“Big news today. Cal Fever plans to build a facility to please every conceivable sports enthusiast. Next, an apple pie factory and the world’s biggest American flag. And something honoring every Solano mom…”
Later, also from BenIndy’s trustworthy editor emeritus:
“Also in the news: Cal Forever execs plan to give a car to every teenager and a guaranteed anti-aging syrup to every senior. Oh, and I heard they are planning to travel the county giving kisses to every baby. I believe ’em, don’t you?”
Yes, the billionaires behind “California Forever” are at it again, announcing yesterday the creation of yet another vague and legally tenuous “incentive” to boost the company’s increasingly desperate efforts to drive supporters to the polls in November.
Solano could certainly use new sports facilities for youth and adults, although it’s presently unclear how building a single, massive superstructure could reasonably serve the county without adding massive infrastructural and logistical nightmares to what is already a rough situation for families. (Sidenote: Maybe this is a stupid question, but wouldn’t it make more sense to have several smaller facilities spread across several underserved areas, to reduce congestion and serve those communities more equitably through improved access, instead of having one massive megaplex with certainly choked ingress and egress points? Couldn’t those smaller facilities serve as a sort of gravitational pull for those undeserved communities, to prompt deeper neighborhood ties and increased community investments, across generations?)
To its many opponents, this most recent in a series of similar announcements confirmed that California Forever’s communications and marketing teams are locked in a repeating pattern of three steps:
When confronted with community distrust or opposition, invent a committee and stack it with sympathetic locals who may (or may not) have some relevant experience and interest in addressing that problem, to task them to devise the “solution,” all while paying third-party firms and consultants to do the actual work (sometimes out of state);
Declare that California Forever has – through its largesse, beneficence, and access to such firms and consultants – co-developed a community-driven solution, but will fund this solution only once the ballot initiative has passed.
And repeat, and repeat, and repeat…until all that wild shooting in the dark finally takes the target(s) down.
Be wary
Before the full text of the ballot initiative was available in early 2024, California Forever execs begged Solano residents to wait for that full text with an open mind. But those of us who did so remain confused or frustrated.
Now, California Forever is begging Solano residents to simply trust it, and to wait for the ballot measure to pass, whereupon our trust will be rewarded with the full, unconditional delivery of all of our promised incentives, like candy falls freely from a busted piñata.
Except instead of candy, or sports centers, this is actually a discussion about peoples’ lives, and about the material and spiritual future of Solano County. And Solano voters should be very wary.
There is a real and urgent need for affordable housing for Californians yesterday. But this most recent in California Forever’s parade of vague incentives comes with its usual set of weak guardrails and shows us that the company continues to be much more invested in winning at the ballot than than addressing real issues like the business of creating and maintaining positive housing, health, and educational outcomes for present and future Solano residents.
Jepson Prairie Reserve, adjacent to Flannery Associates’ proposed development, hosts one of the few remaining vernal pool habitats and native bunchgrass prairies in California. | Claire Greenburger for Sierra Club.
A plan to develop a new city northeast of San Francisco has been seven years in the making, but until recently, the details were largely kept under wraps. Now that the plans are public—and the proposal has garnered enough signatures to make it onto the November ballot for voter consideration—residents and activists are squaring off to defeat what the developers promise will be a kind of green urban paradise.
Not so, say many of the plan’s opponents. “My fight has all of a sudden started to heat up,” said Joe Feller, chair emeritus of the Solano Group of the Sierra Club’s Redwood Chapter, on the day the proposal made it onto the ballot.
For years, a mysterious LLC known as “Flannery Associates” was quietly buying up vast swaths of Solano County farmland. No one knew who they were or what they were doing. These large real estate plays, it now turns out, were part of a project backed by a who’s who of Silicon Valley billionaires—among them Reid Hoffman, the cofounder of LinkedIn, and Laurene Powell Jobs, the founder of Emerson Collective and widow of Steve Jobs—to build a new city that would house up to 400,000 people. Renderings of the city depict an eco-oasis with dense middle-class housing, solar-powered homes, walkable neighborhoods, open green space, and access to public transportation. The project, the developers claim, will solve the Bay Area’s housing crisis.
But according to Feller and several environmental groups who have banded together to oppose the project, it is not what it seems. Despite its promises, the development would come at a major cost to Solano County’s natural environment. And there has been little community engagement about the proposed project or its potential impacts.
