development

California Forever, the tech billionaire-backed group that hopes to build a city from scratch on farmland in the outer San Francisco Bay Area, is lobbying state leaders to fast-track a massive shipbuilding deal that would kick-start its development after years of local opposition.

The billionaires behind the project are seeking a deal to expedite environmental reviews of the development and, if necessary, bypass county restrictions on building by being absorbed into Suisun City boundaries. They’ve hired former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg — Democratic architects of landmark environmental laws — to make their case, and are using the prospect of luring a major shipbuilder to California to accelerate the dealmaking.

California Forever has pursued its project for nearly a decade, though the vision has shifted: At first pitched as a walkable city with cottages, bike lanes and even a water park, the plan then added a major shipbuilding operation and, last summer, a significant manufacturing hub.
California Forever’s proponents, led by the state’s powerful building trades union along with Realtors, peace officers and pro-housing groups, argue the latest proposal would boost the state’s economy and bring an estimated half a million jobs to California. And now, a prospective tenant has emerged: Defense company Saronic Technologies Inc., which builds autonomous vessels for use in national security, is deciding between California and Texas for its next factory. The state must fast-track the development or lose the deal, supporters argue.

The developers are seeking the state’s permission to use an 18-year-old environmental impact report for the shipyard development, limit any legal challenges to the project to 270 days, and allow Suisun City to annex their land if needed, according to Steinberg and Hertzberg.

“In short, if legislation is not approved, California will lose billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs this summer to Texas and other states,” proponents wrote in a joint letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders this week.

But some locals and lawmakers are skeptical, arguing that details about the project remain scarce. The proposed development would convert vast farmlands into factories and risk harming the surrounding ecosystem, they said, which deserves rigorous environmental review under the landmark California Environmental Quality Act that proponents are seeking to expedite.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento) is shown during a Senate floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Feb. 20, 2025.

(Fred Greaves / CalMatters)

“For a project this scale in this location, it is what the [law] was designed for,” said Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), who represents the area. “A central question for the people of Solano County is: Is this going to be for the community or is this a conversion project that leaves them behind?”

Opponents also slammed California Forever for pursuing relief behind closed doors with state leaders and circumventing local opposition. Since 2018, the group has secretly bought up agricultural land, shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to court local residents and spent at least $330,000 lobbying the governor and legislative leaders for favorable legislation.

“I think they know that the only way this actually happens is under cover of darkness, by trying to essentially get the governor to work this plan for them,” said Jordan Grimes, legislative director at Greenbelt Alliance, which has advocated for streamlined environmental reviews for housing projects.

Secretive beginnings foment distrust

For residents of Solano County, an agricultural community on the outskirts of the Bay Area that includes coastal areas next to a deep-water shipping lane, the suspicion around California Forever has been hard to shake.

The group’s subsidiary, Flannery Associates, started buying up farmland in 2018, eventually acquiring 62,000 acres while routinely refusing to answer questions about its backers. Some farmers later alleged the company used strong-arm tactics to get them to sell.

In 2023, Flannery’s backers were unmasked as a group of wealthy venture capitalists, including the founders of LinkedIn and Netscape, all led by former Goldman Sachs trader and real estate developer Jan Sramek. Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, holds investments in both California Forever and Saronic, the defense company eyeing California. Andreessen’s firm did not immediately return a CalMatters inquiry for comment.

Despite rocky beginnings, California Forever needed the majority of Solano County voters on its side due to a 1984 “orderly growth” law that requires voters to approve development on unincorporated land.

In 2024, the company debuted the East Solano Plan to rezone 17,500 acres of agricultural land for a dense, 400,000-person city. The proposal was set to go before voters that year, but its backers pulled it following powerful grassroots opposition, poor polling and a county assessment that found holes in the plan. Sramek acknowledged the group likely moved too fast and said the initiative would go back before voters in 2026.

Instead, the group has pivoted. The East Solano Plan has become the Suisun Expansion Plan and the Solano Shipyard. In January 2025, Suisun City’s city council directed its manager to explore expanding the city’s limits through annexation, which is now underway, although it could take years.

State Route 113 runs through land where California Forever plans to put its new city in Solano County.

(Loren Elliott / CalMatters)

“The annexation and the shipbuilding have been a clear way to work around the need for voter support in Solano County,” said Nate Huntington, a member of the grassroots group Solano Together, which formed in response to the secretive land purchases. Huntington pointed out that California Forever hasn’t even submitted a proposal for a shipbuilding facility to the county.

“All of this has been happening in backrooms of Sacramento, and it’s not been publicly available.”

