The California Forever Power Play: When Billionaires Decide Democracy is Too Slow

A profound and disturbing battle over the soul of governance is unfolding in the halls of California’s state capitol and the farmlands of Solano County. It is a story that pits the immense wealth and ambition of Silicon Valley’s elite against foundational democratic principles: local control, environmental stewardship, and the right of communities to shape their own future. The entity at the center is “California Forever,” a group backed by a who’s who of tech billionaires, and their project is not just a city, but a stark test of whether America’s institutions can withstand the pressure of concentrated capital seeking to rewrite the rules in real-time.

The Facts: A Decade of Secrecy and a Pivot to Sacramento

For nearly a decade, the group now known as California Forever, operating through a subsidiary called Flannery Associates, has been secretly acquiring approximately 62,000 acres of agricultural land in Solano County. Their backers, including the founders of LinkedIn and Netscape and led by former Goldman Sachs trader Jan Sramek, remained shrouded in mystery until 2023, employing tactics that some local farmers alleged were strong-arm. Their initial vision, the “East Solano Plan,” proposed a walkable city for 400,000 people. However, facing powerful grassroots opposition, poor polling, and critical county assessments, the group withdrew the plan from the 2024 ballot.

Frustrated by local resistance and a 1984 county “orderly growth” law that requires voter approval for development on unincorporated land, California Forever has dramatically shifted strategy. They are no longer focusing solely on winning over Solano County voters; they are now lobbying state leaders in Sacramento for special legislation to fast-track their project. Their new proposal, rebranded as the “Suisun Expansion Plan and the Solano Shipyard,” now includes a major manufacturing hub and a shipbuilding facility aimed at luring defense contractor Saronic Technologies, which is deciding between California and Texas for a new factory.

The Legislative Ask: Bypassing Safeguards for Speed

The core of their lobbying effort, led by hired political veterans former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, is a request for the state to declare the project an “environmental leadership development project.” This designation, created by a law Steinberg himself authored in 2013, would compress any legal challenges to a mere 270 days. More controversially, they seek to use an 18-year-old environmental impact report from 2008 for the new shipyard, arguing the site has changed little. Critics, including Napa Democrat Senator Christopher Cabaldon who represents the area, call this absurd, noting the report is outdated and most of the planned 7,500-acre footprint lacks the “water-dependent industrial usage” designation from that era.

The proposed legislation contains a nuclear option for overcoming local control: if surrounding cities and the county cannot or will not permit enough housing fast enough to meet the (theoretical) shipbuilder’s timeline, it would allow Suisun City to annex the California Forever-owned county land into its city boundaries. This move would be a direct bypass of the county’s orderly growth initiative and its requirement for a voter say. Proponents, including the powerful Building Trades unions who have signed a 40-year labor agreement with California Forever, argue this is necessary to seize a generational economic opportunity, claiming California will lose “billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs” to Texas without immediate action.

The Democratic Erosion: Principle vs. Expediency

This is where the narrative transitions from a complex land-use dispute to a fundamental crisis of democratic integrity. The principles at stake are not minor procedural hurdles; they are the bedrock of accountable governance.

First, the assault on environmental due diligence. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a foundational law designed to ensure the public understands the environmental consequences of major projects before they are approved. To argue that an 18-year-old report is sufficient for a transformative project of this scale, on pristine farmland, is an insult to the law’s intent and to the public’s right to know. It represents a willingness by project advocates, including former champions of environmental law like Steinberg, to treat core protections as disposable when aligned with powerful clients. This is not streamlining; it is a conscious decision to blindfold the process.

Second, the circumvention of local democracy. The Solano County orderly growth law exists for a reason: to give residents a direct voice in monumental changes to their landscape and community character. California Forever’s pivot to Sacramento is a blatant admission that they believe they cannot win that democratic contest fairly. By seeking state legislation that enables annexation as a “last resort,” they are constructing a legal trapdoor beneath the feet of Solano County voters. As Princess Washington, the sole Suisun City councilmember opposed to annexation, stated, processes are slow to ensure fairness and checks and balances. Dismantling those checks under the pressure of a purported ticking clock is the antithesis of good governance; it is coercion disguised as urgency.

Third, the weaponization of economic anxiety. The tactic is age-old but potent: present a binary, high-stakes choice between “jobs now” and “obstruction.” The threat of Saronic going to Texas is wielded like a club to beat down questions about environmental impact, housing feasibility, and community benefit. Yet, as Sen. Cabaldon astutely notes, a defense contractor like Saronic will likely base its decision on national security needs and strategic logistics, not solely on the speed of a regulatory carve-out. This negotiating-by-ultimatum creates a panic that benefits those seeking to avoid scrutiny. It forces legislators into a false dilemma, making them feel they must choose between their constituents’ economic well-being and their procedural rights—a choice that should never exist in a healthy democracy.

The Humanist and Constitutional Perspective

From a standpoint committed to liberal democracy, human dignity, and constitutional order, this episode is alarming. Democracy is not merely about elections; it is about the everyday systems that distribute power and require the powerful to justify their actions to the public. What we see here is an attempt to short-circuit those systems. The initial secret land buys fostered distrust, a wound now being deepened by backroom lobbying for special rules.

The individuals involved—Jan Sramek, Marc Andreessen (who holds investments in both California Forever and Saronic), and their cohort—are entitled to their vision and their advocacy. But they are not entitled to a private legislative process that elevates their timeline above the community’s right to a transparent, thorough, and democratic review. The hiring of Darrell Steinberg and Bob Hertzberg, architects of the state’s governance framework, to argue for exceptions to that very framework, adds a layer of tragic irony. It is a demonstration of how institutional knowledge can be rented to undermine institutional integrity.

Jordan Grimes of the Greenbelt Alliance expressed disappointment in Steinberg’s advocacy for a project “antithetical” to his prior work. This sentiment captures the betrayal felt by those who believe laws should apply equally. The lobbying expenditure of at least $330,000, the union alliance leveraged for political pressure, and the direct appeals to the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) paint a picture of a full-spectrum influence campaign designed to overwhelm normal channels.

Conclusion: A Line in the Soil

The California Forever saga is a cautionary tale for every community in America. It asks: Who decides the future of a place? Is it the people who live there, governed by laws they have enacted, or is it the wealthiest newcomers who can hire the most connected advocates to rewrite those laws from the state capital?

The promise of jobs and investment is not a valid reason to discard democratic safeguards. In fact, it is precisely when the stakes are highest—with billions of dollars and the transformation of an entire region on the line—that those safeguards are most vital. They exist to prevent recklessness, to ensure equity, and to affirm that in a republic, the consent of the governed is not a nuisance but the source of legitimate authority.

Solano County residents, through groups like Solano Together, and principled lawmakers like Sen. Cabaldon and Councilmember Washington, are defending more than farmland. They are defending the principle that growth should be orderly, that the environment matters, and that voters have a say. To allow this project to proceed via a legislative fast-track forged in closed-door meetings would be to declare that some citizens, by virtue of their resources, are more equal than others. It would signal that California’s democratic institutions are for sale to the highest bidder with the most compelling crisis narrative.

For the sake of democracy itself, for the rule of law, and for the communities that trust their systems to protect them, this power play must be met with resolute opposition. The answer from Sacramento must be clear: if California Forever’s vision is so compelling, let it withstand the full, unfiltered light of democratic and environmental scrutiny. No one, no matter their wealth or connections, should be allowed to build their forever on the crumbling foundation of everyone else’s democracy.