On a Sunday afternoon last February, as rainfall flooded roads across Northern California, hundreds of Solano County residents gathered at a community center in Suisun City to celebrate the launch of Solano Together—a coalition of concerned residents and organizations opposed to Flannery Associates’ plan. The crowd that day included a wide range of community members with varying political views. At the event, impassioned farmers, environmentalists, and local leaders expressed outrage at how Flannery Associates had left them in the dark about their plan, which, they say, was a ploy by the developers to ensure low prices and minimal community resistance. The crowd was fired up, erupting in cheers between each speaker. Unlike the land—of which Flannery now owns nearly 10 percent—“the spirit here is not for sale,” said Princess Washington, mayor pro tem of Suisun City and the chair of the Redwood Chapter’s Solano Group.
In April, months after the launch of Solano Together, Duane Kromm and Marilyn Farley, a retired couple who have been helping lead the coalition, drove a reporter north along Highway 113 to visit the site for the proposed city. Vast fields of hay and barley extended far into the distance. Clusters of sheep and cattle dotted the landscape. Trees were few and far between. “This would all be four, five, six stories tall,” said Kromm, who is a member of the Solano Orderly Growth Committee.
Before Flannery Associates can begin development, a host of barriers stand in its way—the foremost being Solano’s land-use restrictions. At the heart of the county’s development philosophy is “what is urban should be municipal,” Kromm explained. Concurrently, land zoned agricultural cannot be developed, which is what has kept large swaths of the region rural for so long. According to Solano County’s Orderly Growth Initiative, any zoning changes must be voted on, which is why Flannery is seeking voter approval this November.
Though Flannery claims on its website that the farmland poised for development is “non-prime,” only contributing approximately 1.6 percent of Solano County’s total agricultural revenue, Farley believes that Flannery’s plan threatens more than the local economy. This development, she said, would strike at the core of Solano’s identity. “They’ve disrupted a whole farming system. And they’ve disrupted families, many of whom have been on that land since the late 1800s,” Farley said. The loss of US farmland is rampant, she noted, with 2,000 acres of agricultural land being paved over, fragmented, or converted to uses that jeopardize farming every day. [source below]
Under the stewardship of its former owners, the farmland, now owned by Flannery, has been carefully managed. The farmers practice dryland farming, Farley explained, a practice of growing crops without irrigation, done to save water. Typically, farms will have a year growing grain, a year of fallow, and a year of grazing, she said. “It’s very sustainable.”
These grasslands are also “biodiverse ecosystems that are underrepresented in protected areas statewide,” said Nate Huntington, a resilience associate at Greenbelt Alliance, one of the environmental groups that opposes the project. “When they’re well managed, grazing areas can host important biological resources and mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration.” Though the carbon stores on this land have yet to be calculated, intuitively, Kromm said, if you pave it all over, “that’s not going to be good.” Data for the biological resources located on the land is still limited since the developers have yet to conduct an environmental impact statement, which likely won’t take place until after the November elections.
Adjacent to Flannery’s land lies Jepson Prairie, one of the few remaining vernal pool habitats and native bunchgrass prairies in California, owned and managed by the Solano Land Trust. Yellow California goldfields were at peak bloom, drawing yellow stripes around the pool. Farley, who was careful to stay on the narrow trail that winds the reserve to avoid disrupting the habitat, fears what the land would look like if it were to become the backyard of 400,000 new residents. “There’d be a lot of people here,” she said. “Who knows what they’ll do.” The reserve provides habitat for a host of threatened and endangered native wildlife, including burrowing owls, monarch butterflies, California tiger salamanders, and 15 rare and endangered plant species.
The preserve is only a small part of the Jepson Prairie ecosystem, said Carol Witham, a vernal pool specialist. Little by little, that protected area has been expanding. But now, that door has closed. “Flannery has come out and bought a whole bunch of parcels that make it impossible to continue to do that,” she said. In the area surrounding the prairie, Flannery Associates now owns 60 percent of the county’s unprotected freshwater marshes, 50 percent of the high-value vernal pool conservation land, and 34 percent of the region’s priority areas for conservation, which conservationists fear is at risk of destruction.
The San Francisco Bay Area has suffered from one of the worst housing crises in the nation and one that local leaders have largely failed to address. For decades, rising prices have been pushing middle- and low-income residents out of urban centers like San Francisco. Housing experts agree that low-income and middle-class housing must be scaled up to meet the community’s needs, which Flannery’s plan—in theory—would provide.
In response to questions from a reporter, Flannery Associates said that it seeks to negate the harmful impacts of urban sprawl by building a city that is much denser than a typical American suburb. “We have proposed a community where people can live, work, and take care of most of their needs within walkable neighborhoods,” a spokesman said in an email.
The developers claim that building a city from the ground up allows them to incorporate the newest, most efficient technologies. In addition to generating enough renewable energy from wind and solar to power 1.5 million homes—far surpassing the needs of the immediate community—they plan to deploy “ultra-efficient” water recycling and thermal energy systems. “Overall, we are confident that our project will provide one of the best models in the world for drastically reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions,” the project claims. Developers also promise to create 15,000 local jobs.
