Showing posts with label rural gentrification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rural gentrification. Show all posts

Thursday, March 13, 2025

The rise of the "barndominium" and the "shouse"

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, migration to rural areas has substantially increased. From 2019 to 2023, large urban areas like New Orleans and Cleveland experienced smaller population growth than average as many city dwellers moved to rural and rural adjacent places. The loosening of in-person work requirements likely played a large role in this migration to rural areas.

Theoretically, the pandemic's resolution and subsequent return to in-person work should have ended the rural migration trend, yet many Americans are still trading city life for country living. For instance, as of late 2024, young families with children were increasingly leaving big cities, opting instead for rural counties and small metropolitan areas. 

The benefits of living in the country are somewhat obvious. Cities tend to come with a higher cost of living, overwhelmed public school systems, higher rates of crime, and greater environmental pollution. This reality, combined with a rising cultural appreciation for the countryside aesthetic, has set the stage for homeowners to embrace a lesser-known phenomenon: the "barndominium."

Picture this: 14 acres in the middle of nowhere, abundant open space, and the opportunity to design your own home at a far lower cost than purchasing a traditional house. For people like the Barndominium Lady Stacey Lynn Bell, who built her dream barndominium and now helps others do the same, the appeal is irresistible. In a recent New York Times article reporting on the barndo's surge in popularity, Bell explained that: 

More people want bigger homes, more distant neighbors, land to raise chickens and grow vegetables, and an environment 'not as hustle-bustle.'

In the same piece, Brittany VanHouten shared that she and her husband expect their barndominium in Citrus County, Florida to be 4,500 square feet and include a home theater, library, craft room, and spacious detached garage, once finished. The Florida couple estimated their new home would cost under $300,000, which falls on the lower end of the average price to build a home in their area.

On top of all these advantages, barndominiums are often disaster-resilient, long-lasting, and energy-efficient. This is largely due to their slow-to-rust steel frames and customary metal roofs, which can withstand high winds and hurricanes. Pertinently, climate and disaster-resilient features are "very important" to 86% of homebuyers, according to a recent Zillow survey.

Of course, the barndominium has its disadvantages, too. As with rural living in general, taking up residence on vast open land may mean sacrificing easy access to schools, places of employment, restaurants, and shopping centers. 

A partial remedy to this problem is the shouse, an even more niche category of housing also taking over rural America. The term "shouse" is derived from a combination of "shop" and "house." While the shouse is extremely barndo-esque, it provides the additional option of allowing owners to combine their living space with their workshop. This feature virtually eliminates commute time, unless you count the time it takes to walk from one room to another.

Further, while a greater emphasis on function over form renders shouses somewhat less cosmetically appealing than their barndo counterparts, these structures share many of the same advantages, including lower costs and energy efficiency. 

If migration trends over the last few years are predictive of those to come, rural areas are likely to continue to experience an influx of new residents from bigger cities. Unfortunately, housing prices have already begun to increase in smaller towns and rural areas due to this shift. However, for those with the resources, patience, and vision, a barndominium or a shouse might allow potential homebuyers to make their rural dreams a rural reality.

Sunday, March 9, 2025

Land annexation by Solano County cities may jeopardize the future of local farmers

The fate of the controversial California Forever project has rested in the hands of Solano County's rural electorate, until recently. Now, it appears that this may no longer be true.

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.

Friday, March 7, 2025

What are we trying to build: affordable housing and high-density bonus laws in California's Eastern Sierras

Mono county is dominated by the rugged beauty of the Eastern Sierras. The 4th-least-populated county in California, it has only one incorporated community: Mammoth Lakes. Home to scenic views, hiking trails, fine dining, and two ski resorts, the town has seen a boom in popularity over the past 20 years. This has caused a fierce affordable housing shortage, with real estate skyrocketing as wealthy investors seek to capitalize on the region's dynamic tourism economy.

According to realtor.com, the median listing for a home in Mammoth Lakes is $865,50. Scroll through the website's 122 entries, and you will see only a handful condominiums and studio apartments approach that figure; most houses exceed $1 million in value. A quick search on Airbnb.com, however, reveals well over 1,000 options—a ratio of more than 10 rental properties for every home on the market.

The overwhelming mismatch between rental properties and permanent residences is just one major factor driving the affordable housing crisis in California's rural eastern counties. In Mammoth Lakes, it has forced members of the local workforce to live out of their cars; Emily Markstein, a local ski instructor, tree-trimmer, yoga instructor, and waiter estimates the percentage of her colleagues embracing "van life" is greater than 20%. Speaking to the LA Times, she describes the struggle for access to basic amenities this lifestyle presents, and how it has become the most viable option for working people in Mammoth Lakes.

In nearby Inyo county, the city of Bishop grapples with similar issues. Its proximity to the wilderness has made it a long-time hub for activities like hiking, fishing, climbing, and skiing. But the mayor, Jose Garcia, says that the town "hasn't grown at all" in his tenure. This frustration stems from another key factor driving the lack of affordable housing in the Eastern Sierras: there's often nowhere to build. 

