Dodd Opposes Megacity Plan for Solano County

Rendering on California Forever website

Special to the Vanguard

Fairfield, CA – A group of tech billionaires have put forward a plan that they hope can address the California Housing Crisis.  But the plan has proven controversial and, on Wednesday, Senator Bill Dodd, who represents the area in the legislature, became the latest to oppose the California Forever proposal.

He called the proposal that could add up to 400,000 on the outskirts of Fairfield “deeply flawed” and “irresponsible suburban sprawl” and said it had the “potential to displace farmers, worsen traffic congestion and hamper national security operations at the adjacent Travis Air Force Base,” according to a release from his office on Wednesday.

“I’ve been skeptical since day one, but reserved my judgment as I gathered more facts,” Sen. Dodd said. “It is now crystal clear to me that this project is bad for Solano County. This group of mega-rich developers from Silicon Valley are trying to steamroll the surrounding community, bypassing a proper, thorough vetting which they know they can’t pass. What they’re proposing will drastically and irreversibly alter the area. It’s not right, and it’s time for all those who value thoughtful policymaking and Solano County’s future to stand up against it.”

Senator Dodd joins a chorus of community leaders including dozens of elected officials who are speaking out against California Forever. The list of opponents include Congressmen John Garamendi and Mike Thompson, Fairfield Mayor Catherine Moy and Suisun City Mayor Pro Tem Princess Washington.

Opponents cite a number of problems with California Forever including:

  • No plan for traffic impacts on one of the most dangerous and congested roads in the county.
  • Conversion of much needed agricultural land.
  • Housing would interfere with Travis AFB, which plays key national security role.
  • Developers seek to bypass public planning processes and environmental reviews.
  • Need for housing in the region, but this is not the location or way to do it.
  • With three iterations in already, it’s clear there are substantial problems with no answers in sight.


About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts


  1. Don Shor

    This proposal has almost no supporters in Solano County. The only thing that explains this level of incompetence is hubris.

    If they want to expand housing in Solano County, they can invest within the existing cities. Solano County cities are not slow growth. Most are open to expansion of their borders. This is going to go before the voters in November, most likely, and will likely face a massive defeat.

    Measure A, the Orderly Growth Initiative in Solano County, was written and passed by the voters in response to this exact sort of proposal, a new city proposed next to Winters in the 1980s. That project failed via referendum by a crushing margin.


  2. David Thompson

    There are few items in this “New Town” proposal to bear supporting.

    It is “New” sprawl all over again.

    I remember inner city grafitti when covering the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It said “New Slums for Old Slums” to describe a new equally awful community planned to replace the old.

    Just because you put “New” in front of “Town” does not make it different or better.

    The fact that this Billionaire Boys Club are suing three generation farmers who refuse to sell their farmland is already enough for me to be opposed.

    David Thompson, MA Architecture and Urban Planning, UCLA

    My thoughts only and not represenative of Neighbohrhood Partners LLC or Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for