“But there are some impacts that are going to be very, very difficult to mitigate. First and foremost is the need for transportation,” said Daniel Rodríguez, professor of city and regional planning and director of the Institute for Transportation at the University of California, Berkeley. He has studied similar “new urbanist” developments that, in their early stages, shared many of Flannery’s aspirations. “Over and over, we found that the transportation claims that the developers made rarely materialized. Residents of these communities traveled as much as residents of any traditional suburb.” Despite Flannery’s plans to create an “employment cluster” in Solano County, the reality is that “jobs don’t cluster because developers would like them to,” Rodríguez said. Flannery’s conception sounds like “magical thinking,” he said. Inevitably, residents will wind up commuting to already existing urban centers.
While the developers advocate for building a transit system to support a more energy-efficient alternative for commuters, existing public transportation in many California cities is nearing collapse and in need of major investment, said Rodríguez. It would be “fiscally irresponsible to even think about investing in a rail system for a city that hasn’t been built,” he said.
While alternative options may require “a little more tinkering,” as Rodríguez put it, better alternatives are possible—and some are already underway. In the East Bay, the Concord Reuse Project, which will be developed on the site of a former naval weapons station, is slated to deliver over 12,000 homes, a quarter of which will be affordable and located adjacent to an existing transit station. In contrast to the project in Solano County, the Reuse Project has been developed across a diverse coalition of labor, environmental, and faith-based organizations. “It’s a climate-friendly and equitable development that is connected to existing communities,” said Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, managing attorney at Public Advocates.
Despite the well-funded campaigns behind Flannery’s plan, Kromm doesn’t feel threatened by their chances. A recent pollshowed that 70 percent of Solano residents oppose the project. But activists expect Flannery’s fight won’t stop there.
What ultimately happens in Solano County “will set a precedent for what’s going to happen in the future with people who have the means to privately purchase land and develop open space,” Washington said. “This is not an isolated incident. It will continue to happen, and we are on the front line of this decision.”
Jack Ohman’s editorial cartoon from the May 26 SF Chron.
By Stephen Golub, May 28, 2024
“Is this the Golub household?”
The pleasant young woman who rang my doorbell on Friday was soliciting support for the East Solano Plan, otherwise known as California Forever, otherwise known as Flannery Associates, the shadowy company launched by ultra-rich Silicon Valley investors. The firm has bought $900 million of Solano County land in recent years in order to supposedly build a model city, despite widespread traffic congestion, water shortage, environmental and credibility concerns to the contrary.
After I calmly but firmly expressed my doubts about the project and its backers, she went on her way.
I’d previously suspected that the Flannery flim-flam was simply a get-even-richer-quick scheme for the billionaires: Start by buying the land. Then have its mainly farmland zoning changed to allow residential use, via passage of the firm’s “East Solano Homes, Jobs, and Clean Energy Initiative” referendum this November. Finally, flip the land to developers at inflated prices.
But there could be more to this scheme than meets the eye.
In a fascinating blog post and New Republic article, journalist and communications strategist Gil Duran dives into what possibly drives CF: “California Forever aligns with the Network State cult, a movement which seeks to build new sovereign territories ruled by tech plutocrats. The idea behind the Network State is to build new cities that can eventually gain sovereignty and essentially secede from the United States.”
Though he has an impressive background working for leading California news outlets and officials, don’t just take Duran’s word about Network State ideology. Here’s the leader of the Network State movement, tech entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan, on the topic: “[A] network state is a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states”. [Emphasis added.]
As suggested by Duran’s New Republic piece, that vision may be dark rather than hopeful, offering ways to evade a dystopian future rather than shape a utopian one, more Terminator than Star Trek. Also bear in mind that Srinivasan’s politics are such that in January 2017 Donald Trump reportedly interviewed him to head the Food and Drug Administration.
Duran suggests links between California Forever and the Network State in terms of Srinivasan repeatedly alluding to the former in discussing the latter, as well as Srinivasan’s shared orientations and connections with several CF funders. Where there’s smoke, there could well be fire.
Now, let’s take a few steps back…
First, in fairness to Flannery or California Forever or the East Solano Plan – or whatever surveys or focus groups might tell the initiative’s leaders they should call it these days – the project denies any ties to the Network State movement. I’d add that thus far Duran is making an intriguing case for the connection, rather than conclusively proving it.
Still, as he asserts, “Given the company’s history of evasiveness, its denials mean little.”
