California Forever, which bought 60,000 acres, has received fierce opposition from local officials and environmental groups
The controversial plan backed by Silicon Valley billionaires to build a new city in northern California farmland could come before voters later this year.
California Forever, the company that quietly acquired 60,000 acres of land in Solano county and recently revealed it planned to build a city there, announced on Wednesday it would submit a ballot initiative asking voters to clear the way for the project.
Along with the announcement of the ballot initiative, the company shed further light on its plans. It is proposing to create a new walkable and sustainable community with a variety of housing options, including apartments and row houses, on 18,600 acres in east Solano county, about 60 miles from San Francisco. Their plan also includes a pledge to create as many as 15,000 jobs, a $400m fund for down payment assistance as well as a requirement that at least 4,000 acres be used for parks, trails and other green spaces.
I hate that I’m living through the dystopian guided age 2.0 I remember reading the history books and thinking how absurd it was all these tycoons could become insanely rich and exploit workers and use their riches to shape politics. Well I’ve learnt a lot these last 10 years, which is, it doesn’t matter how much progress we’ve made technologically or socially, or how safe we feel, we can always slide back. Even to Nazi Germany.
The only way to stop them from getting such power is to change the system that allows a handful of people to run everything.
The world needs direct democracy, no more corrupt career politicians taking bribes from lobbyists being put in charge of our world.
This why billionaires accumulating wealth is a problem. Their power will exceed that of democracy someday.
They can purchase their own military in the end, and even enslave people in the literal sense.
The US had it right in the 1950’s. Income over $100,000 (like $1.7 million today) was taxed at a rate of over 90%. Imagine how much money would filter back to everyone else in a company when the owners and ceo’s couldn’t pull $30,000,000 a year with bonuses while half their workers were making $16/hr. No more ceo headhunters for more and more money. No more people worth billions at the expense of the country.
You do that and overturn citizens united, then 75% of everything jacked with the country will get better.
With the exception of the issue over water usage, I’m not sure I understand the resistance to this. Yes, I do see that it could result in a problem where they engage in rent seeking behavior; but, it’s also a plan to build out a bunch of housing and the infrastructure to support it, in an area which needs more housing. And, of all the places in the US, California is the one state where I would expect to see the political will to regulate if these wealthy assholes try to turn this into a Company Town situation. More housing is not going to build itself. And this seems like one way to get some of that done. Is it perfect? Far from it, but it seems like this could also be a lot better than the nothing which is currently being done.
I think the main distrust is in private interests being in the lead. I think it’s pretty fair to not trust a solution from a bunch of billionaires, which also conveniently puts them in a position of monopolistic power.
Is it really all that different from the millions of housing tracts we have dotting the US landscape? Or the apartment blocks dotting cities? Private entities have been developing housing for decades. And while we can certainly go on about the evils of HOAs, it’s not exactly the dystopian nightmare scenario which this particular development is being made out as. I’m just not seeing the big deal in this.
This seems more involved than just a neighborhood or development project since it’s an entire city. But I’m pretty sure this kind of thing has been done a ton, they just don’t do it so loudly.
I tend to agree with this take.
Arasaka finally completing plans for Night City?
The 3rd largest city in California is California City. You’ve never heard of it because it was the same plan.
Largest by area I assume you mean
Yes but all the streets are laid out. Check it out on google maps.
Fascinating rabbithole! Thanks
how bout ya fix the mess ya made on the coast first?
walks up to the counter So I’d like the Fyre Festival but super-size it into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
All these billionaires have a hard on for space, let’s crowd fund a trip to Mars. We’ll eventually…maybe…not really send a rocket to pick them up.
People are crazy.
People vote for nothing to be built anywhere near them forcing houses prices to go sky high for the benefit of them and the detriment of others. The government won’t do anything about it because people want the market to solve issues like housing.
Currently there is this massive complaint “look at all these rich billionaires building rockets. We don’t need rockets we need houses, why don’t they ever do anything to benefit people!”
“Hey I’m planning to build houses” You monster!
So what do we actually have here?
We have a market that is distorted because the real price of housing and land value isn’t accurately captured. We can’t re bid on housing after it is bought to better value it. Something like land value tax would be perfect. But we don’t have that.
Even if we did its probably illegal to build something the market wants like medium or high density.
People do not want public transport even if it means fast, cheaper, more sustainable transport if it means you have to remove one road.
Cities are terribly built because they are built around the car.
To me this looks like the easiest solution rather than changing the minds of the government, tax law and the people to build a new city that works well.
The city: Is is going to be built in an area where water is low because of farming and it will remove farms. That’s good. It will be walkable: that’s good. It will be affordable: that’s good. It is commutable distance to one of the most expensive cities in the country: that’s good.
Honestly all the best to them because it seems like this is exactly what the state needs. To everyone complaining about it what is a reasonable alternative that in the real world of America could actually be done?
Complain more, and group all rich people into a single stereotype
If this is supposed to be some sort of vote dilution thing I feel like you’d have more productive outcomes building a city around the Idaho/Montana/Wyoming borders using the geothermal power of the Yellowstone plume to support the city’s power demands.
Or you could be even more productive vs cost of investment and relocate the offices of major federal departments and agencies to inject a bunch of educated professionals into all those rural states that’ll become the kernels around which new urbanized and educated voting blocs will form.
The main thing will be offering benefits attractive enough that those federal employees will actually bite for it to work.
It seems more like a way to maintain their company presence in Silicon Valley while slowly transitioning everything to this new city, not too far away, and try to make it the new Silicon Valley but actually better planned for long term, high population density. As an added bonus, they get to control the local government to crack down on crime and homelessness. And they’ll also get to collect rent from their employees. It’s too expensive to buy all the current real estate in SF so they can build their own 60 miles away and get everyone to relocate there and slowly raise the prices and make a shit ton of money.
I hate that this sounds so appealing to me
Atlas Shrugged?
I assume that the town motto will be “No Poor People Allowed”
