The surprise announcement was made Monday by California Forever, a group of investors planning a city of 400,000 people in an agricultural part of the Bay Area near Rio Vista. It recently received the requisite number of signatures to put its East Solano Plan on the November ballot; that measure, if passed, would have removed some zoning restrictions that prevent this type of development in the area.
California Forever will instead "submit an application for a General Plan & Zoning Amendment and proceed with the normal County process which includes preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report and the negotiation and execution of Development Agreement,” Solano County Board of Supervisors Chair Mitch Mashburn said in a statement Monday.
I'm bummed, we need more housing and urban environments that encourage walking and biking. The renderings remind me very much of the Dutch cities and towns I spent my 20s in. It's a bit sad. The...
I'm bummed, we need more housing and urban environments that encourage walking and biking. The renderings remind me very much of the Dutch cities and towns I spent my 20s in.
It's a bit sad. The Bay Area has the terrain and weather to become a mega Amsterdam or Copenhagen with lots of trees, parks, bikeways, instead of the current megasuburb it currently is.
Is putting another town on what had previously been farmland actually going to change the trend towards megasuburb? The proposed location is about halfway between Sacramento and SF; isn't this...
Is putting another town on what had previously been farmland actually going to change the trend towards megasuburb? The proposed location is about halfway between Sacramento and SF; isn't this just another step towards connecting the two regions into one contiguous field of single-story housing with occasional hills of office buildings rising from it? If you want something like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, I'd think you'd be fighting for infill development rather than greenfield.
The argument there would be that to fight for development of existing settlements you have to convince a bunch of NIMBYs to lower their property value, whereas to start anew you lose all that baggage.
you want something like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, I'd think you'd be fighting for infill development rather than greenfield.
The argument there would be that to fight for development of existing settlements you have to convince a bunch of NIMBYs to lower their property value, whereas to start anew you lose all that baggage.
Yes, but that's how you actually get density. Going the "easy" route extends the suburbification of the area, because it's always going to be cheaper to buy farmland and pay to have the zoning...
Yes, but that's how you actually get density. Going the "easy" route extends the suburbification of the area, because it's always going to be cheaper to buy farmland and pay to have the zoning changed. Besides, if anyone was going to have the money to deal with the NIMBY's, it's a group of billionaires. They could pay for a team of lawyers to just show up to every council meeting arguing about this forever without a significant dent in their net worth; they could lobby the state for further changes to the ability of local NIMBY's to block development, etc. There's lots of ways that their money could make for easier infill. The fact that they want to just found and build their own city isn't because it's cheap, but because it will give them complete control.
Why? Buying land and rezoning is actually very hard - the project has hit many roadblocks, regardless of what you think of it. If they do get their way in the end, why wouldn’t they do what they...
Why? Buying land and rezoning is actually very hard - the project has hit many roadblocks, regardless of what you think of it. If they do get their way in the end, why wouldn’t they do what they say and keep zoning to a minimum?
I think you’re vastly overestimating how easy it is to shape NIMBY voter opinions. If it were so easy, then it would have been done already. It’s hard to convince individuals to vote against their own self interests. If a lawyer showed up at a local assembly, you would only harden the cause against development - what’s more the face of cold hearted business than lawyers? That’ll do the opposite.
People really overestimate the affect of money on politics. Money is a necessary but not sufficient clause. You do need money, but that’s not enough on its own. Otherwise Bloomberg would be the president right now.
Ok, don't pay lawyers, provide support for YIMBY groups in the area. Whatever. The point is they have the money to fund whatever endeavors that they want to shape public opinion, as evidenced by...
Ok, don't pay lawyers, provide support for YIMBY groups in the area. Whatever. The point is they have the money to fund whatever endeavors that they want to shape public opinion, as evidenced by the fact that before they gave up on the idea of "taking the issue to the voters", they had already paid for the collection of many signatures to get it on the ballot. They're not restricted to the ways of making things happen that the rest of us are.
Providing support doesn’t mean success in that case as well. Many of the investors do provide support for YIMBY groups, but that has to be a slow burn by definition. Buying land where there are no...
Providing support doesn’t mean success in that case as well. Many of the investors do provide support for YIMBY groups, but that has to be a slow burn by definition.
Buying land where there are no people is something where, once you own and incorporate it, no amount of further local politics is needed.
And again, I don’t see why they would “just develop more suburbs”. If all you wanted to do is make more suburbs, that’s easy - most land IS zoned for SFH already. Why go through all this? I’m not saying the project will succeed by any means, but I fail to see how this is a suburb developer in disguise when just building the normal way is the path of least resistance. Going through the hoopla to get a bunch of land that is zoned sfh so that it can be zoned for multi use and then only building sfh would be ???