That’s a powerful point, in view of how the initiative keeps rebranding itself; how some of its backers’ outlooks overlap with Network State ideology; how its recent mass mailing misleadingly maintains that the project will “Keep Travis Air Force Base Secure and Thriving,” when in fact the project’s original plans put the Base’s security in question; and, most notably, how it’s offering glowing “guarantees” of massive benefits it’s actually not obliged to honor
Second, are we really seeing the potential birth of an Independent Republic of East Solano? I don’t see how. But if the California Forever initiative passes in November, or if its backers otherwise exert enough political sway, we could witness the rise of an undemocratic and unaccountable entity that echoes the Network State orientation.
Third, wouldn’t Solano County benefit from something of a shakeup, in terms of additional housing, resources, environmental enhancements and a host of other would-be benefits? Sure. But there are better ways of doing that, consistent with the County’s General Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors and approved by voters in 2008, by working with our existing cities rather than converting farmland. Plus we get back to whether we can even trust the project. I’m afraid we can’t.
How will Duran’s allegations play out over time? Who knows? The fact that California Forever is misleading on many other matters does not automatically mean it’s being dishonest in denying this Network State connection. But neither has it earned the benefit of the doubt.
It’s certainly worth subscribing to Duran’s blog to learn more. It’s also worth being beware, should an East Solano Plan solicitor come knocking at your door the way one did at mine.
What can we do about the billionaires’ dubious development? For months, “a group of concerned residents, leaders, and organizations” called Solano Together has been working to “provide the public, voters, and decision-makers with accurate information on the impacts of California Forever and unite around a shared [alternative] vision for the future.” Thanks to the invaluable Benicia Independent, I very recently learned of a new group, whimsically called California ForNever, where folks can also gather further information and register opposition to the project. Both organizations seem well worth checking out.
Back to Duran: Regardless of whether he turns out to be completely correct regarding the Network State connection, kudos for his raising crucial questions that add fuel to the flim-Flannery fire.
[Hat tip: MK, JK, Benicia Independent and Gil Duran.]
[Note from BenIndy: ENOUGH ALREADY. California Forever’s cynical use of the “job-hating NIMBYs” refrain to dismiss opposition to its new city needs to stop. With so much money at its disposal, CF’s PR team should be able to come up with something better than these lazy, insulting, and honestly embarrassing attempts to stifle discourse with mean-spirited and just plain silly generalizations. This manipulative spin factory is not only offensive but also an exercise in what younger generations would call CRINGE. For all the money they’re throwing around, they can’t even manage decent propaganda. A lot of good could come from how much cash is feeding this dying albatross, and it’s a shame to see it wasted on the development of talking points that have the same intellectual weight of a middle school bully’s playground taunt. We need affordable housing now, and it needs to be actually affordable.]
SOLANO COUNTY, Calif. — Opponents of California Forever’s East Solano Plan met Thursday afternoon to distribute lawn signs to share their disapproval of a proposed new Solano County city.“It will dramatically change life in Solano County,” said Marilyn Farley, of Solano Together. “I’m not in favor of it.”
Farley is part of a coalition of Solano County community members opposed to the proposed new city that has been pitched and backed by a group of Silicon Valley billionaires. The development would require thousands of acres of land — purchased by the investors and currently zoned for agricultural use —be rezoned for urban development.
“The traffic is a concern. The nearby habitat is a concern, vernal pools,” Farley said. “It’s just how they went about it and how secretive they were.”
On Thursday, Farley and others concerned about the project met in Vacaville for a sign pickup. Two opposition groups both produced signs to be handed out.
Michelle Trippi is an organizer of the Facebook group California ForNever. The name, she said, may be satirical but the online forum is a real place for people to share their concerns with the proposal and California Forever, she explained.
“I’m just opposed to the lack of transparency and dishonesty,” she said. “They could have sold me had they filled in the blanks, but there are just so many unknowns.”
Michael Fortney, California Forever’s director of partnerships, shared a statement with KCRA 3 in response to the opposition. It reads:
“We are delivering on the promises of the East Solano Plan. We protected Travis AFB, brought a dozen new employers who are excited to come to Solano County, and delivered $500,000 in nonprofit grants for the county. And Solano residents are recognizing that we can deliver – people are reaching out to me daily, excited and energized by what we can do together. Meanwhile, a small group of vocal opponents are busy chasing away new employers from Solano County, and preventing the building of homes that can keep our kids in Solano. Let’s not let a small minority shout down new ideas for Solano County and instead work together to build opportunity for everyone.”
Farley isn’t convinced. She said Solano Together will continue its work as a potential ballot measure that could go to voters this November.
“I never thought I’d be doing something like this,” she said. “We believe in Solano County and our way of life. We believe in protecting our farmland and our open space and we’re going to do what we can to protect it.”
The Solano County Registrar of Voters told KCRA 3 that California Forever submitted its petition to place the measure on the ballot with more than 20,000 signatures. Elections officials are in the process of verifying those signatures. An update is expected in mid-June.
You must be logged in to post a comment.