Much of the land around Bishop and Mammoth Lakes is ineligible for development. Approximately 90% of land in Mono county and 92% of land in Inyo county is federally owned, and the Los Angeles Department of Water (LADW) owns and manages an additional 250,000 acres in Inyo County and 60,000 acres in Mono County. Purchased in the 1930's, these landholdings secure water rights to Eastern Sierra snowmelts for the city of Los Angeles. This hems in communities, preventing affordable housing developments from cropping up on the outskirts of established towns and driving up the price of privately-owned land that is available for development

One proposed solution is to increase housing density within established communities. Doing so could  mean more affordable housing in the Eastern Sierras, and prevent towns like Bishop and Mammoth Lakes from having to engage in complex, multi-party land-swaps with federal agencies and LADW when they want to implement a new development project. 

There are strong legislative incentives for increasing housing density. California's density bonus laws, recently expanded under AB 1287, require cities and counties to grant zoning incentives to housing projects that reserve a certain number of units for low-income residents. This allows developers to build more market rate units than would ordinarily be allowed under the city/county's zoning laws, in exchange for guaranteeing the availability of affordable housing the developer otherwise might not build.

Although proponents of the density bonus schema praise it as necessary in a state where high costs often render affordable housing projects financially impractical, it is not without its flaws. In the Northeastern Sierra community of Truckee—a community struggling with its own housing crisis—homeowners John Kedzie and Jim Frances have criticized high-density bonus programs, arguing that by mandating approval of projects that meet arbitrary thresholds, legitimate local concerns such as snow storage and traffic infrastructure are bypassed. 

Several places in the Sierras have implemented their own initiatives to combat the lack of affordable housing. Nevada, Amador, Calaveras, and Mariposa counties have partnered to launch the Mother Lode ADU program. Its goal is to streamline the construction and approval process for accessory dwelling units (ADUS)—self-contained residences constructed on private properties that already have homes, usually by the homeowner.  The focus is on working directly with community members, instead of development companies, to increase housing density on a small scale.

Back in Mammoth Lakes, the Mono County housing program offers down-payment assistance loans, support for some development projects, and a revolving loan fund that supports the preservation of deed restricted units (among other things). The program's goals are explicit: it's designed to solve "the market failure that has caused the large housing shortage locally, especially for local workforce households."

These programs' long-term effects on affordable housing remains unclear. However, any truly comprehensive solution will have to address the region's relationship with ecotourism directly. The proliferation of expensive rental properties in places like Bishop and Mammoth Lakes, coupled with their proximity to pristine wilderness, make them ripe for rural gentrification—simply increasing housing density won't solve the deeper problems.

Tuesday, March 4, 2025

Countryside aesthetic for sale

Imagine images of ivy-covered cottages, floral-printed summer dresses, and pastel-colored tea parties hosted beside lush, green meadows. These scenes are all part of a social media trend referred to as “cottage core.” Simply put, the aesthetic centers around embracing the simplicity of countryside living and focusing on a slower pace of life. A New York Times article described the trend:
It could ​​be the beginning of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, before the inevitable darkness seeps in, but rather it’s the backdrop of a budding aesthetic movement called cottagecore, where tropes of rural self-sufficiency converge with dainty décor to create an exceptionally twee distillation of pastoral existence.
The modern escapist fantasy has been around for ages but became increasingly popular around 2020, especially on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram. The cottage core aesthetic was likely embraced partly as an antidote to the panic and stress of living in close proximity to others during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, this popular aesthetic does not account for its gentrifying effects on rural communities. Rural gentrification refers to the migration of affluent urban and suburban residents into rural places. This process can lead to real consequences – some of them negative – for rural residents. As Pilgeram wrote in an In These Times essay:
These include the displacement of poor, working-class, and middle-class people from areas experiencing gentrification because of the increasing price of housing and land, sometimes pushing existing residents into communities that are considered ​“chronically poor,” where they can afford housing. Thus, these demands create new opportunities and tensions within the community, particularly its land-use patterns.
The trend encourages consumers to buy land and homes in picturesque rural towns so that they, too, can cultivate a romanticized country lifestyle. These “rural gentrifiers” are usually more abundant in picturesque towns located in the West and Midwest, but no region is exempt from the force of rural gentrification.

One example is Gunnison County in Colorado. The county has scenic lakes and mountainous landscapes, which are an ideal backdrop for the cottage core aesthetic. The area has attracted many affluent families who have purchased second homes. The surge of wealthy residents, however, has left a housing shortage and accelerated income inequality. This forces the valley’s low-paid seasonal and service workers to pay more than average for housing:
According to Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research firm, Gunnison County’s workers devote 32% of their income on average to rent, compared to 19% in non-tourism-based economies.
The housing in Gunnison County is in such short supply that many of the local motels have become month-to-month rentals for low-income families. Long-time rural residents are thus forcibly displaced as families are made more vulnerable and a cultural rift divides the community.

Although only the wealthy few can afford second homes in these rural communities, the need to buy into an aesthetic can lead to real and catastrophic effects. When the trend starts to fade away, rural residents are forced to deal with the aftermath.

To learn more about rural gentrification, see How and why Democrats are failing to attract rural voters: Is it the economy, stupid? and On rural gentrification, and the ensuing housing shortage, in coastal California.

Saturday, February 22, 2025

Amid mass layoffs in the National Park Service, rural communities could be some of the first to suffer.

 On February 14th, 2025, the Trump administration fired 1,000 National Park Service (NPS) employees and several times that number of U.S. Forest Service employees. These terminations came in the wake of a federal hiring freeze for full and part-time positions with the NPS.

