The plan for a new California city
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2024
- A group backed by some of California's richest has purchased some 60,000 acres of farmland in Northern California, as part of an ambitious plan to build a brand-new, walkable city in the nation's most car-centric state, for as many as 400,000 residents. Correspondent Luke Burbank talks with Jan Sramek, a former Goldman Sachs trader-turned-city builder about the "California Forever" initiative, and why the idea is facing some resistance.
"CBS News Sunday Morning" features stories on the arts, music, nature, entertainment, sports, history, science and Americana, and highlights unique human accomplishments and achievements. Check local listings for "CBS News Sunday Morning" broadcast times.
Subscribe to the "CBS News Sunday Morning" TH-cam channel: / cbssundaymorning
Get more of "CBS News Sunday Morning": cbsnews.com/sunday-morning/
Follow "CBS News Sunday Morning" on Instagram: / cbssundaymorning
Like "CBS News Sunday Morning" on Facebook: / cbssundaymorning
Follow "CBS News Sunday Morning" on Twitter: / cbssunday
Subscribe to our newsletter: cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Download the CBS News app: www.cbsnews.com/mobile/
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-0...
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
I think sueing landowners is disgusting. They have a right to their land, and their home.
It was that point of the video where the villains came into the picture.
Sueing landowners who abuse the land is perfectly good.
Got water?? Silly idea by Pollyanna rich men! They don't want to invest in Oakland or other parts of downtrodden CA????
Yes. Same in Maui Hawaii after the planned "wildfires" 😢
@@guyfawkesuThe1 Oakland has nothing but animals. I would not spend one coin there.Yuck
I think it's time to make it more appealing for potential buyers. Real estate can be quite the rollercoaster! the stress and uncertainty are getting to me. I think I'll cut rents to attract potential buyers and exit the market, but i'm at crossroads if to allocate the entire $680k liquidity value to my stock portfolio?
"Overall, buyers hold a lot of the cards right now, and sellers are having to give out more concessions to close a deal." All the best, buying on sale is actually one of the best ways to invest in stocks, and advisors are ideally suited for such task
Until the Fed clamps down even further I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now with financial markets will be best you seek a fin-professional with fiduciary responsibilities who knows about mortgage-backed securities for proper guidance.
@@mellon-wrigley3 Kudos on the effective execution of innovative ideas and tactics that lead to significant advancement. As I seek guidance from a trustworthy advisor, would you be willing to share details about the individual assisting you?
wright promptly do a web check where you can connect with her Gertrude Margaret Quinto and do your research with her full names mentioned..
My needs are kind of unique and complex. I'll contact her nonetheless, and I hope I'm able to make something out of it.
I was skeptical and now even more so after hearing that they tried to sue the landowners who don't want to sell for supposedly "holding out" to increase their land's market value. Ridiculous. If they don't want to sell California Forever is just going to sue them? Is that what I'm hearing? Billionaire suing people who just want to live peaceably farming their land. I was born and raised in the Bay and totally against this.
I know right, how can you trust anything they say. “It’s for the people” but then they sue those exact people lol
greedy land owners!!!
Communism
I mean it's all stolen land anyway.
Agreed. A bunch of billionaires are suddenly so concerned with building an essentially corporate city for the good old middle class and pitch it as some utopian society? Not buying it. This place will be a playground for the uber rich. Follow the money and who’s behind it and that’ll tell you where their interests lie.
No one that is not filthy rich will be able to near that place. Corporate cities. Owned and run by the well heeled. While destroying farmland just so they can make money and have another playground.
How about turning around downtown Los Angeles and spending those billions renovating existing “walkable” neighborhoods. No, instead eat up the farmland and ruin the actual rural areas. Not a good design plan. The West Village and all of the other walkable neighborhoods exist because they are in metropolitan areas and it all feeds off each other. Creating a city in the middle of nowhere just makes it a place you have to still drive to get anywhere else. It will end up being a weekend getaway for rich people.
That’s the whole point, even though they are rich they can’t get anything done in an existing municipality so they have to create their own from the ground up.
@@mark71565 They’ve got nothing but exorbitant amounts of money and power. If they wanted to use that to rehabilitate essentially abandoned areas, they could. They know all the right people and have the money to influence politicians and other decision makers. How did the original, giant Penn Station get built in the early 1900s? A hugely wealthy railroad baron exercised his considerable money and power to make it happen. This is just another ego-driven Mars shot with no benefit for the state or its cities.
AGREED!
It will end up a quagmire.
Thank you. To me, this is anti-systemic thinking. The reasons cities "don't work" is that they are part of a larger socio-economic political system that is dysfunctional... driven by Wall Street greed as much as anything else. This is a variation on Elon Musk's "Let's go to Mars" thinking... the desire to leave what doesn't work behind and go someplace where a fresh start is possible. But by being part of California (and of the USA and of the world), this plan will not be able to avoid the macro-systemic dysfunctional reality we currently suffer from. This is a misguided vision built on the desire to "create a better, new system to replace the old" as Buckminster Fuller said we should do. But Bucky's vision acknowledged we are part of a larger system. He sought to transform that system... not escape it.
Fix the cities that need help. Stop taking the farmland
If we keep developing and the population is growing this large, how much room do we really have to expand now? Like all of this farm land is getting developed, what if to much gets developed? 100 years down the road, we will be to our max on land use decisions and it’s going to hurt future generations.
If rich people build it don't be surprised it's affordability would only be for the rich as well.
So we should expect poor people to build the housing of the future? How?
@@austin7037:
No, but cities should grow and develop organically. This will be factory-made.
@@TheTrueOnyxRose some of those organic cities are horrendous and cannot be fixed
@@somerandomguy7458:
…but not every one of them. Are we just going to write them all off as lost causes and create more potential problems by letting the rich build fake towns?
