In 2018, Solano County, California, realized that a single company, known as Flannery Associates, was quietly buying up a large amount of land. Many of the parcels were zoned for agricultural use, making a purchase of this size unusual. The county reached out to Flannery and received assurances that the company would continue to do business as usual by “entering into long-term leases with farmers.” Five years later, though, its true intentions became clear.
Today, the story of Flannery Associates, a subsidiary of California Forever, the real estate corporation behind those land purchases, is well-known in the region. Backed by powerful Silicon Valley billionaires, California Forever envisioned building a city from scratch on former farmland, until a formidable grassroots coalition called Solano Together rose up to block the development.
From the start, California Forever faced a major obstacle: Before it could proceed with its plans, it had to undo Solano’s 40-year-old orderly growth ordinance, which prevents development on unincorporated land. But the ordinance could not be overturned without a countywide vote. So the company ran a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign, touting $700 million in community handouts, to generate voter support. Yet its leadership stumbled frequently along the way, provoking outrage at public forums, doubling down on a lawsuit against local farmers and failing to provide important details about how the project would impact the county. This July, the opposition celebrated when the company withdrew its proposal from the November ballot.
But the story isn’t over: California Forever is determined to try the ballot again in 2026. In the meantime, it’s continuing its community outreach campaign. At the heart of the debate lies the company’s most compelling argument: its promise to bring more housing to the Bay Area, where developers face significant regulatory hurdles. It’s an offer that taps into a genuine regional need, even as it also poses new problems at the local level.
For decades, the orderly growth initiative has effectively prevented the urban sprawl visible in the suburbs of Los Angeles or San Jose. At the same time, critics say it has deterred development that could spur economic growth and provide much-needed housing. From 2010 to 2020, California’s population grew by 6.1%, but the housing supply increased by only 4.7%. Though up to 80,000 housing units are constructed every year, the state has estimated that more than double that amount is necessary to catch up with growing demand. In Solano, housing production has fallen by half over the past 30 years, and nearly 15% of all households spend a third of their income on housing.
Solano residents, like many Westerners, have reason to be suspicious of wealthy but distant developers who are disconnected from local needs, said Kristina Hill, research director of the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California, Berkeley. She noted that some locals might be attracted by California Forever’s technological optimism, with its visionary talk of new designs for dense multifamily housing. At the same time, however, the company’s plans could impact the local environment and quality of life; the land it owns includes valuable natural resources, such as vernal pools, the headwaters of streams and fertile soil for grazing or agriculture, which provide other tangible benefits for the community.
“Urban people have a tendency to look at a blank space on the Google map and say, ‘Oh yeah, there’s nothing there.’”
“Urban people have a tendency to look at a blank space on the Google map and say, ‘Oh yeah, there’s nothing there,’” Hill said, “But in fact, there are competing visions for an economy that involves things like food production or supporting water quality in a state with not enough clean water.”
SOLANO TOGETHER, the largest coalition to emerge in opposition to California Forever, is now working on an alternative vision for the county’s future. On Aug. 21, the coalition reset its priorities to focus on protecting the county’s orderly growth ordinance, which must be renewed in 2028 by county supervisors or through another countywide vote. It’s also trying to keep an eye on California Forever’s efforts to engage the public and influence local opinion.
Sadie Wilson, director of planning and research at the nonprofit Greenbelt Alliance, which works to conserve natural landscapes across the Bay Area, noted that there was a silver lining to the controversy: California Forever, she said, had forced many disparate groups — environmentalists, farmers and local politicians on the right and left — to work together, inadvertently creating a newfound forum for community engagement. The stakeholders found they shared a set of values that helped to inform their organizing and could serve as the basis for future discussions. “More people should be involved in the process of imagining Solano’s future,” Wilson said.
Since the outset, the company’s campaign has worried residents opposed to the project. Shortly after The New York Times exposed the project’s investors — who include venture capitalists Reid Hoffman, Michael Moritz and Marc Andreesen — California Forever quickly rebranded itself by committing to provide more jobs and housing. Advertisements depicting walkable boulevards, a sports complex and a lagoon flowed into the county, while extravagant financial promises appeared on billboards and television ads.
Aiden Mayhood, a Rio Vista resident who spent the better part of a year campaigning against California Forever, recently learned that an anonymous tech company donated $60,000 to a local church over the summer. He believes that California Forever may continue to sow support this way in the coming months. “The public needs to stay vigilant,” he said. “These aren’t your typical billionaires. These are very politically active billionaires.” (Named investors of California Forever have collectively donated at least $38 million to different political campaigns in the 2024 elections.)
“These aren’t your typical billionaires. These are very politically active billionaires.”
And Flannery Associates still owns 60,000 acres of undeveloped land, which stretches in a corridor from Travis Air Force Base to the city of Rio Vista. Jan Sramek, CEO of California Forever, has committed to hosting public events to gain a better understanding of the community’s preferences for small business grants and down payment assistance.
In his statement on California Forever’s withdrawal, Sramek blamed strict regulations for the state’s housing crisis — a criticism that bears a grain of truth. The California Environmental Quality Act, a more extensive version of the National Environmental Policy Act, requires an arduous approval process and is frequently exploited by residents seeking to block new projects. Not all developments are subject to the same degree of scrutiny, however: Affordable housing projects and infill developments near existing cities are eligible for a more streamlined review.
But the company’s project currently doesn’t include any units for affordable housing. “People trying to make a profit off of housing during crisis — that’s a conflict in a way,” said Hill, the UC Berkeley professor. “You’re trying to figure out how to produce housing that’s high-quality and serves multiple income levels, but that’s not the mission.”
Frances Tinney, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, which evaluates developers’ environmental impact reviews, said that California Forever is “inherently unsustainable,” because it would require building entirely new water, wastewater, power and transportation systems, paving over ecosystems, increasing water use and polluting the air with constant traffic. The buildout alone could leave Solano at a $103.1 million fiscal deficit, according to a report commissioned by the Solano County Board of Supervisors.
If it’s fully occupied, the new city would likely double the county’s population, from 450,000 to 850,000 people. That influx would increase the county’s overall tax base, but the new residential units could also pull some people away from Solano’s seven existing cities, draining money from their own municipal services.
If the company really wanted to help the people of Solano, it would invest in those seven existing cities, Wilson of the Greenbelt Alliance said. Building housing in cities is more expensive for developers, because fees paid to the city can add up to $12,000 to $157,000 per unit. But that kind of development would increase the housing supply without causing significant environmental or tax burdens. California Forever’s land already includes 800 acres within the city limits of Rio Vista, where some locals said they would welcome development.
Still, some Solano residents have been encouraged by the company’s promise of jobs and housing for the next generation. Dozens testified in its favor at the Board of Supervisors meeting in late June. Supervisor Mitch Mashburn agreed to form a subcommittee to work with California Forever on the new proposal.
But others remain adamantly opposed. Duane Kromm, an organizer with Solano Together and an original advocate of the 1984 orderly growth ordinance, celebrated the developer’s temporary retreat. Like Mayhood, however, he remains wary of losing focus while the company remains in town. “Money never sleeps,” Kromm said. “There’s somebody always looking to make a dollar off of land.”
