[From BenIndy: Follow the link to see journalist Gil Duran’s take on the motivations and methods of a certain Jan Sramek, CEO of California Forever. Sramek’s dismissiveness (bordering on contempt) toward local opposition to California Forever’s East Solano Plan has included labeling them (us?) as a homogeneous group of “70-year-old Sierra Club types,” but his contempt for Solano voters apparently doesn’t stop there, according to Duran. We’ve included a few opening paragraphs of Duran’s piece to entice you to dive into his full post (there is no paywall), and we also encourage you to consider subscribing to Duran’s blog. This exploration of how Sramek’s comments and actions are deepening the wedge between his epic vision and the Solano County’s lived experience and unique reality is only one of many areas of focus for his blog, The Nerd Reich (formerly Parallel Mirror). The BenIndy is not affiliated with Duran.]
California Forever’s biggest PR problem may be its CEO
The point: California Forever CEO Jan Sramek has a talent for saying disastrous things. It’s a gift to the residents of Solano County, who are resisting his effort to build a billionaire-funded tech city in their midst.
The Backstory: You know it’s bad when a CEO lands a glossy profile in a major publication and then pretends it never happened. Such was the fate of a Business Insider piece focused on California CEO Jan Sramek.
The May 5 story was headlined “Big Tech’s Urban Hero: Here’s why Silicon Valley is betting on a Goldman prodigy to build a glorious city of the future.”
At a glance, it seemed like a win. The headline glowingly depicted Sramek as a visionary on a mission to shape the future. The story did feature criticism from California Forever’s opponents, but that’s normal. Overall, it framed Sramek in flattering terms.
A big victory, right? Not exactly.
Neither California Forever nor Sramek acknowledged the story after it published. No triumphant tweets, no boastful LinkedIn or Facebook posts. As far as California Forever is concerned, the Business Insider story never happened.
Insulting Solano County voters
The reason why is clear: Sramek totally blew it. He allowed his contempt for his opponents to get the best of him. When asked by a reporter to describe California Forever’s opposition, Sramek lashed out at Solano voters:
“The people who have been opposed to it —” Sramek pauses, trying to choose his words carefully. “When you look at them,” he says, “they all look the same.”
“Yeah, I mean, you said it,” Sramek says. “I’ll just say it’s not a particularly diverse coalition in any measure. It’s generally a 70-year-old Sierra Club type. The only thing they care about is the open space behind their house.”
And just like that, Sramek committed several grave political errors in the span of four sentences.
(Clicking the link will redirect you to The Nerd Reich’s blog post. There is no paywall but if you like what you see you could consider supporting excellence in journalism with a paid subscription.)
MORE . . .
>> Get involved… Solano Together is another local organization opposing California Forever. Between now and November, you can get a yard sign from Solano Together and send Solano Together a much needed donation.
>> Read more… BenIndy coverage of the billionaire land grab, California Forever / East Solano Plan.
The campaign to build a city from scratch in Solano County submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot, election officials said Tuesday.
The Solano County Registrar of Voters spent a month reviewing over 20,000 signatures turned in by California Forever, the billionaire-backed company behind the ballot initiative. The measure needed 14,369 signatures from registered Solano County voters to qualify. On Tuesday, the Registrar of Voters certified the signatures.
The measure now heads to the Solano County Board of Supervisors, which will vote at the end of June on whether to immediately adopt the initiative, place it on the November ballot or first request a report assessing the impacts the project would have on the county.
Supervisor Mitch Mashburn has already announced his intention to request the report and said the board “will do everything we can to provide the facts needed to make an informed decision.” That report will be published 30 days after it is requested — likely appearing before the board in late July.
“We’re feeling great. We’ve had an incredibly exciting six weeks now that we submitted the signatures; we’ve had the opportunity to start delivering on all of [our] initiatives,” California Forever CEO Jan Sramek told KQED. “This is just the beginning. There’s more coming this summer.”
California Forever has made myriad promises tied to its ambitious plan in eastern Solano County, including adding 15,000 new jobs to the county, delivering community benefits packages and offering down payment assistance programs for first-time homebuyers. In recent months, the company has begun to announce how it plans to make good on those promises.
Most recently, the company said it would offer a $140,000 grant program to fund technical courses in IT support and data analytics to prepare residents for the jobs it promises will come once the initiative is approved. It also announced it would build a “Solano Sports Complex” with spaces for baseball, softball, football, basketball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, gymnastics, swimming and other sports.
“The sports complex fills a need that we have in Solano County that every child deserves to play at a state-of-the-art facility,” Michael Fortney, California Forever’s director of partnerships, told KQED. “People will be traveling from all over the state and nationally to come to Solano County to compete here, they’ll be staying in our hotels, they’ll be shopping in our shops, they’ll be eating in our restaurants, and that will create a real economic boom for Solano County.”
