A Brand New City in Northern California Will Show if the State Is Serious About Housing Solutions
The project might determine whether new generations will be able to take part in the American Dream.

Surveys consistently show that owning a home is one of the keys to overall happiness, which no doubt explains why debates about housing prices are so emotional—and so dominant in the Legislature and at city councils. Thanks to low supply and the resulting price surges, many Californians now struggle to buy homes. The nationwide homeownership rate is nearly 66 percent, but that number is only around 55 percent in California.
Obviously, homeownership comes with drawbacks. Replacing a roof or repairing a foundation is expensive. It's harder to take a new job in another city if you've got to first sell your home. But owning a home allows you to design it to your tastes. You're not living in fear the landlord will sell it. You get tax breaks and can build equity over time. You can settle in and become part of the community. The feds have long viewed homeownership as a key to economic stability.
A brewing battle in Northern California 60 miles east of San Francisco in exurban Solano County will determine whether our state is serious about building new housing. It will also show whether YIMBYs—the Yes In My Back Yarders who promote housing construction—are true to their own rhetoric, or are just the urban version of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yarders) who oppose any construction they don't like.
People often have the misconception that home prices are so high in the Bay Area because urbanization has limited places to build. In reality, there's seemingly endless open land throughout the eight-county region—but government growth controls are limiting opportunity for development. For instance, across the Golden Gate Bridge in Marin County, 84 percent of the land is off limits to development. No wonder the population is only 260,000—and home prices are absurd.
It's the same story throughout the area. Growth-control measures in Alameda County have assured that one sees nothing but lovely empty hillsides on the drive to Oakland, but they have scuttled development plans and assured million-dollar median home prices. Solano is home to some major suburbs but is dominated by vast tracts of ranchland (and wind farms) as one heads eastward to the Sacramento County line. I love the open spaces, but it's an ideal spot for a new city.
That's exactly what savvy venture capitalists from the Bay Area are planning. Beginning in 2017, a group called Flannery Associates has quietly purchased 50,000 acres—in a move that echoes the Walt Disney Co.'s secretive purchase of swampland around Orlando in the 1960s as it pursued the construction of Disney World and eventually Epcot Center. Big dreams require bold action, especially if one wants to build an entirely new city in regulation-choked, growth-controlled California.
The project has become the biggest thing in Solano County in perhaps forever, which makes the proposal's name, California Forever, apropos. A New York Times article in August turned local buzz into a statewide controversy. It described the idea as follows: "Take an arid patch of brown hills cut by a two-lane highway between suburbs and rural land, and convert it into a community with tens of thousands of residents, clean energy, public transportation, and dense urban life."
California Forever representatives have been holding the usual array of public meetings, as they prepare for a November countywide ballot initiative that's necessary to rezone the land from agricultural uses. That's necessary because in 2008 county voters overwhelmingly passed the Orwellian-named Orderly Growth Initiative—a common type of NIMBY open-space measure that has paved (actually, not paved) the way for the state's housing crisis.
The Press Democrat reports that the initiative campaign is off to a "bumpy start," which isn't surprising for a project of this scale. It's also not surprising that some locals take a burn at the idea of tech moguls from the Bay Area helicoptering into a somewhat rural area and imposing their big ideas on them.
Fortune magazine reported that, "The Silicon Valley billionaires' Astroturf city being built from scratch is running headlong into a NIMBY backlash." Ironically, it's not only NIMBYs who are a problem. The San Francisco Chronicle reported the proposal has divided YIMBYs. "It's sprawl with a prettier face and prettier name," one YIMBY activist told the newspaper.
I've found many YIMBY critiques on social media, which is odd given the plan is filled with the latest urbanist concepts. "All cities were once 'new' cities," California Forever notes. It's also spot on when it explains that "we will never, ever come close to solving our housing affordability challenges through infill alone." But many YIMBYs aren't so much about building housing, but shoehorning us into tiny apartments along bus lines.
The project certainly is shaking up the housing debate across the state—and might determine whether new generations will be able to take part in the American Dream.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In logic is often used the example of the person who recommends standing up at football games to see better. But doesn't see (literally) that if everybody did that , FEW could see.
