Retired Aquatic Biologist | 8 Years in Solano
I live in Rio Vista, where my wife and I chose to retire 8 years ago. We visited Rio three times before deciding that it was the place for us. Yes, Rio Vista can have problems with the highway system, windy summers, and commuting to medical facilities…. but this was the world we chose. We love the open spaces between cities, the lush fields, the Montezuma Hills, seeing the grazing sheep, the new ewes in the spring, the fantastic sunsets, the strength of “community”, and all the recreational opportunities. We know we made the right choice. In Rio Vista, I’ve found something that I miss from growing up…a smaller town that cares. The citizens of Solano County have voted overwhelmingly 3 times in favor of conserving what I support as a unique resource…. farmland, open, undeveloped and contiguous has been retained under zoning for Agriculture. Where else can you find a similar land base in the Bay Area, outside of state or federal reserves? Farming within the proposal’s area has helped sustain the county, while providing connected habitat for a variety of species.
In the fall of 2023, California Forever (CF: AKA Flannery and Assoc., East Solano Plan, and likely future iterations) introduced itself to Solano County. Their announcement included their proposal for construction of “affordable” homes for a community that could eventually grow to a population of 400,000. I read the proposal and watched several U-tube meetings. Generally, I found the proposal to be lacking. CF’s roll out was basically this is who we are, this is what are going to do, and there is nothing you can do to stop us. I personally thought it was a heavy-handed approach for an introduction, which came off to me as arrogant or entitled…. CF could do whatever they wanted, and they knew what was best for Solano County. How could CF know what was best for the county? Turns out their project had been “planning” for five or more years. During this time frame they were quietly buying up land. This phase came to a head as publics became aware that land transactions were taking place, which resulted in congressional inquiries. At this point the public became aware that something was up, and it also became known that some of the landowners that did not sell were being sued.
The CF Proposal would double the population of Solano County. Where would the water come from…. the transportation system is currently beyond stressed…. what industries are they talking about for jobs…. how can they guarantee above average wages? CF mentions water rights on the lands they purchased, talk of buying additional water rights, and “guarantee” not to build unless water is available. A right to water is not a guarantee of water, essentially it is holder for a place in line for water, after upstream users and those who predate your water right have taken their share. In the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin there are several times more claims to water than water actually available. Additionally, given the recent reductions of water available from Lake Berryessa and the proposed Delta Conveyance Tunnel to bypass water around the Delta, it would appear that drinking water represents a limiting factor challenge both to the county and CF.
Having worked in planning for 30 years, I have been dismayed by the CF proposal’s stealth manner, lack of transparency, lack of specificity, and lack of understanding of what our county values. As an objective thinker, I look for data and find it frustrating when a transportation plan or a drinking water plan for the proposal are not available. In the absence of the data I noted, I personally find nothing to vote Yes for. To me Yes represents a blank check, based on the absence of specificity from the proposal. The only decision I can frame is whether to change the zoning within the area (17,500 acres) of the proposal from agricultural, to suitable for residential development.
The largest beneficiary of that change in zoning would be those who knowingly bought agricultural land, that would become zoned as suitable for development. I doubt whether agricultural land values are equivalent to lands zoned for development. So for me, is there more benefit in providing economic return for the proponents against what I value in the undeveloped, contiguous land? Personally, No (NO) is an easy decision.