Last January, the Suisun City Council voted to allow its city manager "to consider annexation of more territory into the city -- land that is largely owned by . . . California Forever[,]" reports indicate. The annexation, if approved, would shift control of a significant portion of California Forever owned land from Solano County to Suisun City (one of the County’s smallest municipalities).
As a result, California Forever could “circumvent [Solano County's] Orderly Growth Initiative, which requires major developments on unincorporated county land to be approved by county voters[,]” Jack Rogers, of GlobeSt.com, reports. In other words, annexation by Suisun City may remove one of California Forever’s most challenging obstacles – rural opposition.
Moreover, the move by Suisun City is showing signs of having a snowball effect, as other Solano County municipalities seek to reap the potential benefits of the California Forever project. Last week, the Rio Vista City Council met to “consider exploring annexation in relation to lands currently owned by . . . California Forever[,]” Robin Miller, of The Reporter, said.
This news of annexation may be indicative of a strategic shift on behalf of California Forever and its billionaire backers.
For the last two years, California Forever has maintained a community oriented position that has placed Solano County's rural voices at (or near) the center of its decision making. But, in light of a recent political setback, California Forever may be changing course.
Last July, California Forever decided to withdraw its land rezoning measure. The Measure, had it been approved, would have rezoned nearly 18,000 acres of unincorporated Solano County land, thereby permitting new commercial and residential developments. The decision to withdraw was made just one day before the Solano County Board of Supervisors was set to decide on whether to adopt the Measure or place it before the county’s voters for approval, the Board's meeting minutes show.
Jan Sramek, CEO of California Forever, said that the decision was the result of recent polling data. Specifically, Sramek, in a joint statement with Solano County, cited polling data indicating that most of the County's voters would like to see an environmental impact report completed, before deciding on the Measure. According to Sramek, pulling the Measure would provide California Forever with ample time to create an environmental impact report.
However, other reports have cited opposition from “residents, ranchers, and farmers” as being a primary factor behind the California Forever's decision to pull the Measure. On this point, Solano Together, a community organization formed to oppose the California Forever, stated the following:
Faced with the anticipation of overwhelming rejection by Solano County voters on the ballot, California Forever has pulled the plug on the East Solano Plan Initiative. The people have spoken and California Forever has been forced to withdraw their hastily drawn, poorly designed initiative, given a surefire loss in November.All of this begs the question: has the California Forever Coalition sought to influence the Suisun City Council's decision to annex new territory in a concerted effort to sidestep opposition from Solano County's rural electorate?
“California Forever would neither confirm nor deny that it plans to use Suisun as a backdoor for the project[,]” Brittany Maldonado, of California City News reports. However, according to ABC10, a California Forever representative had this to say about the issue: “If we receive an invitation to explore annexation by Suisun City, we would be open to a conversation.”
Annexation by Suisun, Rio Vista, or any other Solano County city, may jeopardize the future of the County's rural farmers.
To date, a number of Solano County farmers have resisted California Forever's efforts to compel sale of their farms. If a city (supportive of California Forever) were to annex formerly unincorporated land owned by County farmers, then said city could forcibly dispossess any holdout farmers of their land, through an eminent domain proceeding. At that point, the city could rezone the land to facilitate private development and deed the land to California Forever. If that were to happen, any development proposed by California Forever would only have to be approved by the city and this planning commission.
This is in contrast to the current state of affairs. As noted above, so long as the land that California Forever seeks to develop remains under Country control, then any proposed project remains subject to voter approval, under Solano County's Orderly Growth Initiative. So, even if the County's Board of Supervisors were to suddenly become sympathetic to California Forever's vision, the voter approval requirement would still operate to deter an eminent domain forced land transfer. In other words, there would be no (or, at least significantly less of an) incentive to force a land transfer, if any new development could still be shot down by the voters.
In sum, recent moves by two Solano County cities may pave the way for California Forever to achieve its goals, with, or without, the support of the County's rural electorate. Annexation would allow California Forever to sidestep County regulations that subject new developments to voter approval. This, in turn, creates the possibility that local farmers will be forcibly dispossessed of their land, so as to facilitate California Forever's proposed developments.
For more on the arguments for and against the California Forever project, check out this article, by Diana Lind. For other insights into California Forever and its battle with local farmers, see this blog post by UC Davis Law Professor Lisa Pruitt.
2 comments:
This is incredibly interesting. I will admit that I however believe that California Forever never wanted to operate in good faith with the people of Solano County. I feel the idea that they have placed rural voices "near the center" of the discussion for the past two years as a bit of a dodge by them. Buying up thousands of acres on the sly for years, and then agreeing to an impact report once the operation was discovered seemed like an attempt to cover up their tracks. In my mind, these are billionaires who are upset that farmers are unwilling to cooperate for the "greater good" and are needing to push them out of the process. I sincerely hope that these cities do not help California Forever in its attempt to erase rural areas to create a "utopia."
As I was reading about this "strategic workaround," I thought of another circumstance. Historically, the state of Nebraska prohibited for-profit corporations from buying farmland within the state. This is similar to what you mentioned in your post about Solano County having development restrictions requiring voter approval. However, some organizations operating in Nebraska wanted to purchase that farmland, and thus, they created non-profit organizations to acquire the land, therefore skirting the restriction. Although the Nebraska for-profit restriction was ultimately deemed unconstitutional in 2007, one organization (created by the Mormon Church) had already acquired 200,000 acres of farmland through their non-profit. Thus, there are serious issues when the law provides loopholes and workarounds for those with resources.
Post a Comment