Tag Archives: Solano County CA

California Forever’s PR Problem: A Crisis of Good Faith

Illustration by BenIndy.

Opinion by BenIndy’s Editorial Board, March 13, 2024

It’s now safe to say that the road to California Forever’s new city has become, like Benicia’s own beleaguered roads, an absolute mess. However, the struggling company’s path is marred not by potholes, but its executive staff’s poor ego management, condescending and at times outright offensive talking points, and incredibly cringey public confrontations. This is probably what prompted Chris Rico of Solano Economic Development Corporation to implore those tuning in to a forum hosted by the Progressive Democrats of Benicia last night to focus on the initiative’s content rather than the personalities of those driving it.

Rico’s certainly right on one front – we as a voting public should engage with the proposal’s content in good faith, with open minds and clear eyes – but he’s missing a key ingredient to how good-faith conversations actually happen: intentionally, and with reciprocity. How can we engage with any California Forever and its proposal in good faith when the personalities pushing it consistently resort to bad-faith behaviors – defensiveness, aggression, and gaslighting – when under even the slightest pressure?

Asking tough questions doesn’t make us NIMBYs

We don’t want to underemphasize the financial and emotional cost of California Forever’s ongoing litigation currently impacting multiple families, but that is a topic for another day. For today’s purposes, we are talking about how California Forever interacts with the Solano residents through various means of public participation – town halls, commission or board meetings, and forums.

Topping the list of California Forever’s bad-faith public behaviors would be the strategies it uses to stifle reasonable questions. Before the full text of its initiative was fully released, its representatives insisted that the public just “didn’t get it yet” and all questions and complaints would be addressed in the ballot initiative text. But now that the text has been released and the tough questions remain, its representatives have shifted to insisting that reasonable criticisms of its plan for the new city are a symptom of NIMBYism, and not much more.

Listen. As one panelist pointed out last night, yes, “NIMBYism is alive and well in Solano County.” This is absolutely true, and something worth correcting, aggressively. We do need more affordable homes in California. And we want more affordable homes in Solano County. The state’s Byzantine rules and regs for development are part of the problem.

However, labeling questions and opposition as mere NIMBYism is unfair and intellectually dishonest. Worse still, this line of defense is increasingly registering as a blatant attempt to frame and ultimately chill wider public participation in this conversation – by defining and literally trying to nullify the eligibility of certain participants to speak on the topic. In effect, California Forever’s exec team’s most frequent rebuttal to challenging questions has been something to the effect of, “You don’t get to have an opinion because you have a house and/or privilege.”

Asking tough questions is not a symptom of our privilege

This gaslighting continued at last night’s forum. California’s Director of Planning Gabe Metcalf did neither himself nor his company’s public image any favors when he commented that he knew the Democratic club hosting the forum and the roughly 80 audience members he was speaking to had effectively already made up their minds, but he was there, coming to the club in good faith, on behalf of a project he believed in.

Then he implored the viewers to think of the housing crisis. He asked them to consider the plight of the unhoused. And he said he thought this new town was the solution to these problems.

Then he immediately ceded his moral high ground by dismissing informed opposition as simple NIMBYism, stating, “I know most of you probably own your own homes, so the dis-benefits of this – like there could be more traffic or more people – weigh really large on your minds. But there are a lot of people who don’t have time to go to Democratic clubs, for whom  the current system is not working.” [Emph. added.]

Let’s unpack this, because it illuminates California Forever’s PR problems in three easy swipes. First, Metcalf resorted to California Forever’s standard and increasingly indefensible playground taunt, “You’re all just a buncha NIMBYs!”, as discussed above. Then he dismissed reasonable concerns about infrastructure impacts as superficial, insinuating opponents are more annoyed about getting stuck in traffic jams than interested in housing the unhoused in a structured and sustainable way. Finally, he insulted his Democratic club host, its members, and its guests from the public (it was a public meeting, open and free to all) by suggesting that mere attendance at the very meeting he was also speaking at basically nullified every attendee’s eligibility to participate in the discussion in good faith. Simply because we had made the time to go to watch him speak, we were too privileged to consider those for whom “the current system isn’t working.”

Pause on that, wind it back, repeat it: Metcalf implied that those who attended the forum last night, those taking the time to listen to him speak, were biased by the privilege of having or making time to attend.

Oof.  Just, oof.