California already has several cities built in the middle of nowhere and the rents are getting unsustainably high.
Wouldn’t building even more decrease those rents, according to the “laws” of supply & demand?
Only if no one wants to live there, there’s a reason it’s cheaper to live in other states. The weather will always keep California expensive. No matter what fairytale city the try and build.
It costs more to "live" in remote new areas. New infrastructure for water, sewer, electrical grid, fuel access, law enforcement, healthcare, wildlife control, the list goes on; all of this requires tax money which does not translate to affordable housing. It will require expensive housing with high tax bills for each house. Not to mention the customer service workers there will not afford to live there. They will need a transit system to outer areas. Interesting that this is near an Air Force Base.
@@enagreco3280 How do you explain that humans no longer live in caves?
@@enagreco3280 Suburbs are also expensive but people rarely see those costs. The city pays to maintain roads, lights and other infrastructure at a far higher cost than urban cities.
I don't believe it will be affordable. A. It's in California. Anytime something nice is built, people who need it never get it. Rich people do. B.Land is expensive. That is the number one reason, everything is so expensive. I don't believe it. Rich people are trying to get richer.
So you are not a capitalist? Do you prefer the wealthy tech workers to gentrify existing suburbs and lower income neighborhoods. How has surrounding cities made it easy for developers to build?
"Relatively affordable". Relative to what?
C. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about
So I guess they think they can avoid climate change by hiding in this place. 😮They can't.
@@erictaylor3897Yes, if they want to gentrify older cities, which has happened in parts of Phila., let's do that.
Let's fix the cities we already have. Sigh.
1) They have too many BS red tape rules. 2) This is not the government. These are private citizens that don't have to fix other people's problems.
The homeless and crime is being allowed by gov't. officials to reduce CA. population. The elitists want the State all for themselves, while they call themselves the "servants of the people".
cities don't want to fix themselves
Why not try both? Why does it have to be we do one, and not the other at the same time?
Too difficult, people will be displaced from their homes in the process, then what?
How will they keep it “affordable” without a 30 year waitlist?
I think the only way to achieve both is to build a lot lot lot. But even then, it takes time to build so much that the free-market price for each isn't so crazy, because there's a lot of it.
That land looks beautiful as is. Maybe just leave it alone.
It is beautiful...and has been dry farmed for generations....meaning raising crops and animals using only annual precipitation
We need more housing. It's time to start building.
It's not your land, and it's not your decision.
@@mirzaahmed6589 I never said that it's my land, but I will support this future project. There's not enough housing in the state of California.
Nimby, if you want natural land then get rid of your house
This project reminds me of Disney's planned city call "celebration" in Florida. The city is celebration is so expensive. Disney too said that it will be an affordable community where the average citizen could afford a house. It's obviously clear that only the rich could afford to live in Celebration, Florida.
Unfortunately after 1965 the price filter is necessary.
There's so many dying cities that could use infusion and innovation. Where the land is already there. Without taking natural farmland and migration sanctuary from established protections, or endangered migration species. Just because someone can boost they have a bright ideas. While damaging the eco system.
Just because theoretically they can doesn't mean they should. Really a bad idea.
Get real. This is not a government project. This is a project by regular citizens. They don't own the government anything.
There's so much red tape in the cities. And the land/real-state is really expensive, too.
I feel like we've already had our chance to infuse & innovate dying cities, and that's gotten us where we are now. Why not try both approaches to building more housing in the crazy expensive Bay Area?
Look these are venture capitalist. They have a lot of money that they are prepared to invest in this project. But even though they have a lot of money and they are rich, they have a budget. They have a limits as to how much they’re going to pay for property and when you expect them to go into an existing city, like Los Angeles, the cost of buying the amount of land that they are needing to do a project like this would be massively more expensive. It probably would blow the budget and it couldn’t be done.
Don't sell. Let them redevelop the cities that already exist.
A task that is inherently difficult to complete, you are definitely someone who hasn't got a clue of what he is talking about…
It would cost twice as much as city land is worth twice as much.
That's a ridiculous answer. They are not in the business of funding the government.
I believe they're aspiring to that, as well, with the YT rumors about the abolition of single family housing zoning.
That's farm and ranch land. It needs to be used to produce food for an ever growing population, not used to create a greater gulf between those with incomes at or below inflation and those fortunate enough to be middle class or rich. And it's really about trying to escape multiculturalism! 😮
There’s a city near Palmdale called California city. It’s in the desert area. Someone tried to build a grand city there and failed. Streets with names and even fire hydrant are visible. We camped out there a few time. The little city that is there is rundown cause of poverty and crime. Women’s jail near by, so people from L.A go visit family or friends doing time and stay. Check it out. They should try working on that. Half the work is already done.
How about putting some money into revitalizing old cities like Detroit.
If cities are old and dying, then it’s for a reason. Imagine building up and revitalizing a place with decaying industry. Unless your argument is that pretty aesthetics is the only factor to why people move to certain places. These people are literally doing nothing wrong, But unfortunately they are rich, replace them with a middle class American family and no one would say anything, But unfortunately people are so cynical about anyone with money, while 99% of the products they own and use are made by rich people.
Not redeemable, too much diversity.
Look at the demographics of Detroit. Who wants to move there?
@@DivinesLegacy "If cities are old and dying, then it’s for a reason."
Yeah, everyone up and left them instead of investing in them.
@@LoisAGrimm they didn’t invest in them because there was no reason to lol. You invest in things that you believe have a future.
Sparing no expense and suing people to get their land is two different things!! That’s completely wrong! It’s always the same with billionaires. If we can’t buy it, we’ll just take it!😡
The landowner holdouts are colluding in ways that may be an illegal shakedown. They were offered well above market prices but they saw a way to profit by obstructing the project. If the holdouts simply wanted to stay on their land, they wouldn't bother colluding.