Seeking state environmental relief

California Forever is now selling the development to the state as a major incentive to lure manufacturers and shipbuilders to California — and the subsequent need for housing to accommodate the promised jobs.

The company wants the governor and state lawmakers to cut red tape for the development and require enough housing for the new jobs. Steinberg and Hertzberg told CalMatters they are contemplating legislation to that end, but only after California Forever signs a lease with a manufacturer or shipbuilder.

Their plan would allow the governor to designate construction on company land as “environmental leadership development projects,” which would effectively require any litigation to be resolved within 270 days. Steinberg authored the state law streamlining that process in 2013.

State law requires government agencies to prepare a report for any project that might have a significant impact on the environment. Instead of assessing the impact of the proposed shipyard, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s proposal would use a 2008 report, which designated the area where the shipyard would go as “water-dependent industrial usage.” Most of California Forever’s 7,500-acre planned footprint does not have that designation.

Steinberg told CalMatters the report is sufficient since the site has changed little.

“The state and county need the ability to say yes now to these numerous opportunities,” he said in a text. A new report, he said, “would require years of additional delay and lost opportunities.”

But the report is outdated, Cabaldon argues.

“This is completely different,” he said. “Just the notion that you would just say, ‘We are not going to do any assessments at all and we’ll just rely on this old one’ — that is not consistent with what the public interest is.”

Steinberg and Hertzberg also want the state to require enough housing in the area, but to allow surrounding cities and Solano County to permit local housing developers to build first.

But if local governments aren’t willing to or cannot build enough housing within the timeline the manufacturer or the shipbuilder wants, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s proposal would allow Suisun City to annex adjacent California Forever-owned county land into its city boundaries — a controversial idea that has drawn fierce local opposition. The move would be a “last resort,” Steinberg and Hertzberg stressed repeatedly.

The annexation would effectively bypass the county’s orderly growth initiative, which requires voters to have a say in development.

“The shipbuilders and manufacturers need certainty on a much faster timeline,” Steinberg said.

Cabaldon said the pitch to build new housing to accommodate theoretical jobs is “fantastical,” noting that Saronic, the proposed shipbuilder, is a leader in automation.

“There’s no indication that this is going to generate on an ongoing basis that many jobs, and certainly not more jobs than we have housing for even today without building a single additional unit,” he said.

Historic union agreement prompts support

In January, California Forever announced it had signed a 40-year deal with the Napa/Solano Building Trades Council and Northern California Carpenters Union to use union labor to build its development. The agreement was an important political alliance for Chief Executive Sramek, bringing more influential advocates to the table.

According to Digital Democracy, both the Building Trades Council and the Carpenters Union have given roughly $10 million in direct donations to legislative candidates since 2000.

Those advocates made themselves heard over the last few weeks, following a Texas county court approving significant tax incentives to lure Saronic to Brownsville. In a statement, Saronic said its nationwide search is still “active and ongoing.”

The California Alliance for Jobs, an alliance of influential construction companies and workers, drafted two letters in quick succession calling for legislative leaders to streamline the California Forever expansion and shipyard.

“We champed at the bit to go all in to get this project moving, and to get legislation through Sacramento this session,” said Joshua Arce, executive director of the alliance.

Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington, who has consistently been the sole vote on the council against the annexation plan, said she feels organized labor is being used as “political pressure” to win approval.

“Processes are slow, but they’re done that way through government to ensure that it’s being done correctly, that all parties of interest are being treated fairly, and there’s checks and balances,” Washington said.

“It’s unheard of for a project to be done as quickly as they want it to be done.”

In a statement, California Forever spokesperson Jim Wunderman said any shipyard project will comply with all California environmental and land-use laws. He said county supervisors already approved using the 2008 impact report, and that legislation would allow the group to “meet prospective employers’ timelines.”

He said by pursuing expansion within Suisun City, California Forever is following the community’s preferences by channeling new growth into existing cities.

An ongoing presence in the Capitol

Since 2024, California Forever has spent at least $330,000 lobbying the Legislature and governor’s office on bills and other actions, according to campaign finance records.

Steinberg and Hertzberg told CalMatters they were hired in April as “special counsel,” not lobbyists, meaning they are spending less than a third of their time talking with public officials.

Grimes, who said he respects Steinberg for leading landmark environmental land-use reforms in the Legislature, said he’s disappointed in his advocacy for California Forever, “a project that is antithetical to all of this.”

Sheep graze on land where California Forever plans to build its new city in Solano County.

