In Shock Move, California Forever Pulls Measure To Build Bay Area City (sfgate.com) 51
An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGate: A group of tech billionaires and millionaires has pulled its ballot measure that aimed to build a utopian city in Solano County. Instead, the group will go back to the drawing board the old-fashioned way by submitting an application to the county. 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. The news was celebrated by many in Solano County, where skepticism about the project ran deep. The group's secretive purchases of huge tracts of land first brought about national security fears, even from local politicians, who had no idea who was behind the project. When the plan to build a futuristic city was announced, California Forever faced widespread pushback, ranging from concerns about billionaire backers like Reid Hoffman and Laurene Powell Jobs to questions about the impacts on traffic, water usage and proximity to Travis Air Force Base. California Forever CEO Jan Sramek said in a statement: "We believe that with this process, we can build a shared vision that passes with a decisive majority and creates broad consensus for the future. We're excited about working with the Board of Supervisors, its land use subcommittee, and county staff to make this happen."
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. The news was celebrated by many in Solano County, where skepticism about the project ran deep. The group's secretive purchases of huge tracts of land first brought about national security fears, even from local politicians, who had no idea who was behind the project. When the plan to build a futuristic city was announced, California Forever faced widespread pushback, ranging from concerns about billionaire backers like Reid Hoffman and Laurene Powell Jobs to questions about the impacts on traffic, water usage and proximity to Travis Air Force Base. California Forever CEO Jan Sramek said in a statement: "We believe that with this process, we can build a shared vision that passes with a decisive majority and creates broad consensus for the future. We're excited about working with the Board of Supervisors, its land use subcommittee, and county staff to make this happen."
Make it public (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize purchasers of land are supposed to be public knowledge, but based on this statement it appears somehow this group was able to circumvent this process. All land purchases should be public knowledge, regardless of who is buying the land. Further, if it's a trust or group such as in this case, the members of the group must be listed in addition to the trust/group itself.
As we're repeatedly told, we no longer have privacy. Revealing who is purchasing land should be no different.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand why people conceal purchases like this. My state, Tennessee, started talking about building I-840, a bypass loop about 30 miles from Nashville's core decades ago. A local group of investors got wind of it, acquired dirt cheap land smack in the middle of the route, and planted a hardwood forest on it so they could milk a pile of cash from the land buyup. :|
You see the same things when a large company is moving their HQ or a large office. If I can get $2k/acre farmland today and sell it for $20
Re: (Score:1)
We all understand why people conceal purchases like this: The same reasons why they should not be allowed to conceal purchases like this.
Re: Make it public (Score:2)
Usually, private land acquisition is facilitated by private option purchases. Existing land owner gets a few thousand per acre per year to agree to sell at an agreed upon price to a developer should that developer excercize said option. Option contracts are private, not subject to public disclosure (and often include an NDA).
Public land acquisition (like for an interstate exchange) is exposed to more public scrutiny. And as a result, exposed to more front-running deals or insider trading. I would be seriou
Re: Make it public (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you're in for a serious surprise. The narcissistic billionaires formed a holding company, Flannery Associates [fox40.com], with California Forever as the parent company and bought the property outright.
They then tried to get people to vote to rezone the property from the agricultural zoning it currently has. Unfortunately for them, most people heard their idea of a utopian city and flipped them the bird. The ballot measure would have failed massively.
Their backup plan, it seems, is to beg the county government to go against people's wishes and rezone the land. I'm sure there will be plenty of bribes... err... tips for good service (which the Supreme Court has said A-OK to) to try and make it happen.
Re: Make it public (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure there will be plenty of bribes... err... tips for good service (which the Supreme Court has said A-OK to) to try and make it happen.
And people wonder where Trump got his "tax free tips" idea from. Next up: make tipping a tax-free expense so you can write off your bribes, and the official accepting the bribe (sorry, tip!) won't have to pay income tax on it either!
MAGA: Making corruption open and tax free!
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is tipping a taxable event? Receiving tips is taxable, but paying...nope! Bribes should be taxable and then illegal too. Some foreign countries bribes are part of normal business, unfortunately. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is buying laptops a taxable event?
It's not. Yet a business doing so is free to write that off as a business expense.
Why wouldn't corrupt politicians want to tax advantage bribing them, while they also don't have to pay taxes on the bribe?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's easier to bribe a few officials than it is to bribe a majority of voters.
Re: (Score:2)
But the information should not be available to the public in electronic form, because that only makes it easy for others to buy and sell your personal information without your permission, and for scammers to use it against you.
Anyone who wants to know who owns a plot of land should find out the old fashioned way, by going to the county clerk or recorder's office in person.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize purchasers of land are supposed to be public knowledge, but based on this statement it appears somehow this group was able to circumvent this process. All land purchases should be public knowledge, regardless of who is buying the land. Further, if it's a trust or group such as in this case, the members of the group must be listed in addition to the trust/group itself.