@@DemPilafian so you fell for the billionaire lies..... it is all lies and deceit. It will be a 15min city
Interesting that this land is near an Air Force Base
@@enagreco3280 Nice try at FUD! Well done, comrade.
California Forever has explicitly expressed their support for the Air Force base, and they will have bylaws specifically to prevent interfering with the base. California Forever has even promised to provide some municipality services to the base.
@@DemPilafian Funny how their land has been owned before the project even existed. It’s not an obstruction if the family has been their longer than you ever will
Lower housing costs is not a mystery. This is a self imposed crisis. If you don’t build enough in the places people want to live, you get rising prices. It is insane that existing homeowners who already “got in” on the housing market get to dictate if and how much gets built. The response is always, “I’m not against housing, but this isn’t the place for it or the way to do it”. They are totally unaware that same line is said in EVERY opposed housing development in history.
This!!! Austin, Texas is also a good example of a pro housing city
A pro-housing city that is taking over historically brown and black neighborhoods to “build”. It’s nothing but gentrification wrapped up in a new title.
Wow...world's largest HOA.
I grew up in that area 50+ years ago and the fact they want to change the whole landscape and they are literally forcing farmers/ranchers to sell is what bothers me the most. I know the McCormacks and they have always been the rocks of our county, as well as Andersons, Hamiltons, Leutholtz, Hansens... This is wrong and I really feel that Fairfield, Suisun, Travis Air Force Base and the surrounding area will not be able to support this type of housing.
Exactly. There's no need to buy all the land at once and build everything at once. Most cities expand and evolve to fit the needs of residents. They don't have to start big. They don't need a Walmart or Costco. If they think that, they are wrong. The key is to allow mixed use neighborhoods that allow a random distribution of small shops and businesses, homes and 5 story condos of various sizes with shops or the ground floor, and homes that can can legally contain small businesses of all kinds. They can control signage or architecture and fencing to make things pretty, but they should not play the NIMB card. It's the NIMBs that make cities unwalkable, expensive, and increase poverty.
The surrounding cities will be hit hard, with gridlock and chaos.
As an outsider to that area, I see it like eminent domain to build stuff for the public good, like a railroad back in the day.
It is bad for the homeowners in the railroads' path, and I feel bad for them. But it would benefit many many people who use the railroad, or in this case can live more affordably by the Bay.
@@laliday I think they do have to buy all the land at once and build everything at once, unfortunately. Bay Area cities have not expanded to fit the needs of residents, which is why housing is so expensive now.
If the past/present doesn't work, wouldn't a solution need to start big, since smaller solutions haven't worked so far?
@@yvonnecamperriovista225 maybe they could put more roundabouts to slow down some of the traffic... EEEKKKK (I lived in Bird's Landing and that roundabout was the worst thing that could have happened on Hwy 12)
I hate it when farm land gets urbanized.
Yes Los Angeles and San Francisco were farmland. The southern half of San Francisco use to be orchards. Much of America's large towns and cities were farmland at one point.
Much of our produce in California are exports, one country that we've placed 100% tariffs on their cars were a larger importer. I don't see them buying large amounts of American goods for the foreseeable future.
What about the water. They haven’t even gone through any studies.
@@yvonnecamperriovista225 can boomers like you take a break from shutting the door behind them. We deserve the California dream like you old people have
If you support farmland (as I do) then this is the perfect project. You should support this project rather than whine about it. The reason is that there is a 1000% guarantee that X number of housing is going to get built in America every year and X number of people with the wherewithal will buy those homes. Currently, 100% of new developments are single family housing sprawling out from establish population centers, which gobbles up lots of land per capita. This project would have lots of housing in a more dense, walkable development that would consume LESS farm acreage on a per capita basis. Unless your position is that they become homeless, the upcoming generation is DEFINITELY going to live somewhere... we're just talking about whether they move into yet more suburban sprawl, or into a medium density town/city.
@yvonnecamperriovista225 If there is water for farms, there is water for a city.
Never give up farming it’s a American tradition
We do like to eat.
more like something people do all over the world to eat and not a traditon
When a non planning tech elite with no knowledge of logistics and resource allocation and accessibility of the area says “I have a haunch this is a good spot” should tell us all of how much of a bad idea this is.
It’s a fine spot. Practically anywhere is. Logistics? Do you know what roads and railways are? Accessibility? What does that even mean? Accessible to what? An airport? Build an airport. Resource allocation is just nonsense. I’m not even sure what you mean. Whose resources? What resources? Allocation? Do you believe this is the Soviet Union, where officials determine where money is to be spent?
@Fluffybunz779 youre a chucklehead if youre believing all this vaporware
@@joeysworldsewer I don’t care if it’s built or not. I just don’t like cliche bullsh*t being used as “criticism.” The #1 thing that would and will likely stop this project is Californian NIMBYism
add NOT RELATABLE/completely out of touch with the average citizen.
@@joeysworldsewer you seem blindly narcissitic
Why not just rebuild San Francisco??
The people in charge of SF won't allow it.
It is too far gone.
The 80 is already too congested. This is craziness!
Highway 12 is just as bad and there is no plan to expand it unlike what Forever California claims.
It’s a “walkable city” so it’s safe to assume they won’t have a bunch of cars to add to congestion due to diverse transportation options.
I80 is indeed too crowded. There needs to be some amount of open land left between SF and Sacramento. Some want to build CA into a hellhole.
@@DivinesLegacy a walkable city would have mass transit, there is no plan for BART, the Amtrak Capitol Corridor or SMART to go out there.