Gif by BenIndy, with thanks to OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4.

Solano shows up. Get used to it

The efforts and sacrifices made by community members to participate in one or several events hosted by either California Forever and its primary opposition, the Solano Together coalition, is representative of Solano County’s tremendous passion for active, inclusive public participation in decisions both big and small. And a new city is a BIG decision.

Add to that the fact that we at BenIndy happen to know that many of those watching Metcalf hold court on the topic of their own privilege are retired and living off their pensions, or still working past retirement age. Some have homes, yes, but not all. Some have means, yes, but not all. Overwhelmingly, those in attendance last night are people who don’t have time for meetings like that – instead, they make time. They recognize that their participation in this discussion is important, so they hustle, they sacrifice, and they show up.

But even if that wasn’t true, Metcalf’s characterizations not only failed to acknowledge (let alone address) the complexity of the concerns raised about the new city, they also create an entirely false dichotomy of two dogmas: the altruistic visionaries who want to build a bridge to a future where we don’t have these awful problems of chronic houselessness and worse, and those fusty-dusty NIMBY-types who are simply too steeped in their own privilege to do what is right.

In short, California Forever is trying to turn the conversation away from practical questions to a deeper, moral question: how can we possibly challenge the finer points of California Forever’s proposal when so many are suffering?

In terms of leading and manipulative questions this one is a doozy, but thankfully, there is a great answer.

You can’t trick us

When confronted with this, the panelists representing Solano Together, Bob Berman of the Solano Orderly Growth Committee and Sadie Wilson of the Greenbelt Alliance, responded calmly that Metcalf’s dichotomy was deeply flawed and the same people we’re being scolded for supposedly ignoring in this conversation will, fundamentally, never benefit from California Forever’s proposal. They pointed out that the proposed price point for homes—cited recently by CEO Jan Sramek at around $1 million—places them well beyond the reach of middle and lower-income families, let alone those who are chronically underhoused. Even if that wasn’t true, even if California Forever intended to offer homes at middle- or lower-income price points, the city wouldn’t be habitable for a projected 30 years, yielding effectively zero positive outcomes for one of our state’s most vulnerable populations, present in high quantity today.

Berman and Wilson’s stated issues with the proposal were clear and specific. They referenced the unenforceability of California Forever’s many “voter guarantees” (a story for another day), the failure of California Forever to fully comprehend let alone prepare for infrastructure impacts around, yes, traffic, but also water and other services, and more. Berman and Wilson also stated, repeatedly, that they agreed fully and completely that addressing California’s housing crisis will require land development and systemic change. Their responses were measured and persuasive.

Metcalf’s comments, meanwhile, once more raised the same fundamental doubts about whom California Forever’s project is really serving, and whether the needs of California’s most vulnerable populations are truly being considered or are merely being used as rhetorical devices in service to shareholder profits.

If you’re gonna come for Solano, you best come correct

From the initial land purchases in Eastern Solano to the New York Times exposé and through to the recent Zoom forum, California Forever has not engaged honestly with critics or the broader Solano County community.

For Solano County’s democratic process, it is paramount that opportunities for public participation are conducted in a manner that is inclusive and respectful, appropriately acknowledges the sacrifices of its participants, and prioritizes the substantive over the sensational. Solano County residents are ready to engage with California Forever in good faith, to scrutinize the merits and demerits of its initiative, and weigh its potential impacts on our community and environment with the true and urgent need for solutions to California’s housing crisis.

However, for our engagement to become truly productive, California Forever MUST meet Solano County with sincerity and respect, and desist from over-generalization, hyperbole, and insults. Only then can we hope to navigate the complexities of such a significant proposal, free from the distractions. While it’s true California Forever has had more than its fair share of hecklers, there are many who are waiting to see what the commotion is about.

The burden of proving the proposal’s merits rests wholly on California Forever. Solano is waiting. But it may be too late to course correct.

The opinions above represent those of BenIndy’s editors and no other groups or individuals.

Tonight at 7pm over Zoom: California Forever and Solano Together in the same (virtual) room!

