this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024

142 points (98.0% liked)

News

36943 readers

2552 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

142

Tech billionaires want to build a new city in rural California. Voters may get a say on it (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

California Forever, which bought 60,000 acres, has received fierce opposition from local officials and environmental groups

The controversial plan backed by Silicon Valley billionaires to build a new city in northern California farmland could come before voters later this year.

California Forever, the company that quietly acquired 60,000 acres of land in Solano county and recently revealed it planned to build a city there, announced on Wednesday it would submit a ballot initiative asking voters to clear the way for the project.

Along with the announcement of the ballot initiative, the company shed further light on its plans. It is proposing to create a new walkable and sustainable community with a variety of housing options, including apartments and row houses, on 18,600 acres in east Solano county, about 60 miles from San Francisco. Their plan also includes a pledge to create as many as 15,000 jobs, a $400m fund for down payment assistance as well as a requirement that at least 4,000 acres be used for parks, trails and other green spaces.

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 49 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I hate that I'm living through the dystopian guided age 2.0 I remember reading the history books and thinking how absurd it was all these tycoons could become insanely rich and exploit workers and use their riches to shape politics. Well I've learnt a lot these last 10 years, which is, it doesn't matter how much progress we've made technologically or socially, or how safe we feel, we can always slide back. Even to Nazi Germany.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 19 points 2 years ago

The only way to stop them from getting such power is to change the system that allows a handful of people to run everything.

The world needs direct democracy, no more corrupt career politicians taking bribes from lobbyists being put in charge of our world.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This why billionaires accumulating wealth is a problem. Their power will exceed that of democracy someday.

They can purchase their own military in the end, and even enslave people in the literal sense.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago

The US had it right in the 1950's. Income over $100,000 (like $1.7 million today) was taxed at a rate of over 90%. Imagine how much money would filter back to everyone else in a company when the owners and ceo's couldn't pull $30,000,000 a year with bonuses while half their workers were making $16/hr. No more ceo headhunters for more and more money. No more people worth billions at the expense of the country.

You do that and overturn citizens united, then 75% of everything jacked with the country will get better.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

With the exception of the issue over water usage, I'm not sure I understand the resistance to this. Yes, I do see that it could result in a problem where they engage in rent seeking behavior; but, it's also a plan to build out a bunch of housing and the infrastructure to support it, in an area which needs more housing. And, of all the places in the US, California is the one state where I would expect to see the political will to regulate if these wealthy assholes try to turn this into a Company Town situation. More housing is not going to build itself. And this seems like one way to get some of that done. Is it perfect? Far from it, but it seems like this could also be a lot better than the nothing which is currently being done.

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think the main distrust is in private interests being in the lead. I think it's pretty fair to not trust a solution from a bunch of billionaires, which also conveniently puts them in a position of monopolistic power.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it really all that different from the millions of housing tracts we have dotting the US landscape? Or the apartment blocks dotting cities? Private entities have been developing housing for decades. And while we can certainly go on about the evils of HOAs, it's not exactly the dystopian nightmare scenario which this particular development is being made out as. I'm just not seeing the big deal in this.

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

This seems more involved than just a neighborhood or development project since it's an entire city. But I'm pretty sure this kind of thing has been done a ton, they just don't do it so loudly.

[–] books@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I tend to agree with this take.

[–] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago

Arasaka finally completing plans for Night City?

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The 3rd largest city in California is California City. You’ve never heard of it because it was the same plan.

[–] matjoeman@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Largest by area I assume you mean

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yes but all the streets are laid out. Check it out on google maps.

[–] probablynaked@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Fascinating rabbithole! Thanks

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 10 points 2 years ago

how bout ya fix the mess ya made on the coast first?

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 8 points 2 years ago

walks up to the counter So I'd like the Fyre Festival but super-size it into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

People are crazy.

People vote for nothing to be built anywhere near them forcing houses prices to go sky high for the benefit of them and the detriment of others. The government won't do anything about it because people want the market to solve issues like housing.

Currently there is this massive complaint "look at all these rich billionaires building rockets. We don't need rockets we need houses, why don't they ever do anything to benefit people!"

"Hey I'm planning to build houses" You monster!

So what do we actually have here?

We have a market that is distorted because the real price of housing and land value isn't accurately captured. We can't re bid on housing after it is bought to better value it. Something like land value tax would be perfect. But we don't have that.

Even if we did its probably illegal to build something the market wants like medium or high density.

People do not want public transport even if it means fast, cheaper, more sustainable transport if it means you have to remove one road.

Cities are terribly built because they are built around the car.

To me this looks like the easiest solution rather than changing the minds of the government, tax law and the people to build a new city that works well.

The city: Is is going to be built in an area where water is low because of farming and it will remove farms. That's good. It will be walkable: that's good. It will be affordable: that's good. It is commutable distance to one of the most expensive cities in the country: that's good.

Honestly all the best to them because it seems like this is exactly what the state needs. To everyone complaining about it what is a reasonable alternative that in the real world of America could actually be done?

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 2 points 2 years ago

Complain more, and group all rich people into a single stereotype

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 2 years ago

All these billionaires have a hard on for space, let's crowd fund a trip to Mars. We'll eventually....maybe.....not really send a rocket to pick them up.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If this is supposed to be some sort of vote dilution thing I feel like you'd have more productive outcomes building a city around the Idaho/Montana/Wyoming borders using the geothermal power of the Yellowstone plume to support the city's power demands.

Or you could be even more productive vs cost of investment and relocate the offices of major federal departments and agencies to inject a bunch of educated professionals into all those rural states that'll become the kernels around which new urbanized and educated voting blocs will form.

The main thing will be offering benefits attractive enough that those federal employees will actually bite for it to work.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

It seems more like a way to maintain their company presence in Silicon Valley while slowly transitioning everything to this new city, not too far away, and try to make it the new Silicon Valley but actually better planned for long term, high population density. As an added bonus, they get to control the local government to crack down on crime and homelessness. And they'll also get to collect rent from their employees. It's too expensive to buy all the current real estate in SF so they can build their own 60 miles away and get everyone to relocate there and slowly raise the prices and make a shit ton of money.

[–] Reverendender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I hate that this sounds so appealing to me

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Atlas Shrugged?

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I assume that the town motto will be "No Poor People Allowed"