@@DivinesLegacy without calling names, the owners here are bullies looking for a big payday. I am not a rando and happen to have family in the area, I have made calls to local representatives. The state and local governments have no plans for this community or intentions to support it. Highway 12 expansion is not even on the 20 year plan for the state of California. These pie in the sky tech investors and Wall Street people think they understand community development, which they have no experience doing. Walkable translates to compact multistory housing on small lots that simply does not fit in. In addition there is no water resources unless the developer is planning on building a desalination plant, a sewage plant and more.
Their supposed concessions to the Air Force base are to move a solar farm there which is actually very anti aviation (nothing like trying to land an airplane next to a field of mirrors pointing the sun back at you.)
Likely just for the rich and higher income people. Unaffordable for average incomes. No matter _what_ they are promising.
Ya they want Philly or the NYC West Village? Go move there! There is a reason they do not live in Philly!!
Even if the first homes are for richer people, wouldn't that additional housing make the other housing around the Bay cheaper, because richer people are moving out of those places?
If you dont build any housign, housing wont get cheaper…
@@ciello___8307 So build apt towers in Oakland!
@@aok1425 No because the rich don't sell their houses, they just buy more and leave the others empty.
Keep farmland!!!
Enjoy homelessness then. All because you don't want to clear out a flat area of dried up grass
There's plenty of farmland and a shortage of homes.
@@AlmightyDude420Enjoy foodlessness
This is essentially how the city of Irvine was established.
Before someone says that we can't renovate existing cities, look at lower Manhatten when they built the Twin Towers. They bought all the existing shops in the Battery and built a thriving financial district. It's not a matter of if, but how much. If these people have that much money, it shouldn't be an issue, especially since they want to advocate for higher taxes.
Yeah. Okay, it’s a really pretty shiny new toy or maybe a tax dodge for these venture capitalists and entrepreneurs…
However, this is our home. One of the reasons we purchased a home here was because there’s still a sense of community-even in our small cities. We are surrounded by agriculture and have direct access to it.
The buzz words and slick fantasy renderings are all sales pitch, no granular details.
There have been issues out here for generations regarding water. We don’t want to end up like SoCal did, nor are we stupid regarding this resource. It is scary to consider one more population having control over the shared resource of water. Yes, we need better systems for delivery. Who will monitor and guarantee continued access?? We saw what the ‘wonderful’ company did to the surrounding communities down south. It was reckless and short sighted.
Our roads and local infrastructure are not able to service the surge of people already settled here. I really don’t see how the quaint walking town model would alleviate additional overuse and abuse. Would they consider finding a speed rail system to bypass our poorly designed and established routes between cities? We literally use time to explain or plan trips here, not miles to the destinations. Traffic is already a nightmare-now add 400,000 more users?
What about our ecosystem here? What’s being displaced? Will there be zero emissions (smog, heat, sewage, trash, etc) or low emissions? What contamination will take place? Ground water? Air quality?
How would these people make their profits? Where does our collateral cost get funds from?
It really comes down to trust. Transparency and perhaps getting input from surrounding towns and cities could go a long way to getting a genuine welcome.
Will it be profit over people?
Precisely, they don’t seem to care.
It already is profit over people. Look at how they've forced families off their land.
This! ✊🏼
He sued the land owners to get their land. He may have paid much more than FMV, but suing doesn't sound friendly and neighborly to me. I don't like him.
Less farming land is dangerous to the rest of us. Just watch.
how?
@@aok1425 Where do you get your food? The grocery store? 2/3 vegetables and fruits are grown in CA's Central Valley.
You do the math.
@@TheLordOfNothingdo you know how much food is spoiled every day cause of overproduction and portion sizes being too large? While companies are too scared to donate their food cause they might get sued even though it has never happened. 4 square kilometers of land going towards housing more than 400.000 people isn’t a bog deal for our food industry.
This is GOOD for farmland, not bad. The REAL problem is that they're trying to build a proper city with some real density.... but if you DO NOT build like this, it'll just shift the housing market towards sprawl of suburban developments near other population centers, which will gobble up much more farmland per capita. It's a lot easier to just tack on a suburban development here and there near existing populations, but if you try and plan out and build a complete city, you run into a gauntlet of red tape. There's a ton of these suburban developments all over the country and they take up a lot of farmland... but this is the first I've heard anyone trying to build up an actual city.
So maybe point your ire at suburban sprawl. This is relatively poor ranch land, and will house people at a much higher density (much less land per person) than the average subdivision.
Where is the water?
Can you say "white executive hi-tech enclave"???
All over. Extra rain everywhere in California
California agriculture is largely corporate, and uses 80% of the water not to grow essential crops, but things like almonds and clementines.
If there is water for farms there is water for a city
The delta is right there.
Nothing new here…I see future urban sprawl. I get we need more housing across the board but developers are critically concerned with their bottom line and this guy is a master at convincing those who will listen he’s doing it “for the better good.”
Sunday Morning should have used today’s “moment of nature” to show what would be lost once that land is paved over. I wish this group would focus on redeveloping the massive brownfields around our existing cities. There are thousands of acres around Philly that could use their focus.
Got water?? Silly idea by Pollyanna rich men! They don't want to invest in Oakland or other parts of downtrodden CA????
Build up the inner cities where there are empty lots. Buy up dilapidated building sites and make our towns more walkable and enjoyable for young and old.
Yes, I remember when much of Silicon Valley was still farmland and orchards. It was far more pleasant AND far more affordable.
💯
I lived in Solano County for many years in this area. This is A PIPE DREAM; it’s constantly windy and a huge Air Force base right in the middle of it all to add lots of jet noise. Why don’t they redevelop cities that already exist? Paving over more of California is NOT THE ANSWER.
Redeveloping cities is a government job. The developers do not work for the government.
A walkable city from the ground up sounds like a really good idea.
At the cost of farmland.