They are called shell corporations [wikipedia.org] and exist specifically to hide the identity of the owner. More than likely a company like ABC Land, Inc. bought some properties while 123 Holdings bought others and Purple Sky Investments bought lots too. On the surface, it is not easy to tell all of these companies are owned by the same parent company, another shell corporation, Maniacal Dictators, Inc.
As we're repeatedly told, we no longer have privacy. Revealing who is purchasing land should be no different.
I think you do not know how the system works. The system is working as intended. There are loopholes as there always had
Re: (Score:2)
"we no longer have privacy. Revealing who is purchasing land should be no different."
they have money, that's the difference. the normal laws and regulations no longer apply. sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual members of the society in America are afforded some small measure of consideration/privacy. People like you and I, whose every activity is monetized to support that society, get zero consideration.
Did you forget which laws apply to which tiers?
Or in other words (Score:2)
Found another way? (Score:5, Insightful)
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,"...
It kind of sounds like they didn't think they'd get the desired result in the election. It's also possible they may be more optimistic about their chances when dealing with politicians. It's easier to sway politicians than the general public [facebook.com].
Re: (Score:2)
it is not called a payoff or bribe, it is called gratuity.
thanks SCOTUS
Delta City? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No more farms, no more fields (Score:3)
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
This isn't just happening in California, either. I'm tired of seeing good farmland bought up so yet another construction project can be plopped on top of it. And the attitude of the builders is largely a case of "Fuck it, we'll just import food from Brazil or something".
The planet has eight billion mouths to feed. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not for millionaires with 10+ acre per home. Urban development is a drop in the ocean in the US.
Re:No more farms, no more fields (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't just happening in California, either. I'm tired of seeing good farmland bought up so yet another construction project can be plopped on top of it. And the attitude of the builders is largely a case of "Fuck it, we'll just import food from Brazil or something".
Food availability in the US is not even close to being a problem. Despite the disappearance of many family farms, the US produces far more food than is needed.
If there is an issue, it's more with the livelihood of family farmers. However, a lot of those farms are no longer family farms but large businesses.
Fun fact (Score:1)
Its better to have agricultural land than 400,000 people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
BS Alert! (Score:3)
Whenever some PR drone uses the expression, "We are excited to be...", you can rest assured that the media release is at least 50% bullsh^t, probably more.
What is a "shock" move? (Score:2)
Don't you mean "shocking"?
Find some place else (Score:2)
Good. No developer should be permitted to use farm land. There are plenty of other places to build.
Re: (Score:2)
All zoning should be perpetual. 10x the population, 10x the population density.
Re: (Score:2)
Except almost all undeveloped land is either farm land or otherwise unpurchasable land (parks, protected areas, etc). We don't have vast tracts of unowned land.
Did they ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
and how is that woking out in your town? Lots of new buildings going up?
Shock move? (Score:2)
bribery 101 (Score:2)
They discovered that it's easier to bribe politicians than the entire populace.
The original plan didn't include the graft (Score:2)
See bridge to nowhere [sky.com] as an example.
I stop reading/listening when... (Score:2)
You know they aren't being sincere or even honest.
They don't have the water (Score:5, Insightful)
Cities cannot be designed (Score:3)
Cities cannot be created or designed, not least because cities take longer to create than anyone's lifetime, and most attempts to "create" cities or even modify them or plan them make them worse, backfire, or don't last. Yet even despite nearly destroying, effectively destroying, or literally destroying so many great cities in the 20th century, it seems nobody learned this lesson and everyone still wants to play with fire. This is probably because cities are synonymous with economic power and all powerful economies take the form of cities, so it's understandable that people want to crack the code, but they just end up killing the golden goose instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The Urbanist (https://www.theurbanist.org/ [theurbanist.org]) would like a few words with you. Those words will be boilerplate centrally planned socialist drivel. But they will speak them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
There are examples of planned cities, but often they end up as jokes, or they make up for their artificial nature by having lot of other suburban and urban areas attached to them (ie, only the "core" was designed). Milton Keynes, Brazilia, Washington DC, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Word Salad Title. (Score:3)
It wasn't working so they quit. SHOCKING.
Special Economic Zones (Score:2)
good thing too (Score:2)
I mean California has such a glut of housing. Better not build anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
yes lets build more millionaire housing because you know 3 houses in the bay area is just not enough for one person.
It's an easy way of backing out (Score:2)
I see crap online about how a city could be built for a few billion dollars? I don't buy it for a second. Not in the civilized world. I've seen budgets for actual buildings. If you want construct a seriously tiny building that's up to western standards, you're gonna cough up a megadollar or more. For anything that has real size? The price shoots upwards.
I would guess hundreds of billions of dollars. I doubt that even Elon Musk c