While the Department of the Interior recently exempted 5,000 seasonal workers from the hiring freeze, this represents only a portion of the estimated 7,500 part-time employees NPS hires to help manage the hectic spring and summer. It is unclear if these 5,000 positions will have to be re-advertised and whether early applicants will have to re-apply; if they do, it could result in substantial hiring delays, stretching the NPS' already thin resources even further during peak season. 

The NPS has funding for "about 13,000 full-time employees nationwide," according to their website, and some of these jobs are already unfilled. The full-time layoffs thus represent the elimination of nearly 1/10th of NPS positions. Additionally, the full-time hiring freeze also affects incoming NPS rangers, with those about to begin training having job offers rescinded as of January 27th. This contradicted previous statements from the Trump Administration that law enforcement personnel would not be affected by federal layoffs.

Theresa Pierno, President and CEO for the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) said in a Feb. 14th press release that the administration's actions will have "devastating consequences for parks and communities," warning that larger parks could lose key staff and smaller parks risk closing their doors altogether. Former NPS director Jonathan Jarvis said in a statement to the National Parks Traveler that the layoffs would cause "chaos," leaving visitors unsatisfied and at potentially serious risk. Search-and-rescue crews, firefighters, and emergency medical service positions are often filled by seasonal workers.

As both Pierno and Jarvis noted, however, it is not just visitors and employees who will be affected by these policies. A 2019 study from headwaterseconomics.org shows 224 rural counties (16.8% of all counties defined as rural by the census bureau) have recreation-dependent economies. Many of these counties are contiguous with national parks or forests and rely heavily on visitors to stimulate local businesses. (You can read more about rural recreation economies and ecotourism on the blog here).

Although rural recreation economies are often linked with gentrification, there may be some advantages to this model. Rural recreation counties saw more post-pandemic job growth than other rural counties, although this varied slightly from region to region. Rural recreation counties were identified as significantly less likely to experience population loss than non-recreation counties. They were also found to have more food-away-from-home (FAFH) outlets per 1,000 people than metropolitan counties, according to a 2019 study by the USDA, Economic Research Service and the University of Arkansas. 

To help support these recreation economies, the EPA formed the Recreation Economy for Rural Communities (RERC) in 2019. This program establishes 'steering committees' designed to work closely with rural communities, providing locally tailored workshops and guidance and helping to ensure "equitable access to the outdoors for residents and visitors alike." Partner communities have been established in 16 states, primarily in counties adjacent to or contiguous with a national park, forest, or monument. 

 The federal hiring freeze is very likely to negatively impact rural recreation economies. It is unclear whether programs like the RERC will survive, and as parks become more difficult to operate, tourists are likely to be less satisfied. They may withdraw from or lash out at surrounding communities. A 2023 National Park Visitor Spending Effects survey found that 325.5 million visitors spent $26.4 billion in communities near national parks, providing 415,400 jobs, $19.4 billion in labor income, and $55.6 billion in economic output overall. 

Ms. Pierno emphasized that slashing staff would have a devastating ripple effect on businesses and communities that depend on parks for their survival. With the summer rush mere months away, many of these communities will have already invested in new infrastructure to support the influx of tourists. If that influx doesn't materialize, they face unprecedented revenue loss. 

UPDATE 5/4/2025: Federal District Judge William Alsup ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees, including NPS workers. The NPS initially reinstated probationary employees fired by the Trump administration, but a Supreme Court order issued in April temporarily paused Alsup's order, suggesting the probationary workers should not be reinstated and that the firings are legal. 

Sunday, December 1, 2024

Frisch reflects on his losses in Colorado's 3d Congressional district

Adam Frisch is the former Aspen City Council Member who nearly unseated Lauren Bobert in 2022.  In 2024, he lost to a more boring Republican by 5 points.   Here, Frish reflects to Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post on what he learned from all the 77,000 miles he drove across 27 counties talking to voters.  A quote focusing on Frisch's reflections follows: 

[To Frisch], the story of this election can be told in the people he met. Farmers and ranchers. Small towns in southern Colorado with predominantly Latino populations — some newly arrived and some who have been there for nine generations.

One person who stands out in his memory, he told me, was an electrician in northwestern Colorado, the hub of the state’s natural gas industry. The man, who was in his mid-60s, was working at a hotel, making about $18 an hour — a drastic cut from the $62 an hour he had been earning in the gas fields, where employment has been declining in part because of government-driven efforts to transition to clean energy.

But it was not just the financial hit that bothered him, Frisch said. He also resented what he felt was liberal animosity toward the very nature of his work in the fossil fuel industry.

Of voters like him, “I get asked all the time … ‘Why did they keep on voting against their interests?’ And what I think people mean is ‘Why do non-college-educated, working-class people, why did they vote for people that don’t have their economic back?’” Frisch said. “And I’m like, ‘As important as pocketbook issues are, pride and dignity will trump pocketbook issues all day long.’”
The story also includes some data on the history of Democratic losses in rural counties. Bottom line: it's been worsening over the decades.

Sunday, August 25, 2024

How and why Democrats are failing to attract rural voters: Is it the economy, stupid?