Same with solutions to city problems.Why do people feel that home ownership is part of happiness. Well, because so many people say that [who are not talking as homeowners...Polilticians, social scientists, people at parties]
Do we even see that this is a tertiary problem , so consider this wrinkle
2007 Study
In the United States (U.S.) in 2005, divorced households spent 46% and 56% more on electricity and water per person than married households. Divorced households in the U.S. could have saved more than 38 million rooms, 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, and 627 billion gallons of water in 2005 alone if their resource-use efficiency had been comparable to married households. Furthermore, U.S. households that experienced divorce used 42–61% more resources per person than before their dissolution. Remarriage of divorced household heads increased household size and reduced resource use to levels similar to those of married households. The results suggest that mitigating the impacts of resource-inefficient lifestyles such as divorce helps to achieve global environmental sustainability and saves money for households.
===================
WE must first work to preserve families and rein in divorce.
Secondly we need to have an education where graduation from high shcool means you are employable.Right now it does not. So you can't get a home
"Recent research in the US found that while 87% of recent graduates feel well prepared to hit the ground running in their new job, only half of hiring managers agreed. The shortfall across hard and soft skills is plain to see – one in four roles go unfilled due to the technical skills gap and hiring managers report worrying gaps in graduates’ critical thinking, communication and leadership skills. Around the world, many graduates simply aren’t employable in the roles being created today, yet will have spent at least 3 years racking up debt to study a course that will not help them find a relevant role."
And Jacques Ellul said it almost 70 years ago...
Technological society leads to increasing numbers of people who cannot adapt to the inhuman rhythm of modern life with its emphasis on specialization. A class of people is growing up who are unexploitable because they are not worth employing even for the minimum wage. Technological progress makes whole categories of people useless without making it possible to support them with the wealth produced by the progress.
Jacques Ellul
a city of lonely individualistic divorced or unmarried males is the ticket to hell.
Goerge Gilder's magnificent MEN AND MARRIAGE has been re-issued after 60 years. In almost every bad category of deviancy, crime, and anti-social behavior it is unmarried males in the 18-34 group that lead.
Lots of valid points here.
Government housing is the american dream???
Reason magazine is just another sewage communist / progressive publication.
Reason magazine is just like delta airlines…. they can’t understand why their planes keep breaking apart as they only hire according to skin color and not according to ability.
Filthy liberal / progressive racists. They deserve to go bankrupt.
Democrat = Racist.
Period.
I thought that was United Airlines?
WE must first work to preserve families and rein in divorce.
What you mean "we," kemo-sabe?
Points for using "rein" correctly though.
'Thanks to low supply and the resulting price surges, many Californians now struggle to buy homes.'
Nothing about required content (solar panels!) and other regulations about the actual construction process?
California isn’t serious about housing. California is serious about open borders. DEI, high taxes, more stifling regulations, climate change, and advancing Marxism in general.
Finally a commenter tells the truth!!
The supply was always low. The prices have surged even as the California population has leveled off, mainly due to “work from home” allowing highly paid tech professionals to be bid up homes away from the main cities, Fed-led QE sub-market mortgage rates, and also due to investors and hedge funds and big corporations buying up single family homes to make them rentals.
'The project might determine whether new generations will be able to take part in the American Dream.'
Is that the old American Dream where house ownership was a reward for personal work and life stability? Or the new American Dream where houses are just a human right?
Probably the new one.
Remember, kids, saying you have a human right to the labor of African's is racist but saying you have a human right to the labor of a doctor is just common sense; even if the Doctor is African!
This time, the Central and Urban Planning Committee will get it right!
Yeah, like planned economies, planned cities don't seem like a good idea. Particularly when there is no core economic reason for it to be there.
Another article about a failed policy in California.
Local politicians and even some local residents are hopping mad about this plan and at the group who quietly bought up a lot of land while they weren’t paying attention.
Fundamentally, CA’s government doesn’t want people living in houses. They want them in small little apartments, and if the apartments aren’t available then tents or old RVs will suffice. They certainly don’t want a building industry that earns a profit building houses because developers want to build the homes they believe that buyers will want, which are not the homes CA’s politicians think they should have.
As this plan progresses every obstacle will be thrown in their way to make sure that it is a financial disaster. Now, if a tent city had been proposed it would be met with widespread political support.