We don’t need it
@@wtfdidijustwatch1017 This isn't farmland....it's just land.
@@FloofyMinari It’s Farmland, lay off
A city is a whole social ecosystem. It's hubris to think you can just build that from scratch in a field somewhere. They need to put this money and political effort into retrofitting existing cities to be more walkable and have denser housing.
And don't sell to people who are not citizens.
Texas should do the same!
These old people will really do everything possible to make sure that anyone under the age of 40 is really going to have to suffer well beyond when they are gone.
In the 20 years I’ve lived there I have seen so many young people killed while commuting on the surrounding “blood alley” highways that feed this area. The California Forever won’t provide wider safer roads. It wants State to do it. What we have now took 20 years to improve and the cost will fall on taxpayers for the increased traffic (because we all know, there WILL be commuting to jobs and services!
Do you actually think we would benefit from this in Solano county
@Ponchitograndito yes, you just need to look at the housing stock. Supply and demand is the issue. If you don't build more then housing prices go up. It's 101 economics and you literally see the effect of it all over CA.
@@Hashtagcris Yeah so maybe people should focus on ending the self serving housing codes that already exist in places like San Francisco instead of just leaving behind the mess they have made and expecting someone else to move aside so they can take over new areas
@adamheuer8502 agreed. Even with that we still need more space to build. The population decenty is wild out here. I think they need to fill ever vacant spot with some form of housing in existing cities as well as build more in general.
It will be a city which is reachable by 2 lane roads (160, 113, 12). All of these roads are called Blood Alley. Impatient drivers passing on double solid lines just two days ago a mother of 3 children was killed in a head on collision. Also the Rio Vista Bridge, built in 1960, backs up traffic for miles and as long as a 40 minute minute backup. We live there and there is water restrictions now watering 2 days a week. There is NO water available for a proposed 400,000 people the size of Oakland’s population. Their development is to be built with no garages just parking lots. Can you imagine a parent of two kids walking from the parking lot in winter with the cold wind, cold pouring rain, summer with the hot wind, summer with the hot sun beaming down on as they walk home with this ice cream. Homes with no garages is suitable in Europe where the transportation infrastructure has been developed there for centuries. Affordable homes in California is $600,000 up. This is not affordable for the man and woman who are working at J.C. Penneys and McDonalds. Believe me they are not a charitable philanthropic organization they are in it to make huge amounts of money don’t be fooled by their promises. If you are a Solano County resident vote NO in November. They “don’t care about us” as the Michael Jackson song lyrics say!
The issue of drought is major!
Projects like this are "NOT" affordable to the lower and working classes, and though I like cars, we do need to start walking and using muscle powered mechanisms again.
Got interns calling the locals… a mess.
"Like.....we are, like, having , like, you know, like a vote, on this thingy, like about the new town, like? Can we count on your support, like? - Jaden the Intern from Stanford.
Ironically, it does sound like what China would do; they’ve built huge urban areas in new places but it’s not like people can suddenly afford to move in so it seems deserted
Those are completely different problems under completely different systems. In China real estate is one of the few investments available to people so they over invested and outstripped demand. In California housing in underdeveloped and is not meeting demand.
In China things actually move forward and get better. Here in america it’s the Opposite.
@@Ac_a China is an authoritarian dictatorship with all kinds of problems of its own. Every time they've tried relaxing restrictions on their currency Chinese citizens immediately try to move their savings out to western countries, including the US, in the hopes that they can get out from under Xi Jinping's regime some day and then the Chinese government clamps back down. This is why the yuan has no hope of ever becoming a global currency.
@@Ac_a What's moving forward in china when their people are running from China to other countries 👀
These new towns or cities are built all over the world. England has at least one, Milton Keynes, The Netherlands has several, the biggest one Almere has 300,000 residents. The only hope is the SV rich won’t build it for themselves with a high fence around it, but also for well-off, the middle class and the lower incomes. Otherwise you won’t have a vibrant city. And they need a good public transportation system, preferably rail, like metro or tram, and a rail connection to San Francisco.
How about stopping foreigners who don’t live here from buying up houses in nice parts of California to park their money outside of their home countries before bulldozing more open space, ranches, and farms?
In other words, people have to occupy the homes they own. Stop seeing houses as an alternative to the stock and bond market. Buy one only if you’re going to live in it or rent it full time to people who are going to live in it (not another Air BNB).
Makes no sense! We're not delusional, it's about money. You can do the same thing in the Czech Republic. Leave the land as it is!
They did already. Everyone of their cities and suburbs are WALKABLE and hooked up to very clean, fast, efficient mass transit. I want to see this guy succeed and become a blueprint for the rest of the United States to modify its cities and suburbs to become pedestrian and bike friendly. I am not a liberal wacko that wants to get rid of highway lanes either, and I am not sold on personal electric vehicles. There are some things we can do better and the guy also makes a great point that cities that stop expanding become expensive. Cities that sprawl also become expensive due to the costs of laying and maintaining utilities. Steady growth of mid to high density housing adjacent to the existent areas is the way to go. LA is too sprawled and the Bay area has like no land left to build. Forever California solves both of these issues.
Nothing more American than not understanding how a new city can be built without traffic
So so true.
You just have to build where other modes of transportation is faster than driving.
Plenty of new urbanist developments out there.
Nah. /
These boomers have never visited a European city and can't comprehend that young people DON"T want to own a car & would prefer a walkable city instead.
It's neato until you need an ambulance and the real hospital is 30 miles away.
This is my home. I don’t want it. City life is not my thing.
Our city/county infrastructure is not ready. Water is already a big problem for we don’t have enough.
Also their reason for suing the landowners who are there already is absolutely horrible.
