23 votes

The farmers had what the billionaires wanted

11 comments

  1. skybrian
    Link
    From the article: ... ... ... ...

    From the article:

    For six years a mysterious company called Flannery Associates, which Sramek controlled, had upended the town of 10,000 by spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy every farm in the area. Flannery made multimillionaires out of some owners and sparked feuds among others. It sued a group of holdouts who had refused its above-market offers, on the grounds that they were colluding for more.

    The company was Rio Vista’s main source of gossip, yet until a few weeks before the meeting no one in the room had heard of Sramek or knew what Flannery was up to. Residents worried it could be a front for foreign spies looking to surveil a nearby Air Force base. One theory held the company was acquiring land for a new Disneyland.

    Now the truth was standing in front of them. And somehow it was weirder than the rumors.

    The truth was that Sramek wanted to build a city from the ground up, in an agricultural region whose defining feature was how little it had changed. The idea would have been treated as a joke if it weren’t backed by a group of Silicon Valley billionaires who included Michael Moritz, a venture capitalist; Reid Hoffman, an investor and co-founder of LinkedIn; and Laurene Powell Jobs, the founder of the Emerson Collective and the widow of the Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. They and others from the technology world had spent some $900 million on farmland in a demonstration of their dead seriousness about Sramek’s vision.

    ...

    Sramek, 36, who is from the Czech Republic and had come to California to try to make it in startups, was now the center of their economy. Flannery had become the largest landowner in the region, amassing an area twice the size of San Francisco.

    ...

    In a state whose agricultural bounty has historically been a function of moving water great distances, the area is something of an anachronism. For generations, families like the Mahoneys have practiced “dryland farming,” which means they rely on rain, not irrigation.

    The Mahoneys talk about this the same way they talk about their land and family: with an emphasis on tradition and the romance of continuity. Sramek described the land as “not prime.”

    The phrase angered several farmers at the Rio Vista town meeting, but in dollar terms it’s accurate. At the time of Sramek’s first fishing trip, land in the area was trading around $4,000 an acre — a pittance compared with a Central Valley almond orchard (about $10,000 to $55,000 per acre) or a Napa Valley vineyard (anywhere from $50,000 to more than $500,000 per acre), according to the California chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.

    Sramek starting doing research and soon found himself immersed in zoning policy and poring over old development maps dreaming of a startup city. Investors were initially reluctant, he said, so he borrowed $1 million from friends and banks to put a deposit on a handful of properties, then hired consultants and land-use lawyers to assess what it would take to build there.

    ...

    Sramek said Flannery had operated in secret to prevent landowners from jacking up prices, and defended the lawsuits as just. He argued that while some farmers didn’t want to sell, most had done so willingly — at prices no other buyer could offer.

    “We paid way over market value, and created hundreds of millionaires in the process,” he said. “We are glad that we have been able to settle most of our disputes, and we are open to settling the remaining ones.”

    ...

    In August, The New York Times broke the news of who was behind the purchases. Sramek confirmed his role, and soon topped his LinkedIn profile with a new title: CEO of California Forever, the company’s new name.

    He has been in campaign mode ever since, meeting with elected officials, union leaders and environmental groups. California Forever has opened four offices across the county, and Solano’s freeways are now plastered with California Forever billboards.

    15 votes
  2. [9]
    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link
    I find this initiative disturbing. I've been to silicone valley on numerous occasions and it's a sea of single family homes, an entire peninsula as suburb. I applaud Sramek's dream of wanting to...

    I find this initiative disturbing. I've been to silicone valley on numerous occasions and it's a sea of single family homes, an entire peninsula as suburb. I applaud Sramek's dream of wanting to build a dream city for many urbanists but why aren't these investors instead spending their hundreds of millions of dollars densifying the Bay Area?

    9 votes
    1. ButteredToast
      Link Parent
      My read may be mistaken but having lived in the SF Bay Area for several years in the past, I think the issue is that entrenched interests there are so strong that even venture capital struggles to...

      My read may be mistaken but having lived in the SF Bay Area for several years in the past, I think the issue is that entrenched interests there are so strong that even venture capital struggles to get anything done.

      It’s a mess, with wealthy NIMBYs doing everything in their power to keep the region perpetually unchanging, including weaponization of things like environmental regulations and paying off local politicians. The list of densification projects they’ve killed is long and includes many backed by big money. It’s near impossible to accomplish anything mentionable, which is probably one of the biggest reasons this group is trying to sidestep all of that by building where none of that exists.

      19 votes
    2. [2]
      turmacar
      Link Parent
      I have to assume it's cost prohibitive, even with the amount of money they obviously have access to. Every dollar you spend buying the land in the first place can't be spent doing what you want...

      I have to assume it's cost prohibitive, even with the amount of money they obviously have access to. Every dollar you spend buying the land in the first place can't be spent doing what you want with it. The farmers want millions of dollars for acres of land, the Silicon Valley homeowners want millions of dollars for a fraction of an acre. And also if the holdouts don't want to move you have presumably more 'connected' individuals in a more powerful municipality that has probably already made what you're doing illegal through zoning. You could get around that also, but that's even more sunk cost.

      If you're immediately going to knock everything down and start from scratch that doesn't make much sense, even if location wise it would be much better.

      I agree that if nothing else the way they're starting out is a bit disturbing. Some of their plans sound outright dystopian too, but I don't think they could have made a start in any existing sizable city really.