Yeah, I figure that what they want is a municipality that they truly control. Not just "influence the elections through funding the right people," but "write the town charter and have full...
Yeah, I figure that what they want is a municipality that they truly control. Not just "influence the elections through funding the right people," but "write the town charter and have full administrative control." It's not about housing, it's about real total control of the city.
I don't think it would be much of an exaggeration to say that reshaping the existing SF Bay Area metro into something resembling a series of interconnected European-style people-friendly towns is...
I don't think it would be much of an exaggeration to say that reshaping the existing SF Bay Area metro into something resembling a series of interconnected European-style people-friendly towns is for practical purposes impossible, at least on any reasonable timeline. It would be a costly, lengthy uphill battle to convert even a tiny corner of it.
It's like trying to build a snowman in the middle of the Sahara. Bring all the snow you want, but it's all going to melt and then quickly evaporate.
The only way I see this changing is if California manages by some miracle rid itself of prop 13 so wealthy and pseudo-wealthy inheritor NIMBYs can't keep their land locked up in perpetuity for the cost of couch change.
I think there’s enough demand for housing that we should support both well-designed greenfield developments and infill. (That is, assuming it really is well-designed. The details are still...
I think there’s enough demand for housing that we should support both well-designed greenfield developments and infill.
(That is, assuming it really is well-designed. The details are still sketchy.)
It’s too far inland for my tastes though. Current temperature: 103.
Frankly, if it weren't for the people behind this project, the location, and way they went about trying to make it happen, I'd probably be at least mildly in favor of it. More housing? Cool. But a...
Frankly, if it weren't for the people behind this project, the location, and way they went about trying to make it happen, I'd probably be at least mildly in favor of it. More housing? Cool. But a corporation-run town that tried to railroad through approval to build in an unpleasant part of the central valley? It's got multiple ways I think it's a bad idea. Maybe they can make it good, and if so, good for them. It seems terrible and terribly planned to me.
I initially followed it very closely, as I had already been imagining what-if scenarios in that same area. There was a lot going for a forward-thinking and sustainable development there. So...
I initially followed it very closely, as I had already been imagining what-if scenarios in that same area. There was a lot going for a forward-thinking and sustainable development there. So naturally the actual effort with money behind it is underwhelming. It appears to me, for all intents and purposes, as a straightforward unaltruistic investment with minor megalomania.
Could have been an opportunity to experiment. Work with locals to convert pasture into hemp farms and vegetable gardens, use hempcrete and local materials to construct mixed use attached buildings that are more pleasant and more efficient to live in.
If it's just going to be another development that doesn't teach us anything new, revitalize what we already have in spades.
Yeah anywhere near the bay that's not literally within a 20 mile radius of the bay is just desert. Even Gilroy, which isn't that far away, feels more like Arizona than the bay area. But it's...
Yeah anywhere near the bay that's not literally within a 20 mile radius of the bay is just desert. Even Gilroy, which isn't that far away, feels more like Arizona than the bay area.
But it's somewhat mutually exclusive by definition - places with good weather will have a lot of people there, and if you have people htere you can't really do what they want to do.
I live in Gilroy. Peak temp in my backyard was 107 today, in the shade. I could drive in any direction for less than 20 minutes and find significantly cooler temperatures. Don't know why we live...
I live in Gilroy. Peak temp in my backyard was 107 today, in the shade. I could drive in any direction for less than 20 minutes and find significantly cooler temperatures. Don't know why we live in a heat lens, but it's a real thing, that's for sure.
I wonder what led to the shift? Did polling indicate that they were likely to lose? Did they reach an "understanding" with whoever can make the zoning updates?
I wonder what led to the shift? Did polling indicate that they were likely to lose? Did they reach an "understanding" with whoever can make the zoning updates?
I'm bummed, we need more housing and urban environments that encourage walking and biking. The renderings remind me very much of the Dutch cities and towns I spent my 20s in.
It's a bit sad. The Bay Area has the terrain and weather to become a mega Amsterdam or Copenhagen with lots of trees, parks, bikeways, instead of the current megasuburb it currently is.
Is putting another town on what had previously been farmland actually going to change the trend towards megasuburb? The proposed location is about halfway between Sacramento and SF; isn't this just another step towards connecting the two regions into one contiguous field of single-story housing with occasional hills of office buildings rising from it? If you want something like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, I'd think you'd be fighting for infill development rather than greenfield.
The argument there would be that to fight for development of existing settlements you have to convince a bunch of NIMBYs to lower their property value, whereas to start anew you lose all that baggage.