The sports complex will be built only if the ballot initiative passes, but the money for the technical training grant program — along with $500,000 that the company has already doled out to local nonprofits — would be handed out before the initiative comes before voters.
Still, many are not convinced about the project and its lofty promises.
Last week, the Solano Land Trust, a conservation agency, officially came out against the project and urged voters to “vote no on a November ballot measure that would allow the development of the East Solano Plan.”
“After careful consideration, we reached the informed conclusion that a development of this magnitude will have a detrimental impact on Solano County’s water resources, air quality, traffic, farmland and natural environment,” Nicole Braddock, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “The plan runs counter to Solano Land Trust’s mission of preserving land and water for current and future generations in Solano County.”
Solano Together, a grassroots organization opposed to the East Solano Plan, has started printing and handing out yard signs saying “No to California Forever” to those opposed to the plan. Other organizations, including Sustainable Solano, have also publicly opposed the project, citing concerns about a strain on water resources and traffic the new development might bring.
“I think it’s really easy to say no,” Sramek said on Tuesday, blaming the opposition on “special interest groups.” “What we are hearing from voters is this is the most credible plan that they’ve ever seen to make life better for working families in Solano County.”
MORE . . .
>> Get involved… Solano Together is another local organization opposing California Forever. Between now and November, you can get a yard sign from Solano Together and send Solano Together a much needed donation.
>> Read more… BenIndy coverage of the billionaire land grab, California Forever / East Solano Plan.
Tomorrow, on Tuesday, June 11th, the City Council will hold the first of a series of public hearings on a specific tax proposal that, if passed, would increase taxes solely on the sale of real estate.
These public hearings will focus on the proposed structure of a proposed Real Property Transfer Tax ( RPTT), targeting only residential and commercial properties when they are sold, with the potential for the issue to be decided by our voters on the November ballot.
No one likes taxes.
And it is challenging to ask voters to approve new ones, even when applied to a limited number of people. But the City’s financial situation, while improving, is not yet stable.
The overwhelming approval by Benicia voters of Measures A and B provided critical funding to maintain service levels for most City programs. But it will not provide enough to address our remaining financial challenges.
We still have a shortfall of tens of millions of dollars to address our need to upgrade deteriorated city facilities, improve our parks, and continue to maintain top quality employees.
The City Manager has been quite transparent in discussing his plan to develop enough sustainable revenue to carry Benicia forward into the future and address our many unfunded needs. At the same time, he will shortly announce even more internal, significant, cost-savings brought about by restructuring of departments and reduction in personnel.
A Real Property Transfer Tax already exists. Solano County taxes all Benicia property at $1.10 per $1000 of sales price (0.11%). We are asking voters to allow it to be raised in a way that is similar to other neighboring communities. It is paid by either the buyer or seller (or negotiated) in real estate transactions, and is paid as part of closing costs.
Historically, there are between 200-250 property sales per year in Benicia. Unless and until you plan to sell a property here, you would be unaffected.
We should also look to the possible future housing growth in the city. If we do see new home construction, we will have in place a taxing tool to collect our fair share of the sales transaction.
Only charter cities are allowed to increase this tax (if approved by voters), so a companion measure is required that authorizes a limited Charter, restricted only to this use.
Related issues that will be discussed by the Council, and for which public comment is desired, include the following:
Should there be a flat tax where all property sales be taxed at the same rate? Or should the rate be progressively higher as the sales amount increases?
What rates are appropriate in each case?
Should property sales under $500,000 (for example) be exempt?
Should transfers among immediate family members be exempt?
How will commercial property sales (which do not happen often) be managed—variable or flat rate?
Other anticipated exemptions involve circumstances such as sales due to a divorce, non-profit ownership, sales by government entities, and corporate re-organizations under bankruptcy laws
Again, your input is desired, either by attending any of the meetings (in person or virtually) listed at the end of the staff report, or by submitting written comments to the city clerk at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us.
Save these dates
Below is the City of Benicia’s projected timeline for next steps to place the limited charter and RPTT on the ballot for the November 2024 election:
Tuesday, June 11, at 5:30pm (tomorrow): Special City Council Meeting – Limited Charter Public Hearing #1; Direction on RPTT Rate Models and Exemptions*
Sunday, June 23: Notice of Public Hearing #2 (by publishing in Benicia Herald Sunday Edition and posting at three public places within the City)
Tuesday, July 16: Limited Charter Public Hearing #2 – City Council Meeting
Tuesday, August 6: Last day for City Clerk to submit resolutions to Registrar of Voters to place a measure on November 5, 2024 Ballot
You must be logged in to post a comment.