Farmers Who Refused to Sell Land to California Forever Settle Suits Against Them

More than a year after a company backed by a group of influential tech investors sued dozens of landowners in Solano County, most have settled as of this week.

Some saw the controversial lawsuit as a land-grab attempt by the leaders behind the company, California Forever, and its subsidiary, Flannery Associates, to build a new city in the eastern corner of the county.

Of the 39 defendants, many of them farmers, 13 settled this week, following another group of 10 who settled earlier this year. Only three defendants remain.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2023 in federal court, came months before anyone knew the name “California Forever” or the company’s ambitious plans to build a new city. It’s since become a sore spot for the company as it tries to win over voters, who need to approve its plan for a dense, walkable city — akin to San Francisco or Oakland.

The company spent $9 million to put its initiative, called the East Solano Plan, on November’s ballot but pulled it just months before the election — a decision that the division at least partly influenced the suit caused in the community, with some calling it a harbinger of the damage the billionaire-backed company could do to the mostly rural county.

As the East Solano plan began moving forward earlier this year, influential organizations — including the Solano County Farm Bureau and the Pleasants Valley Agriculture Association — pointed to the ongoing suit as one of the biggest reasons they opposed the project and distrusted the company behind it.

Ian and Margaret Anderson, two grain and sheep farmers who were outspoken about the lawsuit and its impact on their family’s farm, were among the parties who settled this week. When KQED spoke with the couple in December, they said the expensive legal fees were draining their savings account and jeopardizing their farm’s financial future.

“We’re no longer looking to invest in new equipment,” Ian Anderson said in December. “We’re basically trying to figure out a downsized operation — if we can still keep doing it.”

The Andersons declined to comment on the settlement, as did a lawyer representing many of the defendants in the case.

The suit alleged the Andersons and other landowning families colluded to fix the price of the land after representatives from Flannery Associates approached them to purchase it. The company bought more than 60,000 acres by the end of last year, though their city proposes to only take up 17,500 of those acres. The remaining acres would be used for a solar farm and battery facility, as well as agricultural land and protected open space, including local vernal pools and the Jepson Prairie.

In December, the Andersons and other defendants urged the presiding judge, Troy Nunley, to dismiss the case based on their assertion that Flannery Associates had no evidence of collusion between the families. But in March, Nunley denied that motion and pointed to a series of text messages between the landowners saying they should collectively agree on a sale price.

“We are happy to confirm that we have settled the price-fixing litigation with the majority of the remaining defendants,” Julia Blystone, a spokesperson for California Forever, said in an emailed statement to KQED. “We believe that, given the March 2024 ruling from the federal judge that ‘There was some sort of agreement among defendants to fix the price of land in Solano County,’ the terms of the settlement were fair to all parties involved.”

Company representatives did not share details of the settlement agreements it made with the various parties. Blystone said the company remains open to settling with the remaining defendants.

The company has committed to spending the next two years attempting to make better relationships among community members, who will ultimately decide the project’s fate.

It plans to draft an environmental impact report and address other concerns from surrounding communities, including how the county can hold the company accountable to the myriad promises its officials made while on the campaign trail.

What other housing questions do you have for KQED?

Housing is one of the most crucial — and contentious — issues in the Bay Area, and here at KQED, we have a whole team dedicated to exploring stories about housing affordability.

As part of our work, we also want to bring you explainers and guides about housing in the region, offering practical advice and insight for renters, homeowners and unhoused folks on a wide range of housing situations. We also want you to send us your story ideas and tips, share your personal experience with housing in the Bay Area or volunteer to be one of the KQED readers and listeners we consult about housing stories.

So tell us: What housing question should we answer next?

You can use the comment box below to submit your question about housing in the Bay Area or California more widely. Or, maybe there’s a housing program you want explained or investigated. Whatever’s on your mind, use the Google Form below to talk to us. The information you provide here will be shared with the folks who work on KQED’s housing coverage, and we may follow up with you directly through the contact details you provide. (We’ll never share your information outside of KQED without your permission.) We won’t be able to reply to everyone who submits a question, but what you tell us will make our reporting stronger on KQED.org, KQED Public Radio and our social media channels.