[Note from BenIndy: Free and open to the public TONIGHT at 7pm is a Progressive Democrats of Benicia (PDB) forum featuring speakers from California Forever, Solano Together, and the Solano County Economic Development Corporation. All are welcome, regardless of party preference or city of residence. There is no need to register. Check out the message announcing the forum from PDB Chair Kathy Kerridge for the Zoom link and more information. This is a rare chance to see representatives from both sides of this issue in the same (virtual) room and figure out where you land on the issue that is making headlines across the nation – the development of a brand new city in Eastern Solano. Bring your questions – this is going to be a very interesting forum.]

Benicia, CA  – On Tuesday, March 12, Progressive Democrats of Benicia (PDB) will host an in–depth discussion of one of the hottest topics in Solano County and throughout California – California Forever, the new city planned by the land’s new owners for Solano County’s Rio Vista area and Solano Together, a coalition of organizations and individuals who oppose the project.

“We are going to take a deep dive into this local issue that is making national news – California Forever,” said Kathy Kerridge, chair of PDB. “There has been a lot of commentary about California Forever’s plans and its ballot initiative. Here is your chance to see and hear for yourself what all the commotion is about, directly from some of those most involved.”

 The meeting will be at 7 p.m. and is available on zoom. PDB’s meetings are open to the public. “This is a rare opportunity to learn about this controversial proposal and the initiative supporting the project that will be on the November ballot. We welcome everyone to tune in and participate,” Kerridge said.

Left to right: Bob Berman, Chair of Solano County Orderly Growth Committee; Sadie Wilson, Director of Planning and Research at Greenbelt Alliance; Gabe Metcalf, California Forever Head of Planning; and Chris Rico, CEO/President of Solano County Economic Development Corporation.

In order of appearance from left to right, the speakers from Solano Together will be Bob Berman, Chair of the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee, and Sadie Wilson, Director of Planning and Research at Greenbelt Alliance. Our speaker from California Forever is Head of Planning Gabe Metcalf (read a recent interview with Metcalf here). Chris Rico, CEO/President of the Solano County Economic Development Corporation, will also be on hand to answer questions and provide economic insights.

“Please save the evening of March 12 for this important discussion,” Kerridge said. “It has so far been rare to see both sides of this discussion in same room, even if it will be a virtual room.”

To join the discussion, click the link and sign-in information below or find the link at the PDB website, progressivedemocratsofbenicia.org.

Zoom Details

Topic: PDB General Meeting
Time: Mar 12, 2024 07:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86273821941?pwd=WktDazJLaTJHVTBPNWd3dzlXaGd2Zz09

Meeting ID: 862 7382 1941
Passcode: 528756

One tap mobile
+16699006833,,86273821941#,,,,*528756# US (San Jose)
+16694449171,,86273821941#,,,,*528756# US

California Forever CEO clarifies that its new city will be affordable – to millionaires

[Note from BenIndy: You can click the image to be redirected to read the interview Aiden Mayhood is referencing, but the pertinent piece is below in full, so the whole pitch for the new city proposed by California Forever is in context. Homeownership in the Bay Area continues to be something middle-income families can only dream of​, so it makes sense that the promise of affordable homes is one of California Forever’s major talking points in their bid to build a new city in Eastern Solano. Someone on California Forever’s PR team should have let CEO Jan Sramek know that the average middle-income family is not going to be able to afford a million-dollar home and his comment was, at best, an example of a billionaire deeply out of touch with the reality the middle class lives every day. If California Forever’s city will be continuing the trend of development for the super-wealthy, that is something every petition signatory should know. By the way, Aiden Mayhood is one of the more vocal activists who oppose the new city and worth following if you are on Facebook.]

Katherine [interviewer]: So it’s a housing question, but when you’re trying to get people to move to a new city, you also have to think about the other part of the equation, which is jobs, as you mentioned. What is your pitch to employers to tell them to come to Solano County?

Jan [Sramek, CEO of California Forever]: So, we have a lot of employers in the room, I think, in the Bay Area and in New York and DC. How many people feel like they need to pay their employees increasingly more and more and more because their employees can’t afford to live in the cities that they want to live in? Probably a lot of you.

How many of you are struggling because you can’t get your employees to come to the office every day? Because your employees have a commute that’s 45 minutes or, in some cases, one-and-a-half hours, and they just don’t want to spend that amount of time in traffic every day. So, even though when you tell them that they should come to the office, they fight and they don’t want to because they want to see their kids and they want to have breakfast with their kids, they want to have dinner with their kids.