Yes, but that's how you actually get density. Going the "easy" route extends the suburbification of the area, because it's always going to be cheaper to buy farmland and pay to have the zoning changed. Besides, if anyone was going to have the money to deal with the NIMBY's, it's a group of billionaires. They could pay for a team of lawyers to just show up to every council meeting arguing about this forever without a significant dent in their net worth; they could lobby the state for further changes to the ability of local NIMBY's to block development, etc. There's lots of ways that their money could make for easier infill. The fact that they want to just found and build their own city isn't because it's cheap, but because it will give them complete control.
Why? Buying land and rezoning is actually very hard - the project has hit many roadblocks, regardless of what you think of it. If they do get their way in the end, why wouldn’t they do what they say and keep zoning to a minimum?
I think you’re vastly overestimating how easy it is to shape NIMBY voter opinions. If it were so easy, then it would have been done already. It’s hard to convince individuals to vote against their own self interests. If a lawyer showed up at a local assembly, you would only harden the cause against development - what’s more the face of cold hearted business than lawyers? That’ll do the opposite.
People really overestimate the affect of money on politics. Money is a necessary but not sufficient clause. You do need money, but that’s not enough on its own. Otherwise Bloomberg would be the president right now.
Ok, don't pay lawyers, provide support for YIMBY groups in the area. Whatever. The point is they have the money to fund whatever endeavors that they want to shape public opinion, as evidenced by the fact that before they gave up on the idea of "taking the issue to the voters", they had already paid for the collection of many signatures to get it on the ballot. They're not restricted to the ways of making things happen that the rest of us are.
Providing support doesn’t mean success in that case as well. Many of the investors do provide support for YIMBY groups, but that has to be a slow burn by definition.
Buying land where there are no people is something where, once you own and incorporate it, no amount of further local politics is needed.
And again, I don’t see why they would “just develop more suburbs”. If all you wanted to do is make more suburbs, that’s easy - most land IS zoned for SFH already. Why go through all this? I’m not saying the project will succeed by any means, but I fail to see how this is a suburb developer in disguise when just building the normal way is the path of least resistance. Going through the hoopla to get a bunch of land that is zoned sfh so that it can be zoned for multi use and then only building sfh would be ???
Yeah, I figure that what they want is a municipality that they truly control. Not just "influence the elections through funding the right people," but "write the town charter and have full administrative control." It's not about housing, it's about real total control of the city.
I don't think it would be much of an exaggeration to say that reshaping the existing SF Bay Area metro into something resembling a series of interconnected European-style people-friendly towns is for practical purposes impossible, at least on any reasonable timeline. It would be a costly, lengthy uphill battle to convert even a tiny corner of it.
It's like trying to build a snowman in the middle of the Sahara. Bring all the snow you want, but it's all going to melt and then quickly evaporate.
The only way I see this changing is if California manages by some miracle rid itself of prop 13 so wealthy and pseudo-wealthy inheritor NIMBYs can't keep their land locked up in perpetuity for the cost of couch change.
EDIT: Added qualifier
I think there’s enough demand for housing that we should support both well-designed greenfield developments and infill.
(That is, assuming it really is well-designed. The details are still sketchy.)
It’s too far inland for my tastes though. Current temperature: 103.
Frankly, if it weren't for the people behind this project, the location, and way they went about trying to make it happen, I'd probably be at least mildly in favor of it. More housing? Cool. But a corporation-run town that tried to railroad through approval to build in an unpleasant part of the central valley? It's got multiple ways I think it's a bad idea. Maybe they can make it good, and if so, good for them. It seems terrible and terribly planned to me.
I initially followed it very closely, as I had already been imagining what-if scenarios in that same area. There was a lot going for a forward-thinking and sustainable development there. So naturally the actual effort with money behind it is underwhelming. It appears to me, for all intents and purposes, as a straightforward unaltruistic investment with minor megalomania.
Could have been an opportunity to experiment. Work with locals to convert pasture into hemp farms and vegetable gardens, use hempcrete and local materials to construct mixed use attached buildings that are more pleasant and more efficient to live in.
If it's just going to be another development that doesn't teach us anything new, revitalize what we already have in spades.
Yeah anywhere near the bay that's not literally within a 20 mile radius of the bay is just desert. Even Gilroy, which isn't that far away, feels more like Arizona than the bay area.
But it's somewhat mutually exclusive by definition - places with good weather will have a lot of people there, and if you have people htere you can't really do what they want to do.
I live in Gilroy. Peak temp in my backyard was 107 today, in the shade. I could drive in any direction for less than 20 minutes and find significantly cooler temperatures. Don't know why we live in a heat lens, but it's a real thing, that's for sure.
Previous discussions.
I wonder what led to the shift? Did polling indicate that they were likely to lose? Did they reach an "understanding" with whoever can make the zoning updates?