California Forever backers ask Gov. Gavin Newsom to help speed approvals and resolve tax disputes for Solano County housing project

A group of wealthy backers connected to the California Forever mega-project is seeking support from California officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, to speed up environmental review timelines and to settle tax-related disputes they say are slowing work on a large planned development site in Solano County, according to a report Monday from New York Post.

The New York Post reported that the backers are asking lawmakers to advance the project by resolving what they characterized as regulatory and tax impediments. They argue that clearer, faster state-level action would make it easier to attract major employers and would support the construction of housing on the site, which is described in the reporting as massive and located in Solano County.

The plea, as described by the outlet, centers on two issues: the pace of environmental reviews and the handling of tax disputes tied to the project. The report does not specify which tax programs, statutes, or agencies are involved, nor does it identify particular bills or administrative steps that have been proposed.

California’s environmental review process for large development projects typically involves state agencies and may include multiple phases, including determinations under California environmental law and related local and state approvals. In the report, the backers frame the issue as a practical scheduling concern, saying that reducing uncertainty around timelines and tax treatment could help the project secure private-sector participation and accelerate development.

The backers also linked their request to broader economic goals, stating that reforms to the approval process could help bring major employers to the region and expand the availability of housing. New York Post’s reporting describes the argument in terms of attracting employers and enabling construction rather than any specific policy mechanism or enforceable commitment by the state.

Newsom’s office and California lawmakers would need to determine what, if any, legislative or administrative changes are appropriate to affect environmental review timing, tax treatment, or both. If disputes are tied to existing tax assessments or interpretations, resolution could require additional legal and administrative steps, such as negotiations, adjudication, or new guidance, depending on the underlying facts and jurisdiction.

Absent additional documentation, the next practical development would be whether Newsom or state legislative leaders respond with proposed legislative vehicles, administrative changes, or referrals to relevant agencies to address the specific review and tax disputes described in the report.