      4 votes
      1. EgoEimi
        Link Parent
        It can cost up to $1.3 million to build one unit of affordable housing in SF. Another source pegs the average cost at $737,000 in 2019. Let's say that this group of billionaires decided to get...

        It can cost up to $1.3 million to build one unit of affordable housing in SF. Another source pegs the average cost at $737,000 in 2019.

        Let's say that this group of billionaires decided to get together and to build in SF. Let's peg the unit cost at $1 million, which is probably a very low estimate because god knows that NIMBYs and activists will put up a fight against new housing. They decide light $1 billion on fire trying to build in SF: they'd build only 1,000 units.

        It's insane.

        They probably figure that they can create more housing impact by building on farmland.

        10 votes
    3. [4]
      DavesWorld
      Link Parent
      All the stuff about "sustainable" and "new housing" and so on, that's PR. Smoke. Designed to screen away from their actual goal, the reason they're actually interested. How much would it take to...

      It could also be spectacularly profitable, he said: Moritz estimated that investors could make 10 times their money even if they just got the land rezoned, and far more if and when it was developed.

      All the stuff about "sustainable" and "new housing" and so on, that's PR. Smoke. Designed to screen away from their actual goal, the reason they're actually interested.

      How much would it take to ram past zoning NIMBYism in a city like San Francisco? Or to buy out a neighborhood, to take over the city council? I'm sure someone could do the math, but it would require sitting down with the map, and current valuations, and (gosh) probably even a calculator.

      Seems safe to say the answer is somewhere north of "a whole lot."

      Why aren't they doing that? Because it doesn't make them money. Their goal isn't to improve San Francisco. It's to make money.

      Buying out farms is cheaper. A rezoning fight out there is cheaper. Much more so than trying any of the same maneuvers in a city.

      When someone's goal is to make money, it's not exactly very likely, or common, they really care about any other goals that might come about? Walkable? Sustainable? Green? Affordable? Proving out new living technologies? Showcasing new neighborhood designs? Paying forward? Giving back? Creating a thriving community?

      They're after generational wealth. Being able to own, outright, a new suburb of San Francisco ... this group has been working on this for more than a decade. They want the cash because they want new tech money to become permanently sustainable old money. Anything else they talk about is a distraction.

      If they can keep enough people from looking behind the curtain until the investors have enough control, they think they can achieve a goldmine that'll just give and give and give. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and instead, please direct your attention to our (marketing) reel so we can blind you into voting for us.

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        EgoEimi
        Link Parent
        How can you be sure? They can make much, much more money investing that money in tech or some other high growth area. Housing development profit margins are a boring 10–20%. Using that money to...

        Why aren't they doing that? Because it doesn't make them money. Their goal isn't to improve San Francisco. It's to make money.

        How can you be sure? They can make much, much more money investing that money in tech or some other high growth area. Housing development profit margins are a boring 10–20%. Using that money to develop a new city is a relatively poor investment.

        It's possible that they see the writing on the wall that housing scarcity is the bottom turtle of all of the Bay Area's socioeconomic problems. These billionaires, with the exception of Hoffman, live in the Bay Area: Morritz lives in San Francisco proper. They could easily move to some private island in Hawaii, Santa Barbara, Martha's Vineyard, or New Zealand. They probably have seen and made the connection between what they see on the streets and the Bay Area housing crisis.

        9 votes
        1. turmacar
          Link Parent
          A very safe 10-20% is much better than a very risky 100+%. The people who bet on the wrong tech company nobody knows their names. The people who bet on the right tech company... are doing this....

          A very safe 10-20% is much better than a very risky 100+%. The people who bet on the wrong tech company nobody knows their names. The people who bet on the right tech company... are doing this. Warren Buffet and other 'long term billionaires' aren't famous for making huge risky bets.

          Moving to a more stable investment structure after you've made your billions isn't exactly rocket science.

          1 vote
      2. ButteredToast
        Link Parent
        The thing with SF specifically is that the problems aren’t just financial. There’s a truly immense amount of energy invested in keeping big chunks of the city in virtual stasis, which makes it a...

        The thing with SF specifically is that the problems aren’t just financial. There’s a truly immense amount of energy invested in keeping big chunks of the city in virtual stasis, which makes it a tooth-and-nail battle to do anything, especially projects involving dense housing or public transit.

        Land owners want to keep the value of their cheaply built early 1900s victorians artificially inflated, wealthy NIMBYs want to keep public transit and the commoners they transport out, and city politicians use their status as gatekeepers to erect hoops for prospective developers to jump through to enrich themselves and their connections, ballooning the cost of any project to a number many times what it would’ve been otherwise.

        Even ignoring the costs involved and associated unprofitability, forcing a city that is extremely disinterested in even small substantial changes to reinvent itself is likely a practice in futility.

        That’s not to say that this group has the best interests of anybody but themselves at heart, profit is certainly one of their motives. It’s just difficult to envision a project bringing sweeping change to SF no matter how it’s done.

        5 votes
    4. stu2b50
      Link Parent
      Because it's illegal to densify the Bay Area. Unfortunately, money cannot always overturn law.

      why aren't these investors instead spending their hundreds of millions of dollars densifying the Bay Area?

      Because it's illegal to densify the Bay Area. Unfortunately, money cannot always overturn law.

      3 votes