(Loren Elliott / CalMatters)

California Forever reported spending $90,000 lobbying the governor’s office and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, called GO-Biz, last year on “federal shipbuilding activities and California business attraction and retention activities.”

“GO-Biz has discussed relevant state incentive programs with Saronic and explained how they operate,” said GO-Biz spokesperson Willie Rudman. He said the agency does not offer incentive packages to specific companies.

Last fall though, GO-Biz helped organize a bid for Saronic to settle in Solano County. County staff reported during a board meeting that GO-Biz supported a legislative effort to override the county’s “orderly growth” law.

County supervisors rushed through a proposal to change the boundaries of the Solano Shipyard to comply, but with just days remaining before the end of the legislative session, Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, said there wasn’t time to introduce legislation.

Since then, Wilson said, the proposal has been on the table, but “nothing’s been requested” of her office by California Forever.

The company also urged lawmakers to act fast or risk losing the shipbuilder to Texas last year — a negotiating tactic common in economic development, Cabaldon said.

But Cabaldon argued that Saronic will decide where to place its shipyard based on “defense needs of the United States of America” instead of state incentives.

“We have to negotiate with our eyes open,” he said.

Wolffe and Yu write for CalMatters.

Protesters clashed with Albanian police at the site of a luxury holiday resort being built with the backing of Jared Kushner – Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Large demonstrations also took place in Tirana on Friday as opposition to the $5.7 billion project near protected wetlands grows.

In April, I accompanied a friend on a visit to villages in Daikundi province, central Afghanistan. The purpose of the trip was to speak to farmer beneficiaries of a project that an NGO operating in the agriculture sector had carried out and to follow up on its impact. The week I spent travelling with him was quite eye-opening regarding the state of the non-profit sector in the country.

The project in question provided zero-energy storage houses to preserve harvests, such as fruit and vegetables, in rural areas. On the surface, the idea was promising: provide farmers with storage space so they could sell their produce over a few months.

However, the farmers we spoke to in several villages showed us heaps of apples decaying beneath the trees. They complained that the storage houses had space for the apples of only two to three families in the entire village.

In another village, we saw frustration with another project from a different NGO. That organisation had bought imported seeds for various vegetables and distributed them among farmers. Staff members provided training, conducted weeks of workshops on cultivation methods and techniques, and regularly monitored the crops.

The local participants invested significant time, energy, land, and water in the project. But the harvest they got from these imported seeds was very little and of poor quality. Despite the enormous amount of money spent by the NGO on surveying, training, logistics, transportation, and staff salaries, the vegetables for each family amounted to about 450 Afghans (roughly $7). There was no accountability for the farmers’ losses.

Such stories are common across rural communities in Afghanistan. While aid organisations publish reports of their achievements, many beneficiaries gain little from poorly designed projects that fail to address the real challenges they face. The cost of these projects is extremely high, but the output is often too little.

Since the Taliban took over Kabul and the US-led coalition withdrew from the country, humanitarian aid and funding in Afghanistan have dramatically collapsed. The struggle to secure funds, however, has not led to better efficiency, accountability, and transparency among the NGOs still operating in Afghanistan.

This is not a recent phenomenon. Between 2001 and 2021, Afghanistan became the poster child for corruption, embezzlement, and waste of foreign aid. One US journalist described it as “the $148 bn failure”.

According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), set up by the United States to investigate fraud with US funds, between $26bn and $29bn was lost due to embezzlement or wasteful spending. This was just funding provided by the US government; there is no estimate for how much was wasted from other donors.

While much of the foreign funds went to the security sector, a significant amount went to the non-profit sphere, where waste was also widespread. Millions, if not billions, worth of projects became a missed opportunity to improve the lives of Afghans, especially in rural areas. This is a legacy that persists to this day.

This situation is not unique to Afghanistan. The development sector across the world is known for waste and inefficiency. In the Afghan context, that is exacerbated by the lack of control and difficulty of ground work.

Many foreign NGOs do not directly implement their projects; instead, they work through implementing partners (IPs), which themselves outsource implementation to subcontractors. This extended chain of actors means that often there is a lack of proper quality control and supervision, and there is motivation to carry out lower-quality work in order to increase profit.

Furthermore, the primary concern of IPs is securing funding. So they often present project proposals that look great on paper but do not necessarily have a substantial impact on the circumstances of the local population or address their most urgent needs.

Finally, there is a lot of waste in remuneration, especially when it comes to international staff. Foreign employees often have salaries as high as $10,000–20,000 for doing work that a local hire can do for much less.

