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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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! 😮

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Precisely, they don’t seem to care.

It already is profit over people. Look at how they've forced families off their land.

The issue of drought is major!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

💯

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

At the cost of farmland. We don’t need it

@@wtfdidijustwatch1017 This isn't farmland....it's just land.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 😂

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.

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.

I was wondering the same thing. Just how did that work out?

Ask Adam the woo!

Two organized religions duking it out.

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.

The people in charge of SF won't allow it.

It is too far gone.

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.

💯👍

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.

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.

We do like to eat.

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.

Redeveloping cities is a government job. The developers do not work for the government.

🎉San Francisco is walkable to the grocery store. Walking from presidio heights to potrero hill takes THREE HOURS, that is not walkable

@@marsco2442 The American choice is to drive. You have to be willing to put your life in a position for transit and walkability. It a conscious decision. I sold my car in 2001.

Absolutely agree. We've already seen the same pattern in the Santa Clara valley, once some of the richest growing land in the world.

Not all billionaires are pure evil, greedy people. Some are philanthropists (Buffet, Gates, Soros, Bloomberg) who have done a lot for citizenry around the world.

You're right. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

I don't see a problem with people trying to make money. It's not a sin.

@@RajDeelish trying to make money? It’s a group of billionaires, they don’t need to be trying to make any more money, they have more than enough for generations to live off, and that’s just off dividends buddy… Bots are outta control these days 😭

Where would you rather they build? In the ocean?

Where? I didn’t see it. Wasn’t Paradise written about something like this

The reporter, right near the end when the camera turns to him.

@@SailorsGirl1957 thanks, I’ve been listening to John Prine since he put his first album out. Interesting that he picked John Prine’s 1980’s look. Good catch. I watched it again after your comment and still didn’t see it.