding calls, managing forbearance, navigating insurance claim delays and trying to hold borrower relationships together through a process that can stretch years.

In September 2025, California signed AB 238 into law, requiring lenders to provide up to 12 months of mortgage forbearance for borrowers experiencing financial hardship tied to the disaster. That is a state stepping in to fill a gap left open by federal policy. It should not have to work that way.

The mortgage industry showed up in Sacramento. The question is whether Washington will show up, too. Not eventually, and not with blame to assign, but with a concrete timeline, the proper resources and the coordination that these families were promised and are still waiting on.

A family without a home doesn’t care which party is in power. Our housing policy and our industry’s advocacy should reflect that. Because we don’t serve a bloc. We serve borrowers.

Tai Pherribo Christensen is the President and Founder of Origin & Oak Creative.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].