It is clear that amid global cuts to donor funding, the development sector is struggling. This should be a moment of change. In Afghanistan, where the need of the local population is enormous while available financing is shrinking, NGOs can take this change into their own hands.

The simplest first step NGOs can take is to employ qualified locals to plan and lead projects. They would know the local culture, realities, and actual needs of communities, as well as market prices and field conditions. They can help not only optimise project costs but also ensure that they actually have a real, measurable impact.

In addition, NGOs should avoid having an extended chain of IPs and subcontractors. They should also regularly collect feedback from local communities and field workers directly in order to evaluate project effectiveness during implementation in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Projects are more likely to produce sustainable results if NGOs invest in addressing pressing nationwide challenges, such as unemployment, infrastructure, and market access.

Improving efficiency and effectiveness would not only ensure Afghan beneficiaries get better services and help, but it would also make organisations more competitive for the dwindling pool of funding. This is the only way to salvage the NGO sector not only in Afghanistan but in the rest of the world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.

The U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force are working on a new “Compact Variant” of the AIM-9X Sidewinder. The smaller Sidewinder is being developed with a focus on increased magazine depth when carried internally by “advanced aircraft,” while also offering improved range and performance.

The Navy manages the Sidewinder program in cooperation with the Air Force. The Navy is asking for $83.3 million for work on the AIM-9X Compact Variant (CV) in its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. The AIM-9X CV is also mentioned in the Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, but with the caveat that it does not plan to contribute funding explicitly toward its development until Fiscal Year 2028.

Current-generation Block II and Block II+ subvariants AIM-9X are already highly capable imaging infrared (IIR) guided anti-air missiles. They have thrust-vectoring, high-off-boresight targeting, lock-on-after-launch, and other capabilities that you can read more about in detail here.

Risk reduction work on the AIM-9X CV has already been underway since Fiscal Year 2025. However, the new version does not appear to have been mentioned by name in prior Navy or Air Force budgets. Previous funding was contained under the umbrella of the larger System Improvement Plan IV (SIP IV) upgrade effort.

“The AIM-9X CV repackages the SIP IV technology into a compact airframe optimized for internal carriage on advanced aircraft with improved kinematic performance,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request. “The program will deliver increased capability to the warfighter with greater standoff range, increased aircraft weapon station capacity, and maintains inner boundary performance.”

In Fiscal Year 2027, the goal is that “the program will advance hardware and software designs. This effort will focus on design and development of critical hardware components and compatibility with advanced platforms,” the budget documents add. “The overall scope includes platform integration, material and energetics studies, and extensive modeling, simulation, and analysis. Activities will also incorporate system safety analysis, the establishment of requisite integration and test environments, risk- reduction testing, and other engineering efforts necessary to mature the complete system baseline.”

The Navy and Air Force budget documents do not offer any further details about the AIM-9X CV’s configuration, or how it will achieve “greater standoff range” and “improved kinematic performance” in a more compact package. How truncated the AIM-9X CV’s airframe, as well as its control surfaces, might be compared to existing versions is also unknown. The core AIM-9X design is already relatively short and narrow by anti-air missile standards at just under 10 feet long and five inches in diameter (not including its fins). For comparison, all variants of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) are some 12 feet long and have bodies that are around seven inches in diameter.

The Navy and the Air Force previously considered developing a Block III variant of the AIM-9X, which could have included a highly loaded grain rocket motor. Though the Block III effort was shelved, at least publicly, the Navy has continued to make significant investments in this kind of rocket technology with a general eye toward improved range and performance for future missiles.

“The Next-Generation Highly Loaded Grain project team has matured the technology and seeded the development of future mission-modular propulsion systems that can increase weapon ranges by up to 1.5x while maintaining inner boundaries for short-range and time-critical missions,” according to one factsheet detailing notable achievements by NAVAIR’s Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCAD) in 2023.

The benefits of greater reach and better kinematic performance, even in the AIM-9X’s existing form factor, are clear-cut. As the Navy and Air Force budget documents highlight, putting all that in a smaller package offers additional value from a magazine depth perspective. If an aircraft can carry multiple AIM-9X CVs on stations that can only accommodate one standard-size version, that means more engagement opportunities per sortie without any change to the rest of the loadout.

This is all especially important for stealthy aircraft that carry stores in internal bays with rigid dimensions when flying in their most low-observable configurations. As an example of what this means in practical terms, Lockheed Martin has spent years now working to develop a capability called Sidekick to increase the total number of AIM-120s that F-35s can carry in their weapons bays from four to six. Even so, that upgrade will only apply to A and C variants of the jet, as the bays on the B model are smaller to begin with.