A couple of recent items in the New York Times showcase--wisely in my opinion--how the Democrats, in spite of an entertaining convention, are failing to attract rural voters.  Both of these pieces touch on a range of issues, e.g., climate change, civil rights, etc., but seem to come back to the focus of these voters on pocket book issues and the related belief of many that Trump is better on and for the economy.  I'm glad to see these stories because I've been saying for weeks, 

The first story is a huge feature out of Wilson, North Carolina, population 50,000, 40 miles east of Raleigh It is part of the Rocky Mount-Wilson-Roanoke Rapids Metro Area, but characterized as rural by the New York Times, with the headline, "Meet the Rural Voters Who Could Swing North Carolina's Election."  The lede and a few other excerpts follow:  

The most rural of the battleground states this year is North Carolina. About 3.4 million people, or roughly a third of the state’s population, reside in a rural area, more than in any other state besides Texas.

Democrats have seen their support slip in rural areas, ceding ground to Republicans. As such, rural voters in North Carolina could determine which way the state goes on Election Day, as Democrats hope to curb their losses in these communities and Republicans seek to solidify their grip.

But in interviews with more than 30 people in Wilson County, about 50 miles east of Raleigh, where backcountry roads weave in and out of tobacco fields, many residents told us that they felt both parties often overlooked their concerns, about high prices, underfunded schools and rapid growth from the state capital that is stretching into town.
* * *
Voters in Wilson described feeling alienated and worn down by the emphasis on race and identity in politics. 

And that comment reminds me of this very urban NYT story a few weeks ago in which low-income Black voters were quoted as saying they wanted less identity politics and more on what Harris would do to to help them.  

Folks in Wilson are also concerned about the social and economic consequences of rural gentrification.

Downtown Wilson was a sleepy scene decades ago. Now, it has a park decorated with oversize whirligigs, full bars on weekends and, by 2026, a new $63 million stadium that will be the home of the Carolina Mudcats, a Minor League Baseball team.

All of that development, though, has increased concerns over inflation and rising housing costs. Residents bemoaned the prices of fertilizer, electricity bills and chitlins, or sizzled pork intestines. For many people in Wilson, the math just doesn’t add up.

* * * 

Despite their differing opinions, many Wilson residents said they valued getting along with their neighbors, in part because there was no political bubble to hide in.
The story's closing quote, from a 46-year-old white woman, also echoes that theme: 

I just want my community to be OK.

And that reminded me of key finding of Nicholas Jacobs and Daniel Shea's 2023 book, The Rural Voter:  that rural folks have a strong sense of linked fate with and to others in their community. 

The second NYT item is an essay titled, The Politics of a Hard Day's Work for Lobstermen in a Changing Climate.  Scott Elsworth, a historian, writes from Stonington, Maine, population 1056, where he spent time this summer with lobstermen.  

For young workers like Mr. Amaro and Mr. Leach and millions of other Americans like them who are busting their humps week in and week out trying to get ahead, the price of gas, groceries and housing is perhaps the most important factor in determining their vote. Not abortion, not Gaza, not the war in Ukraine. As long as the perception that Mr. Trump will do a better job with the economy remains unchallenged, the Democrats will pay a price at the polls, perhaps a dear one.

“I care a lot about nature,” Mr. Amaro said, “but also I think about my future and how I can take care of my family, and what would benefit me, in the long term, financially. And it kind of sucks to think like that.”

Though he has regularly voted Republican, Mr. Black is far from MAGA. Like many Maine Republicans, at least historically, he is fiscally conservative and no fan of big government. He believes in climate change, isn’t worried about immigration and considers the former president to be something you won’t hear Jessica Fletcher say in reruns of “Murder, She Wrote.” But it is likely, at this point, that he’ll cast his vote for Mr. Trump. “I like Trump’s decisions on stuff that he did,” Mr. Black told me. His two sternmen are, at this point, inclined to do the same, citing the rise in gas prices and the high cost of housing.

Finally, In These Times just posted this item from Joseph Bullington, "Republicans Will Weaponize Rural Suffering as Long as Democrats Ignore It."  Here's a key excerpt: 

But let us not confuse this giddiness [of the DNC] with evidence of a winning politics. What terrified me about the Republican National Convention terrifies me still: The Republicans are effectively wielding rural suffering as a political weapon, telling a potent story that — in classic fascist style — deflects the blame onto immigrants and other out-groups. Democrats could demolish these racist lies with a compelling story of their own — one that defuses the Right’s fascist messaging and shows how rural whites and immigrants (many of them in rural areas, of course) are actually being robbed and exploited by the very same profiteers, the same rigged economic system. Is this what the Democrats are doing? Of course not — that’s what makes it a bad dream.

In human form, this nightmare of mine has a name, and its JD Vance.

* * *

In his RNC speech, Vance spoke to the pain of small towns and rural areas ​“cast aside and forgotten by America’s ruling class,” places where ​“jobs were sent overseas and our children were sent to war.” 

And that brings me to my own essay, "Mustering the political will to help left-behind places in a polarized USA."   

Postscript:  This opinion piece by Patrick Healy for the New York Times makes some of the same points made above and also echoes my concern that the Democrats seemed a little too self-congratulatory at their Convention--a little too inward looking, even tone deaf at times.  The audio version of this piece, available today on the NYTAudio app, is even better.  

