“Shouldn’t be too hard, all we need is the state to approve a permit” has been the downfall of many, many proposed projects throughout the history of development in general and California in particular.
6 Likes
And many have succeeded. For every Salton City, there’s a Rohnert Park.
I don’t understand what the point is here. Should everyone assume failure and give up? Should they have spent years trying to acquire rights without buying the land first ensuring overinflated valuations?
I think the point is that both billionaires and techies have a very myopic view of how to improve society and it usually aligns with things they personally care about rather than things regular people actually want and need.
15 Likes
They want things that enhance their power and prestige, not anything that improves society. That starts with taxing the rich, in fact, which they oppose.
11 Likes
Well said. This vaguely reminds me of the “utopian island” that a small group was peddling. I think it was posted here, they’d made a fancy video about it to sell properties, and it turned out they didn’t even have permission from the country to use the island for that. And also no plans for infrastructure. All the boring details, you know. 
8 Likes
What part of the actual project is objectionable? Livable communities? Housing in one of the worst housing crisis in California history? Huge open space preserves?
All I’ve heard is people railing against who is paying for it or mocking it by calling it some kind of libertarian utopia when it looks like a thousand other housing development projects before it and there’s nothing particularly libertarian about it.
It’s one thing to argue particulars about the project that are problematic, but everyone seems far more caught up in the who rather than the what.
The “who” and the “what” are inextricably linked, because a billionaire’s idea of what social problems need to be fixed and how to go about fixing them is going to be very different than a normal person’s idea of what social problems need to be fixed and how to go about fixing them.
As for the “what’s wrong with the actual project?” there is a long list of objections from a wide variety of local stakeholders from environmentalists to ranchers to the U.S. Air Force. There’s a reason the area has “slow growth” laws that these developers are now trying to bypass.
11 Likes
I mean, play like one hour of SimCity and see how well that works. I can already hear their little sims citizens yelling nonsense words from the corner of their screens as they furiously bulldoze blighted houses.
4 Likes
Oh, are you thinking of Cryptoland? Because that video was…definitely something. Like “check six sources to confirm it’s real” kind of something.
5 Likes
Well, here’s one, and it’s indicative of the thinking of the “who” that many of us have a problem with:
He says the goal is to have around 50,000 people living in this city by late 2030.
So 6 years. Even if we didn’t have the supply chain issues we have right now, where are all these skilled workers coming from to do the actual construction? Infrastructure is hard. Heck, building safe, durable, efficient buildings is hard.
Tech bro billionaires haven’t any real world experience with these things.
ETA: yes, @chenille ! That’s the one. Thanks. Now I need to find out what happened to it.
10 Likes
But Zoey need not apply.
(Eagerly awaiting the third book in the Zoey series.)
1 Like
… so is it now so impossible to build housing in any existing metropolis, that to even conceive of increasing the housing supply, we have to invent an imaginary new city that will somehow not have the same NIMBY policies as all the others 
4 Likes
It’s a housing development. If the project doesn’t fulfill anyone’s needs, no one will move there and it will fail.
Long list? The bulk of that article is fear it will change delta lifestyle because apparently, 50,000 people is like “nice new Los Angeles.”
The rest is a fear that the community might have to pay for billions for a highway and an argument that one can’t build towers near wind farms - which as far as I know, no one has suggested doing.
The cost to the taxpayer is certainly an issue though that’s an argument for never growing ever, even in existing cities. The rest though? Come on.
Based on the janky scaffolding and wacky roof tiles in their concept art I’m not sure if their imaginary construction workers are especially “skilled” at all:
Also. It doesn’t seem like they’re orienting the solar panels in the optimal direction based on the sun’s position. But personally I’m more curious about where they’re getting that special sun that sets in front of the horizon.
13 Likes
There you go. If there’s a need for any of those services, entrepreneurs will step up to provide them, and healthy competition will keep the subscription costs to a minimum.
It’s as if some people can’t even see the invisible hand. (Or the invisible /s)
7 Likes
The fact that they didn’t even bother to hire someone to create remotely plausible renderings and instead relied on apparently-unedited AI to produce all their concept art is an excellent illustration of how dedicated the project’s planners are to finding competent talent to turn this into a reality.
Though maybe “excellent illustration” isn’t the best term of art given how wonky those illustrations are.
11 Likes
Ha, fair point! But even finding warm bodies who can swing a hammer or operate a digger is going to be quite the stretch in this environment. I work in a construction-adjacent industry and the workforce issues are intense right now. And will be for at least a few more years. So, a complete city in 6 years is implausible. So the guys in charge are either stupid, or they’re lying. Or both. Not a great look.
10 Likes
B-b-but it’s not a scam, it’s a massive tax write-off!
4 Likes
Late 2030 is 13-16 years. Still ambitious given that permits might take years.
I very much doubt investors will be involved in building. They’re investors. It’s more likely parcels will be optioned off to developers and one or more of the big builders gets brought in.
I await a more comprehensive development plan though. What exists publicly is less than an investment pitch.
Edit: Brainfart. Somehow I inserted an s after 2030 in my head. Mea culpa.
Ummm, in what world? “Late 2030” is not the same as “the late 2030s.”
But to your other point, agreed. Still a stretch, given that nothing has started yet. I still think the workforce issues will be huge, either way.
6 Likes
