California Forever, which bought 60,000 acres, has received fierce opposition from local officials and environmental groups

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.

  • @[email protected]
    6•10 months ago

    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?