Sunday, May 26, 2024

On rural gentrification, and the ensuing housing shortage, in coastal California

Hailey Branson-Potts reported for the Los Angeles Times a few days ago from Marin County, the famously wealthy county that lies just north of San Francisco, on the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge.  The headline is "Looking to vacation on the California coast?  Marin County just made it harder."  Here are some excerpts particularly relevant to the issue of rural gentrification. 

In Marin County, the explosive growth in short-term rentals has been particularly divisive in smaller towns. There, the number of full-time residents is dwindling while millionaires’ second — and third — homes, many of which are used as seasonal rentals, sit empty much of the year.

That’s a cruel paradox when there are not enough affordable homes for people who work in those communities, proponents of the cap say.

In unincorporated Marin County, the median sales price of a single-family home rose 98% from 2013 to 2021, to $1.91 million, according to a countywide housing plan adopted last year.

The story quotes Sarah Jones, who directs the Marin County Community Development Agency: 

Housing affordability and housing supply were really the driving factor in why we’re addressing short-term rentals right now.  There’s not housing being built. And the housing that’s available, people are just seeing that it’s more profitable and easier to use it as a short-term rental than to rent it out long term.

Branson-Potts' story continues: 

Although Marin County has much open space, it has little room to expand housing. Roughly 85% of its land, including the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, is public space or agricultural land protected from development.
Marin County Supervisor Dennis Rodoni, who represents the scenic West Marin towns where vacation rentals are most heavily concentrated, said they have transformed “tiny communities where even losing a few homes is a big deal.”  
Rodoni continues: 
Our volunteer fire departments are losing volunteers.  Our schoolteachers, we’re having a hard time locating them in the community; they have to commute long distances.

Read more about this region of California in several posts here.  Posts about Sonoma County, just to the north of Marin, are here, here, and here.  

Monday, May 6, 2024

Developers of proposed new Bay Area city gather enough signatures to get re-zoning on November ballot

Solano County, California (April, 2024)
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024
The Associated Press reported last week that California Forever, the group associated with secretly buying up farm land in southeastern Solano County, California (population 453,000), on the periphery of the San Francisco Bay Area, has garnered sufficient signatures to have placed on the November ballot whether the land can be re-zoned urban to permit its development.  Read more of the background on this matter here, here, and here.  A short excerpt from the AP story follows:  

Rio Vista Youth and Community Hall
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024
A wealthy Silicon Valley-backed campaign to build a green city for up to 400,000 people in the San Francisco Bay Area has submitted what it says are enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the November election.
The campaign submitted more than 20,000 signatures but would need only about 13,000 valid ones to qualify for the ballot. If verified by Solano County’s elections office, voters will decide in the fall whether to allow urban development on land currently zoned for agriculture. The land-use change would be necessary for the development to be built.
Child visitors to the sales office express
their desires for the new community 
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024
Jan Sramek, a former Goldman Sachs trader who heads the company behind the campaign, California Forever, said at a news conference Tuesday that he heard from thousands of people who want careers and homes in the county where they grew up but can no longer afford because of high housing costs and a lack of nearby work.

I had the opportunity in early April to travel to the parts of Solano County that will be most affected if this new development moves forward.  Those areas include the town of Rio Vista (population 7,360), on the Sacramento River Delta, and along the Montezuma Hills.  I found Rio Vista to be a charming town with one of the most appealing (and highly utilized) small public libraries I've ever visited, among other amenities.  The town also has a pharmacy that isn't part of a national chain, which I thought was pretty cool.  Plus, there are small eateries and an auto body shop with a prime location on the waterfront.  

Poster in California Forever sales office, 
also featured in brochures
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024

Though it was not well publicized and not on my car's GPS, I did find the California Forever office in downtown Rio Vista--having taken up residence in the city's old Vista Cinema on Main Street.  Two California Forever employees were there, one who self-identified as a salesman.   They are collecting wish lists for community amenities, and I took a few photos of those lists--including one from what visiting children wanted.  (I list some of these at the bottom of the post).  

The salesman chatted me up about the project, noting that many residents of Rio Vista support it because, currently, there is "nothing" for their grandkids job-wise and in terms of activities.   If the city is built, it will provide not only jobs, but also many amenities for Rio Vista residents.  The salesman said some amenities are currently available to residents of Liberty and Trilogy, two nearby planned communities, but that the new city will make facilities and amenities available to those living in nearby Rio Vista. 

I raised with the salesman the issue of the lawsuit California Forever brought against some area landowners who had refused to sell and been accused of price-fixing.  He said those sued by California Forever were not family farmers but instead were large corporate farms--basically "BigAg."  I disputed that based on my personal acquaintance with one of those land-owning families.

California Forever Sales Office in Rio vista
in former Vista Theatre
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024

At the end of my visit, the salesman asked me if I was on board with the project, and I told him I was still undecided, but generally skeptical.  I'd already explained to him that I didn't live in Solano County and so could not vote on the anticipated ballot initiative.  

Here are some bullet points/highlights from the brochure I picked up at the California Forever sales office.  