Instead of focusing on the issues of getting the last parcels of land, I wish they focused more on the actual concept; it was touched on, but not really a deep dive. Similar to Apple Park, which would’ve been even larger if the apartment complex nearby didn’t refuse, you work around the holdouts. It’s their right to keep the land they legally own.
Israel has a ride to oops I mean America has a right to take your land
The issue is *NOT* that the holdouts want to keep their land -- it's that the holdouts are colluding in ways that may be an illegal form of extortion. The landowners were offered well above market prices but they saw a way to profit by obstructing the project. Maybe that's legal and maybe not.
I honestly don't think they have much of a plan. I've seen the renders and it looks piecemeal and thrown together.
When the reporter asked, “how do you make sure this place stays affordable for middle-class families?” And the developers answer is “don’t stop building”. That doesn’t make sense. First off you’re going to run out of land and number two you make and rent out housing that is cheap were the main motivator is housing people and not making a huge profit boom problem solved. This has all the traces of a terrible project. Secretive group, turns out to be billionaires, news puff piece, the project has a vague positive corporate feeling name with unrealistic goals. Thankfully, since billionaires are involved, we don’t have to guess what their motives are behind it and if this is going to be a disaster or not. Money and it’s definitely going to be a disaster.
Social housing. If you want housing where profit isn't the motivation then what you want is social housing. That is where the government and tax payer come in. Private citizens can not be expected to risk their own earnings to build charitable housing. If you sell me your home for less than its worth, you are not performing a noble cause. You are simply leaving money on the table.
@@ceecee8826Non profit groups could build social housing. Imagine a West Coast version of Manhattan with all affordable apartments?
@@duckmercy11 And some do. But government could do the job faster. nonprofits can only do so much.
NIMBYs make sure housing stays expensive because they block residenstial development everywhere they can, even in the city, even near transit hubs or along bus lines or next to other housing developments. They block new homes and they block density and they make housing unaffordable.
Housing is so expensive in California because it has a housing shortage. If you get rid of the regulations that have made it impossible to build dense housing in California (or any housing in general), prices would go down. In addition, if you’re concerned about running out land, you build dense housing like apartments instead of single family homes.
We've heard a lot of promises from rich people who say they know how to do things. They may know how to get rich (though many got rich through inheritance), but I have problems trusting them with their plan to destroy farmland and build with the environment in mind. We have enough cities that are not environmentally friendly.
Whoever said this new city was going to be environmentally unfriendly.
@Raj You missed his point. His point is that there are environmentally unfriendly they can use instead of farmland.
Housing is more important than empty grass dude.
@@duckmercy11:
That empty grass has soil under it, and that soil is needed to grow food.
@@TheTrueOnyxRose A lot of farming isn't for essential domestic production, it's for elective crops sold overseas. CA produces the vast majority of the world's almonds, which take a shitton of water to grow. Housing is more important than supplying almond milk for gluten free sustainable eco friendly plant-based vegan lattes 😂
I am a Solano County resident. I live just outside of Vallejo, my hometown, and Solanos largest city, which is crime-ridden, underfunded, and extremely poor. I’ve lived in this area all my life, and after hearing about “California forever”, my honest opinion? It feels like they (the wealthy) are just giving up on us. Instead of redeveloping existing downtown areas, and helping a unique community that has the capacity to support and bring up thousands, they’re running away to the middle of nowheresville to create an entirely new city. A new problem instead of solving the existing one. I get it, the road to creating housing isn’t easy, especially in the area that founded the term “NIMBY”. But fighting for what’s right, even when the road to the solution is fraught with obstacles, and seeded with hardship, is always a fight worth having. That is the most American thing a person can do. Instead of creating an “oasis” from nothing in an area filled with agricultural land and nature, they should instead build upon the foundations of cities and communities that need their support the most to foster a lasting a thriving changes that could better the lives of hundreds of thousands. Not just the middle or upper classes, but all levels of society from every ethnicity, income, and community. THAT is how you can build a better California 💅🏽💅🏽
That money would be better spent on existing cities!!!!
Affordable and California do not go together
Got water?? Silly idea by Pollyanna rich men! They don't want to invest in Oakland or other parts of downtrodden CA????
This idea should be canceled!
They dont go together because of all these baby boomers refusing development. That's disgusting
@@grod805 Disgusting is letting a Czech tell you what is good. Instead of "investing" in well developed Philly and other places, he sounds like he is trying to build a giant gated community!
@@guyfawkesuThe1, why would a company that calls itself “California forever” want to go invest in Philly? I think that one is obvious to figure out.
Good luck to them. It's about time we tried a new experiment with city design. Smart Towns is probably all over this.
Leave the 100 year old farm alone! Revitalize Los Angeles!!
Los Angeles is history. You can't get anything done with the city government in place. It's run by woke officials that live in denial with rising crime and homelessness.
What does La have to do with this this is Northern California
Everything. It is progressives that support these initiatives, and progressives run LA. So use your own area as a testing ground for these ideas instead of seizing land from hard working farmers whose families have lived on the land for generations.
No, build a Riverside Strip tourist destination in Highgrove, CA, near the UC Riverside campus.
@@Ponchitograndito If they need housing, LA is a good place to look. Whole city blocks are empty, no tenants, no business. It could be a win-win because there’s already the infrastructure and once the people come back, the businesses can bounce back. Sure, it’s not exactly like this new development, but a whole lot cheaper and the farmers, who feed our whole nation, can keep their land, their vocation, and their pride. Win-win!
I love this idea. Would love it more if there was a rail line connecting directly into the city and extending to Sacramento and the Bay Area.