And so, our pitch is, imagine that you had a place like West Village in New York or Georgetown in DC, or Noe Valley or the Marina in San Francisco. Medium density, row houses, backyards, traditional American urbanism, local shopping streets where you can walk to.

Then, imagine that we improved the transportation system by creating super blocks where cars inside those super blocks can only go about 10 miles an hour. We created biking and public transport infrastructure to use with that, meaning your kids can actually play in the streets, meaning your kids can actually walk to school alone and you don’t have to be chauffeur your whole life like a crazy person.

And then imagine that we build that in a place that is 25 minutes to Napa Valley, and that is an hour and a half away from Tahoe. And so, it’s a lot closer to those places that everyone in the Bay Area loves than Palo Alto or Cupertino or San Francisco or Oakland. And then imagine that the place is still an hour and a half away from your headquarters or office in San Francisco or Palo Alto or Menlo Park or whatever.

And so, if your team members between the two offices want to go and see each other, you don’t have to do Uber, TSA, airport, plane, delayed plane, airport, Uber, get to the office in Austin or Denver or wherever it is, but you can actually get in a car and in an hour and a half or in an hour, you can be there.

And then imagine that it was a city for up to 400,000 people that was entitled and approved at once. And so, you knew that for the next 30 years, if this office is going to work and you’ll be able to hire talent there, there’ll be enough space for you to grow in for the next 30 years. There’ll be enough office and there’ll be enough homes for your employees, whether they want to rent them or whether they want to buy them.

And then imagine that instead of paying 4 or 5 million dollars for a mediocre home in Palo Alto or San Francisco, your employees would be able to buy a nice house for a million dollars.

Katherine: Yeah, I think that’s where everyone says, “Sign me up.”

 

After Corrections, California Forever Collecting Signatures for Ballot Initiative; Solano Together Clarifies ‘Guarantees’ Are Not Binding

[Note from BenIndy: The images and emphasis in this post are not original to the Solano Together press release. If you are interested in learning more about Solano Together, check out their website, see how to get involved (with options ranging from simply being on their mailing list to volunteering), and don’t forget to donate. While there is no way Solano Together can match the millions to billions of dollars that California Forever is throwing at this thing, grassroots movements can do a lot with even a little. $5, $10, or more if you can may go a long way.]

Land where California Forever plans on building its new city (foreground) in Solano County, Feb. 16, 2024. The contentious development would be located between Travis Air Force Base and Rio Vista. | Loren Elliott / CalMatters.

Solano Together Press Release, March 1, 2024

SUISUN CITY – After intense public criticism and multiple resubmissions, California Forever’s ballot initiative asking voters for permission to rezone agricultural land to build a massive sprawl development was officially accepted by Solano County officials on Thursday. This means that California Forever will be able to start collecting signatures from voters to make the initiative eligible for the ballot this coming November.

For Solano Together, the multiple amendments to their ballot initiative speak volumes to their rushed and secretive process and the true intent of their development proposal.

The new title and summary, called “Rezoning of 17,500 acres of land in east Solano County to allow the development of a new community”, was prepared by Solano County counsel on Feb 29, 2024, updating information regarding the acreage for the proposed “new community,” changes to their land use plans, and clarifying language on the need for a Development Agreement to “vest” any promises made in the initiative.

As noted by County counsel, what is on the ballot is primarily a land use change that is not supported by any real plans for infrastructure development, resource allocation, or environmental impacts. The continued secrecy and purposeful deception of the public is unsurprising, given that project proponents have repeatedly withheld information on their intentions since they first started acquiring land in Solano County in 2017.

The initiative’s empty pledges—which they call “guarantees”—and lack of detail on everything from water sources to transportation plans give Solano residents and decision-makers very little information about how this proposed community would be developed and its associated impacts.

While the County Counsel’s summary states that the measure identifies “ten voter guarantees, including general financial and environmental commitments, that the project proponents would be obligated to provide once residential and commercial development begins,” it also clarifies that environmental impacts and financial feasibility would not be known until the measure is approved. “Rights to develop the New Community and obligations for voter guarantees would not vest until a Development Agreement is executed between the project applicant and the County.”

It’s been widely reported in local media that those “guarantees” are largely empty promises as there is no mechanism to enforce them until a Development Agreement is in place and a ballot measure cannot legally obligate the County to agree to specific provisions in a Development Agreement. The title and summary further detail that any community benefits negotiated through a Development Agreement would only be binding if the new city remained unincorporated. If California Forever chose to incorporate, all of those benefits could disappear.

