Discussed on HN last 2 days, based on more reputable reporting:<p>* The Silicon Valley elite who want to build a city from scratch (nytimes.com) 117 points by pulisse 1 day ago | <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37266398">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37266398</a><p>* Silicon Valley elites revealed as investors behind $800M Bay Area land grab (sfchronicle.com) 93 points by jonah 14 hours ago | 102 comments | <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37279521">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37279521</a>
Building city in secret is a lot easier if you’re not doing it while surrounding a military air base on three sides. There has to be a reason for that. There are non-US backers as well.<p>Possibilities:
1. A city build underground ( a massive bunker). The air base can get you in and out easily and can bring supplies. Farmers can keep farming above your head. The problem is if the threat is external, wouldn’t they target us military bases first? That makes the area a target, but less of an issue if you are underground, maybe.<p>2….
This just regurgitates the NYT reporting and others. Some of the facts don't line up. "Tens of thousands" of people don't occupy 55000 acres. 31000 people live in the westernmost part of SF's Sunset neighborhood and that's only 1000 acres, and it is developed at very low intensity with almost exclusively detached single-family homes.<p>If an entity were serious about building a "new city" as normal people understand the word "city" they would slap it down in the middle of an existing city like Stockton that already has transportation infrastructure of regional importance. That city practically deleted their entire zoning code in an effort to attract development in the central district. It's already a de facto libertarian ideal.