Silicon Valley, often hailed as the global epicenter of technology and innovation, has long been recognized for its pivotal role in shaping the tech industry’s future. In recent years, however, companies and venture capitalists started looking beyond the confines of the San Francisco Bay Area and extending their corporate reach to areas ripe for development. See another recent blog post about these events here.
One such region that has garnered significant attention is Solano County, situated just north of the Bay Area. Solano County, boasting fertile land and a rich agricultural heritage, is well-suited for developing sustainable technologies, renewable energy, and agricultural innovation. But should Solano County be gentrified in this manner?
Longtime residents of Solano County are both worried and baffled about these significant changes and the ambitious plan to build a city where there is currently farmland. Ashley Morrill, 40, says:
There’s sheep farms, there’s cattle ranches, and guys that are doing hay and safflower farming. That’s what they do. There’s livestock, and things to feed the livestock.
The company buying up thousands of acres of farmland to create what they imagine to be a futuristic city, Flannery Associates, has committed approximately $800 million and bought 50,000 acres of land (See map of area purchased). The story begins in 2017 when Michael Moritz, a billionaire venture capitalist, sent a note to potential investors describing the chance to invest in creating a new California city. The project’s website pitches the metropolis as a walkable city akin to the West Village in New York that could generate thousands of jobs. Starting from a blank slate, the future city has the unique chance to be built from the ground up. Brian Brokaw, a spokesperson for Flannery Associates, says:
We are proud to partner on a project that aims to deliver access to good-paying jobs, affordable housing, clean energy, sustainable infrastructure, open space, and a healthy environment to residents of Solano County.
Meanwhile, Democratic representative Mike Thompson, who represents Solano County, is less thrilled with the prospective endeavor’s potential impacts on the area. Thompson commented:
They just can’t displace our family farmers; these are people who make a living feeding American households, and that’s totally inappropriate to think that they can come in and just drive them out of business.
Property owners in Collinsville, California, have said the mysterious Flannery corporation has approached them, and a few families have sold their land and left abruptly. Democratic Representative John Garamendi is especially worried about Flannery Associates’ use of “mobster” tactics to purchase the land.
Tim Miles, 71, said he has concerns that buyers are trying to change the countryside he has enjoyed for decades. His daughter, Lacy Miles, 42, commented:
I moved out here to escape the city.
The story of rural gentrification is nothing new. Rural areas in the United States have been the playgrounds of urban-elite investors for decades. See other blog posts about rural gentrification here and here. Although investors may bring new economic opportunities with them, often rural communities are ripped apart and lower-income residents displaced.
In Ojai, California, residents complain about tourism’s effects—housing has become too expensive, with older residents essentially priced out and becoming homeless. Meanwhile, in Gunnison County, Colorado, county officials implemented a temporary ban on nonresident property owners to offset the burden on local resources when COVID-19 first hit. See other blog posts about the gentrification of Gunnison and other rural cities here.
Rural areas have their own unique character and way of life, often defined by agriculture, close-knit communities, and a slower pace of living. An influx of urbanites with different lifestyles and values can lead to a loss of rural character. As new residents seek amenities and services that cater to urban preferences, traditional rural businesses can struggle or close altogether.
While rural gentrification can benefit some communities economically, it is crucial to consider its impacts on longtime residents and the preservation of rural identities. With regard to Solano County, although Silicon Valley’s money might provide “an opportunity for a new community, good paying local jobs, solar farms, and open space,” we must consider the cultural erosions that will likely ensue.
5 comments:
I’ve seen a lot of coverage about the proposed development in Solano County. I appreciated the map you linked. I didn’t realize just how much land those Bay Area investors had bought up until I saw it drawn out like that. I grew up on the edge of development in the suburbs. As a kid, my neighborhood was only a street away from fields and farms. When I visit my family now, those fields are gone – replaced by apartment complexes, housing developments, and strip malls. It’s weird seeing the landscape entirely changed. I can only imagine what it would be like for the current residents of Solano County if an entirely new city is built.
This proposed city has gotten a lot of attention on social and local media. On the surface, the development appears to be a positive thing: a walkable city, more housing and jobs available, etc. However, what is routinely left out of the narrative is the people who currently live on this land and depend on it to make ends meet. I'm glad you decided to mention other areas in California and Colorado that have seen the negative consequences of large-scale tourism and rural gentrification. I am curious to see what ends up happening with the proposal.
Hi, Katie, thanks for this post. I found it very informative, but also concerning how widespread the practice of rural gentrification actually is. It was off-putting to see how the investors viewed people’s homes and farms as “blank slates,” basically serving no purpose until the investors came in. What is refreshing, though, that you mentioned was Garamendi’s concern for the rural areas at stake here. As we have discussed in class, it’s not unusual for there to be a lot of disconnect and disenfranchisement for rural communities at the legislature. But to the contrary, Garamendi seems to show concern for the gentrification playing out in this case.
Thanks for bringing attention to this issue, Katie. This proposal seems to show a lot of disregard for rural people living and working in Solano County. The search for a "blank slate" feels offensive to me, especially because there is so much improvement that could be made in areas where these tech investors already live. Silicon Valley, also once farmland, has since been turned into suburban sprawl. It seems to me that these people could work on making their walkable city dreams come true in the places they already call home, rather than gentrify and develop another area. I think people often try to “fix” things anywhere besides where they already live, and I wonder how we can encourage people to instead start with the places they know best.
Post a Comment