Since the first public announcement of their ballot initiative on January 17, California Forever has submitted language three times as a response to criticism of their handling of Travis Airforce Base, corrections in acreage, and legal clarifications about the use of a Developments Agreement and compliance with CEQA.

Reactions from Solano Together Coalition supporters:

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.). |  Mariam Zuhaib / AP.

“Don’t build in this area. Period. The latest ballot initiative does not alleviate concerns about Travis Air Force Base encroachment. Building a city of 400,000 residents next to an active Air Force base will jeopardize the long-term viability of this vital national security installation and the 30,000 jobs that rely on the base. On top of that, the initiative provides little substance regarding governance. Flannery and Associates’ project would be an enormous strain on the County if it continues as an unincorporated community. As we’ve seen in the title and summary, all the benefits in the Development Agreement would go out the window if the community is incorporated into a city. If this project goes forward, Solano County taxpayers will foot a large part of the bill. This is a lose-lose scenario for Solano County, and we cannot allow it to move forward.” – John Garamendi, U.S. Congressman. 

“As a Solano County resident and a member of the National Union of Health Workers, this initiative is hugely concerning when it comes to the impacts a new city of 400,000 residents would have on existing mental health services. Resources are already stretched thin, and a new, unincorporated community would pull from scarce resources. If they wanted to solve homelessness, they would be acting in better faith with specialists to ensure that mental health services are being strengthened, not forgotten and potentially made even worse.” – Sarah Soroken, Solano County Resident and Mental Health Clinician at Solano County Behavioral Health.

Princess Washington, Mayor Pro-Tem of Suisun City & Chair of Sierra Club of Solano County. | Robinson Kuntz / Daily Republic.

“The changes to the initiative in response to the concerns of Travis Air Force Base should not be interpreted as goodwill on behalf of Flannery Associates. What I take from this process is a complete disregard by California Forever’s team for Travis’ needs—although they have all along said otherwise—until they realized they weren’t going to get very far unless they made some changes. If you are working as a partner, you make sure you’re on the same page from the start, and that is not what we’ve seen here.” – Princess Washington, Mayor Pro-Tem of Suisun City & Chair of the Sierra Club of Solano County.

“What is coming before Solano County voters in November is essentially a blank check for Flannery Associates to move forward with a development project that currently provides zero details on how this new city will build and fund infrastructure, manage the traffic impacts of 400,000 new residents on the roads, or uphold any of their so-called ‘guarantees.’ It’s especially concerning to know that any community benefits agreed upon in a Development Agreement would be thrown out the window if and when this new city was to incorporate.” – Marilyn Farley, former Fairfield City Council Member and former Executive Director of the Solano Land Trust

“In this third version of the initiative, there continue to be no answers for how this project will be delivered, just more questions. As an organization that sees housing as one of our best climate solutions, I think we have the opportunity to come together to overcome barriers to building in our seven cities rather than count on this project to bring the solutions we need when they have continuously failed to work with community members and public agencies, still have no plans to deliver income-restricted affordable housing, and have produced an initiative that has very little substance when it comes to project delivery.  We need climate-smart housing solutions now, and building a new city far from jobs and transit is not how we will get there.”– Sadie Wilson, Director of Planning and Research, Greenbelt Alliance.

On February 4, a diverse group of organizations, residents, and local leaders came together to celebrate the launch of the Solano Together coalition. From left to right: Fairfield resident Mario Cisneros, Rio Vista resident Aiden Mayhood, Suisun City Mayor Pro-Tem and Sierra Club of Solano County Chair Princess Washington, Representative John Garamendi, Solano Farm Bureau President William Brazelton, Vallejo Councilmember Charles Palmares, Representative Mike Thompson, and Solano County Supervisor Mitch Mashburn. | SolanoTogether.org.

About Solano Together: A group of concerned residents, leaders, and organizations who came together to form a coalition that envisions a better future for Solano County, focuses development into existing cities and strengthens our agricultural industry. Our work is driven by an alternative vision for Solano in the face of Flannery Associates’ claims about California Forever’s benefits—our vision is guided by local voices and perspectives. Learn more at solanotogether.org

For more information, contact: Daniela Ades, dades@greenbelt.org, 1-415-792-9226