Only real concern is water supply because the delta where they plan to get water from also feeds into a marsh protected by nature reserve laws. Redevelopment of areas in the existing cities in the area for businesses to come in is not possible without displacing many homeowners because the cities are mainly commuter cities; majority of the existing developed land are just suburban homes where the homeowners commute 1-2hours to the capital or deeper bay area for work. The landowners sued according to other interviews I’ve seen from the CEO are multimillionaire asset owners not your small mom and pop farmer and the CEO also said they have proof of collusion where the landowners were trying to price fix their land for sale. Either way Solano County has been a dying county with only retail stores and fast food jobs being created while majority of homes in the area are near 500k+. The majority of young people who can afford to live there as homeowners don’t even work there. Those young people eventually leave when they can afford to move to where they work like in Sac or SF. A county that can’t keep its successful young people in the community eventually becomes a dying county because those successful young people were supposed to be the ones to build new businesses in the community to keep up with the other surrounding counties.
Blast this ❤
You are mostly correct. I purchased a home here 30 years ago for what would be considered a ridiculous sum in other states. it has appreciated a ridiculous amount. My children could not afford to buy into the neighborhood they grew up in. They wanted to raise their children near their parents. Now we have to fly to Texas, Georgia or Washington to see our grandchildren. They wanted to come home and live but it's too expensive.
The place looks so beautiful and peaceful. Why change it?
It's time to build more housing. Finally, someone is doing something about it.
I think this is a great idea. There are numerous challenges when it comes to building anything within existing cities. NIMBYs and various roadblocks make new housing developments nearly impossible. For example, in Huntington Beach, Southern California, new housing projects are regularly proposed to meet state housing requirements, but NIMBYs continually obstruct and delay these plans because they don't want new housing in the city. This resistance contributes to the severe housing shortage in California, and these 400,000 new homes would go a long way to helping.
When it comes to infrastructure, I think many people would prefer to live in walkable, community-centered cities like Savannah, Georgia. If you've never been, Savannah is absolutely beautiful and bustling with life.
There is so much land in this country… why take someone else’s?
It's sad how so many people fear change even if it's beneficial
Not when all of our farm land becomes urban sprawl and we have no food.
This is inspiring - a generation of people stopped building to inflate their home prices and finally people are having enough. Building housing is the only way to ensure affordability
😱That land is beautiful 🤩 It doesn’t need to be turned into a new city!!!
that farmland is gorgeous! please don't destroy it.
"My wife is already designing it in her head." When I toured homes as a realtor the worst unlivable homes were self designed. Use proven builders with experience. My first home was perfection for a young family. United from 1960s. Space Maker floor plan. Two kids a guest room playroom & walk to parks & Microsoft fountain main Redmond campus 1992.
Farmers need a go fund me page so they can fight to keep family land, then sue the lawyers and people who sued them… for billions.
Jan Sramek's Vision, is just that, Jan Sramek's Vision. If he Really Cares he would Involve the Public, not just Rich Investors.
Oh, you say, he is Involving the Public. Alright.....in Trying to Force Landowners to Sell, Right?
He will Hold a Town Meeting, where he tries to tell you, how wonderful it will be to Sell your Farmland that's been in your Families for Generations,
All to Live in a Make - Believe Crowded Walking City. Where Everything is Futuristic, including the Humans.
Now Wait you say: Jan did say that Middle Class can Live among the Bankers, and Corporate Owners. You can buy a Townhouse with 10'x 20' fenced backyard all for under $500,000. What A Deal that is! BONUS: Jan will Live their Too! (Just Not in a Townhouse)
Jan's says his Wife is Already Designing their Home. Do you get to Design Yours? I don't think so!
There's More .......it's Not Just about Jan and his Wealthy Investors wanting a Wonderful Futuristic Walking City, it's about Power, Greed, and Control! If We Haven't Learned that in the last 8 years we're Never Going To!
Farming, and Owning Land comes with it, a Sense of Pride. Your Living off the Land, working the Land and raising the Animals that the Good Lord put here on this Earth. There is Nothing Better than this.
No Futuristic, Up-Graded, High-Tech, City Could Ever Top That! We are Here to Live a Godly Life. Man Cannot Serve 2 Gods. You Either Love Money or You Love God!
Two organized religions duking it out.
Water and sanitation?
Forget it! Build one here in Las Vegas!
I wouldn't envy anyone who goes to battle with nimby's
Sound like old fashioned colonialism to me. And we know how that always works out….
The problem with the super rich is that there’s few barriers in life that force them to do the work of checking their ego and cultivating humility and intrinsic value beyond what their money can do for them.
💯👍
they are extremely out of touch
How is building houses colonialism? Do you wish that everyone was living in the forest?
@@austin7037 The boomers who bought land in California just expect everyone else to have lower standards of living, even their kids, because they got theirs and that's all that matters to them.
I have lived 5 miles from here for 20 years...not happy about this at all.
I know in your heart you would let's us 🇺🇸 have the land and good neighbor
I'm from an old ranching family that's been a little south of here for generations. This project absolutely stinks. Horrible for the entire region.
@@nancychace8619 not sure if you agree what I See ( Vision) Solano needs airport, industrial city and In N OUT
Solano has Vacaville airport we have In-N-Outs what are you talking about
Change is scary.
Where are they going to get the water to support it?
Real good question.
or the people to run it and take care of it
They will turn their waste water into drinking water.
If that makes you squeamish, consider that this is already being done with great success.
I am in Southern California. I live in Orange County and our county has been early pioneers at this. We are the largest municipality in the world to fully recycle our wastewater, and the expertise of the people in this county are hired all around the world to try to set up similar wastewater treatment plants where they live.
Los Angeles, the county next-door to us is hiring the county to set up their own system which they are building out. When that thing gets running, LA will immediately become the world’s largest recycler of waste water in the world by population.
@@DaveP-uv1ml So what comes first? The plant or the new city? Or do they build them concurrently?
@@jimfesta8981 , is normally cleaned up, but only enough that it’s safe to release to the environment.