The expectation that the AIM-9X CV will offer improved capabilities over its predecessors is also significant. The Air Force, in particular, has explored several concepts for air-to-air missiles that are smaller than Sidewinder, but which have generally been understood to trade range and/or performance for added magazine depth.

All of this brings us to the matter of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones, which impose additional constraints on weapons integration simply by virtue of their overall size and maximum takeoff weight. As described now, the AIM-9X CV might be well-suited for arming CCAs, which will have more limited internal and external stores capacity, overall, compared to traditional crewed tactical jets. Being able to load them with more total missiles per sortie, and increase their reach at the same time, would be a major boon.

The Air Force just recently started weapons integration work as part of its CCA program using Anduril’s YFQ-44A Fury, which does not have an internal bay. Fury has been seen so far conducting flight tests loaded with a pair of inert AIM-120s, one under each wing.

The YFQ-44A is one of two designs the Air Force is currently flight testing under the first phase, or Increment 1, of its CCA program. The other is General Atomics YFQ-42A Dark Merlin, which can carry stores internally. The Air Force has also been experimenting with other relevant drone designs in recent years, including Kratos XQ-58A and Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat, the former of which also has an internal payload bay. More recently, the service assigned the YFQ-48A designation to Northrop Grumman’s Talon Blue drone.

It is worth noting here that the development of the MQ-28 originally began for the Royal Australian Air Force, which has conducted at least one live-fire AIM-120 shot from one of those drones. The Ghost Bat carried the missile externally in that test. Future versions of the design are set to include internal weapons bays.

Uncrewed MQ-28 Ghost Bat showcases its combat capability

Back in the United States, the Marine Corps’ first CCA is set to be a variant of the XQ-58, and the service is also leveraging the YFQ-42A to support its CCA plans. The Navy is still early in the process of exploring potential carrier-based CCA designs.

The AIM-9X CV might also open up other kinds of new operational possibilities. A compact anti-air missile could provide defensive capability against incoming missiles for larger aircraft. This is something the Air Force has been particularly interested in, including as a way to help better protect aerial refueling tankers.

The compact version’s overall benefits could make it attractive for employment as a surface-to-air weapon, as well. Full-size AIM-9Xs are already an interceptor option for several ground-based air defense systems in service or otherwise on the market globally today, including the U.S. Army’s Enduring Shield.

With the development of the AIM-9X CV now fully out in the open, more details about the missile’s design, as well as how the Navy and Air Force might plan to field it, may now begin to emerge.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

April 24 (UPI) — Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Friday vetoed a bill that would have paused artificial intelligence data center construction in the state for 18 months.

Mills said she decided to veto it because it would have potentially harmed a permitted and in progress data center expected to create hundreds of jobs, both for construction and once the center opens.

The project, a $550 million data center in Jay, Maine, is a multi-year effort to redevelop the former Androscoggin Mill, which was damaged in a 2020 boiler explosion and then closed in 2023, took with it hundreds of jobs and 22% of the town’s tax revenue.

The bill would have been the first in the country restricting or slowing the spread of large-scale data centers required for power-hungry AI systems, which have driven up the cost of both electricity and water for residents living near them, NBC News and Politico reported.

“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and electricity rates,” Mills said in a press release.

“But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region,” she said.

There are more than 5,000 data centers in the United States — more than any country in the world — and that number has grown significantly in the last four years as artificial intelligence has become a focus the tech industry.

While many state and local leaders have started to respond to concerns among residents about the huge amounts of electricity needed to power AI data centers and the huge amounts of water needed to keep them cool, as have some members of Congress.

As states have contemplated increased regulation and scrutiny from tech and AI companies, President Donald Trump at the same time has worked to keep the cuffs of tech companies because they “must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” he said in December.

“Excessive state regulation thwarts this imperative,” Trump said in an executive order meant to prevent states from creating new regulations.

Mills said she worked with Maine’s legislature to carve out an exemption for the data center in Jay but was unsuccessful, so she vetoed the law.

The development in Jay, she said, is under contract and permitted, and is expected to create 800 construction jobs, more than 100 high-paying permanent jobs and “substantial tax revenue” for the Town of Jay.

In a letter informing the legislature that she planned to veto the bill, Mills said she plans to issue an executive order to establish a council to study the impacts — real and potential — of data centers in Maine.

“I believe it necessary and important to examine and plan for the potential impacts of large-scale data centers in Maine, as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more widespread,” Mills said.

“Given the serious conversations about data centers here and around the country, I believe this work should commence without delay,” she told legislators.