Don't worry, they're planning lots of small, high-density, "affordable" homes in this dream city.
I cannot see construction/maintenance prices coming down. Going back to my rant on Democrat subsidies…if a part time barista has the same exact lifestyle (subsidized housing, food, water, electricity, healthcare) as a master plumber, the master plumber is going to want an easier lower hours job with the same lifestyle.
If the plumber wants to work hard and keep upward mobility, they’ll be charging higher prices than a first year MD.
#subsidizeverything
You can’t build a city. Cities aren’t built. Towns and villages aren’t built.
They grow.
They grow according to need and ability.
Likewise you can't create density. Dense environments only work when and where people WANT them.
The central planners want to force everyone into cool, neat hipster hives --but people don't WANT hipster hives--not for long.
They want density starting out, with a lot of other people like them around for camaraderie and commiseration. Then they want space to grow together with an SO, maybe to start a family. Then they want more space, to raise the kids and have a good life and still be able, while home, to get a little alone time. Then they want a nice space, somewhere the kids will enjoy visiting, bringing their families with them.
And people wend through different varieties of this all their lives.
Which really pisses the central planners off.
So their vile city will fail.
Why?
Because an entire class of city is dying right now. Killed by covid. And stupid leftist policies that have blown up in their faces.
This is exactly correct. There ARE people who aspire to live in high rises their entire life. But this is so much a minority aspiration and so much opposed to natural human desires that it might actually be a neurosis.
And if not caused by neurosis, then resulting in neurosis.
Cities have been planned and built from scratch. Washington DC might be a prime example. Canberra and Brasilia are two more. The Chinese apparently built bunches of cities that are presently sitting empty. You could argue that cities built from plans are not terribly interesting, but again, Washington may prove the exception. I didn’t much like Canberra but haven’t been to Brasilia.
However, what is planned here is not a major city but really just another planned community, and there are a lot of those, some quite popular.
Will there be micro-breweries? My California city was wondering why their downtown couldn't attract micro-breweries.
.
Two questions come to mind.
How are they planning to get water?
Who do they expect to pay the cost of their water supply?
They'll continue abusing the Colorado Compact probably.
They still have to get water to their specific city. That part alone will have costs.
If you regulate and nimby hard enough, you can turn your messy smelly urban area with all it's manufacturing and icky working people, into a nice retirement / vacation destination. Or distopian hellhole with roving gangs of mutants. San fran is successful at one of those so far.
The American Dream of homeownership is a set of government/bank marketing programs that were created in the early 1920's. Advanced mainly by Hoover. That then 'took off' and embedded itself in the individual psyche after hundreds of billions of government subsidies, regulations re construction codes, zoning, mortgage securitization, more subsidies to turn homeownership into a retirement plan AND a dessert topping and floor wax, etc made it all look like a no-lose deal.
And once everyone bought into what govt had sold them on - well then that creates a political constituency to make sure that the no-lose game stays a no-lose game. With massive bailouts and screw-the-grandkids if necessary. That freezes itself in the 1950's vision of life and which now is the basis for Boomer driven battles of a culture war.
An 'American Dream' reduced to a consumerist vision that requires extensive government control over home, hearth, family, neighborhood, social values, and association.
I see your point, but the extensive government control is easier to enact in the high density cities that people fled for the low density suburbs.
Thanks to low supply and the resulting price surges, many Californians now struggle to buy homes.
Somehow I doubt that's the only reason.
Libertarians for central planning? This new proposed city is straight out of the fever dreams of the Davos-men at the WEF, with high density housing galore, and keyed for urban planning buzzwords like "walkable" and "affordable."
https://apnews.com/article/new-california-city-tech-silicon-valley-4097f0872c4e18ca9d75776e2d8974d9
The state is in desperate need of more housing, especially homes affordable for teachers, firefighters and other municipal employees that make a community run.
Yes, where would our cities be without the government employees who "make a community run"?
But fear not, it's California, so it's going to take a while, and may never be built:
But critics, including a congressman and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, remain skeptical about the project’s aims, especially after Sramek’s company spent years secretly buying up land around the base and even suing local farmers who refused to sell. They say more urban sprawl could harm sensitive ecosystems and tax the region’s already strained water supply.