Windborn Church,
Main Street
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt

The farmland in "East Solano County today" is "Rated among the worst for agriculture in all of Solano County." (I wonder about the quality of that farm land generally, in comparison to 

Auto Repair in Rio Vista
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024
  • The community California Forever wishes to build is a "new future for East Solano County, a new community for all of us." 
  • "Middle-class neighborhoods.  Safe, walkable, and affordable.  $400 million in downpayment assistance for Solano County residents."
  • "Good local new jobs.  15,000 new local jobs in manufacturing, services and technology paying $88,000 a year or more"
  • "Parks and green space.  4,000 acres of park, trails and habitats.  The project affects less than 2% of Solano County's current agricultural production." 
  • "Rio Vista Parkland.  A new 712-acre park between the new community and Rio Vista." 
  • "Downtowns.  Major offices, entertainment, arts, shops, cafes, locally owned restaurants, apartment buildings and more"
  • New Employers Zone.  New Manufacturing jobs and technology research labs in defense and other important industries.  A way to bring new employers and the good jobs of the future to Solan County."
Entrance to Marina
(c) L.R. Pruitt 2024
  • Maker zones.  Workshops, art studios, and ohter light industrial spaces.  Also restaurants and entertainment, and loft-style homes."
  • Open Space.  The plan requires at least 4,000 acres of parks and open spaces aligned with natural features, distributed across the new community, programmed with a variety of playgrounds, parks, and shared spaces for all ages and activities.
  • Solar sheep are happy sheep.  Solar panels and grazing sheep make for great friends. The sheep happily eat the grass, greatly reducing wildfire hazards and  keeping weeks off the solar panels, as well as creating income for sheep farmers so they to rely less on meat sales.  The shade from the panels help the sheep stay cooler, rest more and experience less heat stress.  (This one incudes a reference:  New Scientist Magazine 2/1/2023)
  • Solano Jobs Guarantee.  All new community growth beyond 50K residents is frozen, unless the new community creates at least 15K new jobs.  And each new job must be a good job, paying at least 125% of the average wage in Solano County (about $88K a year today).
Sign at Montezuma Hills area
along Highway 12
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024

  • Solano Homes for All.  We will provide $400 million to help Solano residents buy home sin the new community, and to build more affordable homes.  If $300 million is allocated to down payment assistance, that's enough to help 6K Solano families buy homes with a $50K each down payment grant.
  • Solano Scholarships.  The new community will bring good new jobs.  To prepare, we will provide $70 million in funing to help Solano residents pay for vocational training, college, or to start or expand a small business.  
    Riverview Middle School
    Rio Vista, California
    Lisa R. Pruitt 2024

  • Green Solano.  We are providing $80 million in community-benefits funding for public parks and trails, open space and natural habitats.  This funding will also help support Solano's agriculture economy, including family farms and workers.  We are exciting to work with the Solano community to help identify priorities for this funding, to nurture our county's strong connections to its lands.  
  • Solano Downtowns.  We believe in investing in all areas of Solano--both in the new community in East Solano and in Solano's existing cities.  Why not just invest in existing cities?  We need more room for homes families can afford and for new industries.  We will provide $200 million in new investment in building and renovating homes, offices,  shops, and other mixed use projects in the downtown areas of Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo.  
  • Smart Growth Guarantee.  Our initial commitments are to provide $500 million in community-benefits funding and $200 million for investments in Solano Downtowns over the build-out towards $50,000 residents.  But our commitment to Solano does not end there.  If our community grow beyond 50,000 residents, all of these financial commitments will continue to scale up in proportion to the growth of our community.  We are excited to grow with Solano, and be a good neighbor for generations to come. 
Downtown Rio Vista
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024
Water Guarantee. Before a brick is laid, we guarantee to provide our water supplies through the highly regulated and state-mandated Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification process.  Regulated closely by the State of California, this process requires us to prove we can deliver water to the new community for many decades going forward, including through drought periods. 
  • Transportation Guarantee.  We will provide right of way for upgrades for Highway 12 and 113, including the Rio Vista and Dixon bypass, and we will pay above our proportionate share to fund these upgrades.  
  • Schools Guarantee.  We are required to ensure that new schools are ready in our new community when first residents move in. That way parens and teachers an be sure that existing schools are not overly burdened with new students.  Our schools remain in the existing school districts, but we will ensure that new schools are ready by the time the first children move in. We want the new community to be a big win for public education in Solano County.
  • Solano Taxpayer Guarantee.  We will pay our own way through the significant tax revenue we will generate as the new city gains residents.  The initiative guarantees no new cost to Solano taxpayers, except to those new residents who live in the new community. 
Wind turbines and gravel road running 
South from Highway 12 between I-80 & Rio Vista
area known as Montezuma Hills
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024
A significant part of one 12-page brochure addresses nearby Travis Air Force Base and a buffer zone that will lie between it and the new community. 

Til this weekend, the only billboard I'd seen promoting California Forever was on eastbound I-80 in Solano County, and it touted the 15K jobs paying more than $88K.  Then, on May 5, traveling westbound on I-80 , I saw one touting the $400 million in downpayment assistance for Solano County residents.  

Among the items on the crowd-sourced list of amenities folks had written on giant note pads in the sales office   

  • Music events, dining destinations, emphasis on nature in the community
  • Affordable housing--not market rate
  • Smart growth
  • Movie theatres (good for teens)
  • Let's re-create our normal!
  • Medical Center
  • Big Box retailers
  • Preserve wetlands
  • Widen Highway 12 from Suisun
  • Satellite junior college campus
  • Archeological recognition (Native Americans)
  • Nightclub!!!
  • Chain Hotel (Nice!)
  • Elderly/Alzheimers dementia care facility (home) with 24/7 nurse on site
  • Quality restaurants on the water front
On the kids list, one wrote, "If I had my own city, I would want a dirt bike track, a Walmart, and lots of houses."  The child included a drawing of this place, complete with a dirt bike track and a church, along with a Walmart and several houses. 