The sewage treatment plant would be getting a big upgrade so they can actually purify the water.
And rather than just releasing it, they would reuse it.
The way it works in my county is that we purify the water. And sell some of that to the local businesses, labs etc. There are a lot of companies that do you have a need for ultra pure water in their production systems so they do sell that make money off of it.
So the freshwater they produce initially is too pure for consumption. So to make it safe to drink, they then go through a process for the ad additional minerals to the water so that it’s closer to what you get with bottled water.
Some of that water will go right back into the drinking supply to be immediately used again. The rest will be pumped around the city to special holding pools. These pools are designed to allow this water to quickly seep in and mix in with the existing groundwater.
We also draw from this groundwater through Wells would we consume water so we’re really using our existing groundwater as a giant storage tank.
It’s a complicated system and it might sound very strange and you’d be right to wonder why we ever did this well we had a crisis decades ago where we overdrew the freshwater out of our ground. Since we are on the coast and the Pacific Ocean is right next to our freshwater supply, we were creating a situation where we were causing the saltwater from the Pacific to begin to leak in to our freshwater supply, and it was on the verge of contaminating the whole thing. So they came up with this workaround, and it started the whole project and blossomed into what it is now so it’s primary purpose was to replenish the ground supply of our water to maintain positive pressure to keep out the saltwater.
And then it just kept evolving and it’s become quite a sophisticated system that is highly sought all over around the world for this expertise.
My guess is they would get their water from the ground, while simultaneously replenishing their groundwater with clean waste water.
This sounds like a 15 minute city, forget that.
A city like this would be phenomenal in Las Vegas, NV.
DON’T LET THEM RUIN YOUR RESOURCES
Walkable cities are the future.
You look at who wants to build it and where they want to build it, this is how Night City got started
I grew up there and this gets under my skin big time
Leave the farmers alone..
I’m all for progress and someone with a vision to build a new place but this is simply reeks of a rich persons fever dream. Why not invest all that money in inner city areas that sorely need redevelopment and modernisation, novel solutions to improve the quality of the local environment and the economy; that would be real meaningful success!
Don't be dumb. This is not government money, so you can't say "why not invest" in this or that. they are private citizens. Why don't YOU invest in the inner city?
@@RajDeelish Yes, I recognise this is private money, the point is one of benevolence. If I had that kind of cash then I’d be off on my private jet!
Similar things are occurring in the Philippines, where some rice farms have been transformed into homes, which is why there is a shortage of rice produced.
If you build it everyone dealing with tornados will come
Affordable…….ok yea right
Affordable to migrants and foreigners we know the rules of this country American second foreigners 1st
@@user-lp1jw9bo5yMore like the oligarchs that will be taking over if democracy fails.
It won't be affordable. You know that. It will be for "special" people only. Destroying all that beautiful land for a parking lot. Say NO.
I doubt this will fix the housing affordability crisis in California. The problem is that California has not built enough housing near jobs, and so it gets expensive. Building a new city will not fundamentally fix that unless it is near existing jobs.
How is this different from Disneys private luxury development in Florida ? I think it's called CELEBRATION or something... elite- expensive-exclusive
I was wondering the same thing. Just how did that work out?
Ask Adam the woo!
Resources? Water? How many people would want to live by an air force base?
We have 10,000 a day coming across our border already applied for that federal free housing
@@user-lp1jw9bo5y They are not attracting "free housing" here.
I’m glad to hear it would be a walkable neighborhood. The suburbs are dead.
We actually need new cities if people want affordable housing.
As someone who works in the multifamily development industry in CA, Stating the reason that CA cities are unaffordable is because “they have just stopped building” is one of the more uneducated statements someone could make about the affordability of California. It inappropriately simplifies a very complex issue.
Saying prices go up because they stop building is the dumbest thing.... look at cities that have massive building... Austin, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, Nashville, list goes on and on. Lots of new construction yet prices still going up and pricing people out. I dont believe anything this man says, even if the fairy tail he is selling sounds nice.
They had to use shell corporations to buy, or else the sellers would have demanded more money from billionaires.
I am a resident of Solano County and am absolutely against this speculative land grab. Nobody spends that kind of money for altruistic reasons. They KNOW the people of Vacaville, Fairfield, Suisun, Dixon, Rio Vista, have protected Travis AFB from developers. That is why the push to trick us into changing our laws with the over-saturation of ads and door-to-door campaigns. If the overcrowd the area around Travis AFB and force it to close they will crash the local economy. All of our housing values will collapse and then they will rush in and buy up everything else and have a ready-made airport capable of handling the largest airplanes. There are hundreds of places to "build" their fake city. There is something very sneaky about why here and not further away with much cheaper land.
There are ads suggesting that our farmers are using too much water and that they are growing unsustainable crops. Their answer is to grow more housing instead. That's a you tube ad.
Would they add a spur from the High Speed Rail line?
1) This is a classc example of 'white flight'. 2) This is bad news in California. I grew up in Solano County, and the infrastructure to support such a large 'city' is simply not there now, nor is it on the horizon. This is some of the most richly endowed soil in the world, once it is covered with structures it will shift the food supply chain forever. In the meantime we allow cities to become rust states.
Absolutely agree. We've already seen the same pattern in the Santa Clara valley, once some of the richest growing land in the world.
You need to build more housing stock in order to fight affordability issues
They don’t want to build more houses they like the current rat race where landowners can charge tenants up the euro wet so that we are all nervous and afraid of losing our precious little roof
Encourage affordability
Stop immigration, foreign buyers of US real estate, tax second homes and remove the first $250,000 tax free profit on the sale of a home and the prices will decrease like magic.
I think this is a great project and I hope it gets built
"Hey, when you edit the interview with the Czech guy, make sure you show my arm tattoo, so people know I'm really cool."