Crowd-sourced list of desired amenities
(c) Lisa R. Pruitt 2024
California Forever has three sales offices in addition to the one in Rio Vista; the others are in Vacaville, Vallejo, and Fairfield.  

Friday, April 12, 2024

Literary Ruralism (Part XLVI): American Spirits

Reviewers have been mostly positive about Russell Banks' last book, American Spirits, which was published posthumously a few months ago, and  I recently got around to reading it and found the insights regarding rural folks, including their attachment to place and to the land, quite compelling.  The book is comprised of three stories, each set in Sam Dent, a fictional small town in New York's Adirondacks.

This excerpt is from the first of the book's three stories, "Nowhere Man," which involves a man, Doug Lafleur, who, with his sisters, sold their interest in the land they inherited from their father (Guy Lafleur) in the rural Adirondacks to a man from New Jersey, Yuri Zingerman, a mysterious figure.  

Zingerman’s shooting range was a half mile farther up the narrow gravel lane that passed in front of [Doug’s] and Debbie’s ranch house. When he and Debbie got married, Doug’s father, Guy Lafleur, sold him the eight-acre lot for one dollar as a wedding present, and on weekends over the next three years Doug and his brothers-in-law, Roy and Dave, built their house where the lane ended and their land began. After Doug’s dad died, Doug and his two sisters, Nina and Tracy, and their husbands, Roy and Dave, his brothers-in-law and hunting companions, sold off the rest of the old man’s land, all 320 acres. It was the last large tract of undeveloped forested land inside the town limits. They sold it to Yuri Zingerman from New Jersey. He said he wanted it for a private hunting preserve, but promised Doug that he and Roy and Dave could continue to hunt on the property. Zingerman said he was a veteran of the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, but he talked with a regular American accent. He ran a company in New Jersey that provided security for celebrities and professional athletes and business executives. It was impressive when he named who they were. 

 

Doug, who worked as a full-time caretaker for summer residents and a part-time handyman in the winter months, spent his share of the cash sale of his dad’s land on a new Dodge Ram pickup and paid off the mortgage on the house. Without the mortgage hanging over them, he figured he could support the family with his caretaking and seasonal work as a handyman, and maybe in a year or two he could build a third bedroom onto the house and the two-car garage Debbie wanted. They could get off food stamps and buy health insurance. When the twins were old enough for Debbie to go back to waitressing full time instead of part time, which should be soon, they’d be sitting pretty. That’s how he put it to anyone who’d listen, with his lips pursed in an air kiss. Sitting pretty. (pp. 10-11)  

This is after Zingerman orders Doug not to hunt on the family property, Lafleur Woods, any longer.  Doug is speaking initially to his wife, Debbie, who pushes back against his plan to continue hunting:

“He can go straight to hell if he thinks I’m not hunting on Pop’s land.” 

 

“Who? It’s not Pop’s anymore, remember?” 

 

“No. It’ll always be Pop’s. Just like it’ll always be Grandpop’s. That’s why people call it Lafleur’s Woods. Those two old boys, Pop and Grandpop, they’d roll over in their graves if they thought me and Roy and Dave couldn’t hunt that land. Max, too. Max’s gonna get his chance to hunt those woods, just like I did when I was his age. And my dad before me. And Grandpop. That sonofabitch Zingerman, he can have his hunting camp out there if he wants, he paid for that right, but he can’t keep me from tramping across those ridges and creeks that I know like the lines of my own hand and killing a deer once a year and busting up a few coveys of partridges and quails. It’s my goddamn birthright.” 

 

She was silent for a moment. She knew that he’d had three gin and tonics and had been publicly humiliated by Zingerman, but even if he were stone-cold sober and Zingerman had managed to be polite and had apologized for posting the land and barring him from hunting it, Doug would be threatening to kill his deer over there anyway. He was a man. That’s what men do. She knew that by tomorrow he’d be trying to talk Zingerman out of his decision, and by Monday he’d be grumbling about Zingerman’s decision, and when hunting season opened, he’d meet up early with Dave and Roy, and they would hunt on somebody else’s land, not Zingerman’s. Not Pop’s and Grandpop’s.  (p. 22) 

 * * * 

“We’ll just go in there early the first day of the season and take out our deer, and the hell with him,” he told Debbie. “He’ll never even know we done it.” 

 

“Doug, that’s about as dumb a thing as you’ve ever thought of doing.” 

 

“Sometimes you got to do a foolish thing in order to do the right thing,” he said. 

 

“I’m not letting Max go with you.” 

 

“Whoa. When it comes to educating the boy to hunting, I’ll say when he’s ready. It’s a lifelong process, and it starts now for him. He’s ready to drive the deer, or at least watch how it’s done. He won’t carry a gun for four more years, but he’s got a lot he can learn before then. I started carrying a gun a lot younger than that, y’know. Of course, that was before the government started chipping away at the Second Amendment,” he added. 

 

“Please, don’t start,” she said. 

 

“What if Zingerman…?” “What if Zingerman what? Worst he can do is call the state police, and by the time they arrive, we’re back here at the house butchering a deer we can say we shot in the yard from the deck in our stocking feet.” 

 

“What’s that going to teach Max? That it’s okay to lie to the police?” 

 

“The staties all know me and Roy and Dave. They don’t care where we shot our deer. They don’t like Zingerman any more than we do. Actually, the one I want to be teaching is Zingerman. He’s the one needs a lesson. Coming into our town like this and snatching out of circulation three hundred twenty acres of prime hunting grounds. And I want Max to know we aren’t gonna let him get away with it. I want the whole damn town to know it. And the state police, too.” 

 

“You’re the one who sold him the land. You and your sisters.” 

 

“Yeah, but we had a deal. It’s him who changed the rules. And I’m just saying no, that’s all. No, dammit. No.” 

* * *  

[Debbie]  didn’t buy Doug’s sudden sentimental attachment to his father’s and grandfather’s land. Where’d that come from? He’d been all too happy to join his sisters, Nina and Tracy, when they had the chance to sell the land to Zingerman, and they would have done it even if Zingerman hadn’t promised not to subdivide or develop it and hadn’t given them permission to hunt there. Doug wanted the money. He needed the money, not the land. They all did. (p. 24) 

 Then there is this powerful passage about Doug's attachment to the property:    

For seventy-some years this forest was the Lafleur family’s private hunting preserve. Before that, for a hundred years it was a Boston-based timber company’s wilderness cache of uncut trees, part of the land across the region that got auctioned off in the 1930s and ’40s for pennies an acre when the company shifted operations south, and in 1947 Doug’s grandfather had bought a chunk of it. Before that, before the American settlers and the British and the French Canadians and the Dutch, for ten thousand years it was the Mohawks’ and Mi’kmaqs’ home ground. Doug liked thinking about that. He liked calling up that long line of woodsmen and hunters. He liked to believe that he was descended from them, that his relation to this piece of the earth matched theirs, that he knew in all seasons its streams and brooks and swamps, its glacial forests changing from hardwoods to dark conifers to ferny sunlit patches, that he knew it fully as well as those old-time hunters did, and he knew the man-made trails and paths laid down over centuries on top of the trails and paths followed for millennia by the animals before the humans made their way here, and he knew the behavior and habits and needs and desires of all the animals and birds that lived in the forest. 

 

Without that ancient connection to the land, who was Doug Lafleur, anyhow? No one. Nothing. Just a not very talented amateur musician hanging around this small town for a lifetime, finding easy ways to house and feed his wife and kids and spending too much time at the local tavern amusing his neighbors with tall tales and dumb songs, a man with no good reason to be living and working here instead of somewhere else. Christ, anywhere. And no matter where he lived and worked, wouldn’t it be the same? 

 

A nowhere man, that’s what he’d become. Like the guy in the Beatles’ song. 

 

It was a mistake to sell the land to Zingerman, he said to himself. A mistake to sell it to anyone. He and his sisters should have clung to it for another generation for Max and his cousins to grow up on. It wasn’t fair to blame the old man, but Doug’s father had started the process by selling Doug the eight-acre pie-shaped corner adjacent to Route 50. The old man at first didn’t want to sell off the flat, birch-covered stretch of ground, but Doug, newly married, wanted to build his own house, even if he had to borrow fifty thousand from the bank to do it. He talked the old man into signing over the eight acres for a dollar an acre so he could use the appraised value of the land, a thousand times what he’d paid for it, to guarantee the bank loan. Doug and his father thought they were outsmarting the bankers.

 

They never should have done it, though. No one outsmarts the bankers. With help from his brothers-in-law over the next three years he built the one-story, two-bedroom bungalow with a full basement, and though he knew he could have done it cheaper with a double-wide set on cinderblocks, he wouldn’t have been able to expand on a double-wide, someday adding a third bedroom and a two-car garage with a tool room, the same as he could on a regular house. With his meager income from caretaking the homes of summer residents and handyman work over the winter, the mortgage payments turned out to be more than he could afford—several years into it and he was still paying mostly interest, and the principal was down barely seven hundred dollars from the fifty thousand he’d borrowed, and recently he’d been falling behind and was being charged penalties for late payments. 

 

After the old man died he never should have agreed with Nina and Tracy to sell the rest of the land in order to pay off the bank loan with his third of the inheritance. He could have somehow figured out a way to make the mortgage payments by taking a night shift at one of the resort hotels or a factory job in one of the larger towns downstate. Or he and Debbie could have sold the house instead and rented an apartment or a house in town. They might have saved enough that way to afford health insurance. And after they sold their father’s land, he shouldn’t have bought the new pickup. 

 

He could have squeezed a couple more years’ use from his old rust bucket of a truck. He and his sisters would still own the Lafleur Woods, the headwaters of Blackstone Kill, the sedimented shale slabs cut crosswise by the kill and the ridges and gullies, the moraines and eskers and erratics and the rock-strewn till left behind by the retreating glaciers ten thousand years ago. He’d still be able to hunt on his ancestors’ land. This love of the land, this irrational claim on it, was Doug’s strength, and it was his weakness.  (pp. 28-31) 

 Then (spoiler alert!) there is a show down between Doug and Zingerman, each wielding a gun:  

 Zingerman said, “Lafleur, you’re a fucking dead man.” 

 

Doug said, “I’m a nowhere man.”  (p. 60)