8 ms·

'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

114 points by Benlights 3y ago

JimtheCoder 3y ago
Isn't Travis AFB for transport planes and tankers? This isn't like someone is buying land beside Groom Lake or Skunkworks...
- cylinder714 3y ago
  Yes, and it's also the home of E6-B Mercury "TACAMO" communications aircraft operated by the U.S. Navy: https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/military/navy-at-travis-quietly-keeps-communications-open-with-nations-submarines/ https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/milita... This unit pretty much represents the last remaining Navy presence in the Bay Area. Ironic, given the history of the Navy there, beginning with the establishment of the shipyard on Mare Island before the Civil War, and the first Navy radio station on the West Coast in 1904: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/technology/communications/radio/ug-21--us-naval-california-radio-station-collection/mare-island-naval-radio-station.html https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collec...
  - cylinder714 3y ago
    Interestingly, for my fellow aviation buffs, the Navy is considering replacing the E-6Bs (built upon old Boeing C-135s—military 707s) with new C-130J planes, with stretched fuselage and those cool scimitar propellers. They're more fuel-efficient, I suspect, and they can operate out of rough airstrips. https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/breaking-c-130-tacamo-is-back https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/breaking-c-130-tacamo-...
    - nicholasbraker 3y ago
      Interestingly the predecessors of the current E-6B TACAMO platform are C-130's also. These EC-130Q's were based on C-130H. Full circle again.
  - nicholasbraker 3y ago
    But they only have a small detachment there. The main E-6B/TACAMO stuff is at Tinker AFB Oklahoma
poundtown 3y ago
yeah the CIA doesnt know who this is…ok mmm hmmm yeah…/s
danpalmer 3y ago
Maybe a bit off topic, but my first thought was wondering whether the OSINT community would get any further with figuring out who it was, but I then realised, the OSINT community often look successful because they publish, but we don't know if "closed source" intelligence knows the same things or is even more successful, but just doesn't publish. Does anyone have any evidence one way or another? Are OSINT thinking outside the box and doing something materially different, or are they just visible? Are traditional intelligence communities still doing this but just being understandable secretive about methods? This is not to down play the importance of the OSINT community in any way, I believe publishing does materially change things by increasing accountability to the public.
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  Judging by OSINT Twitter, the OSINT community is 100% confident in whatever the next day turns out to be the opposite of reality.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    There's a lot of posers on OSINT twitter. You need to be a much more discerning on who you follow. As the meme goes, "I am tired of being an infectious disease expert. Today, I'm a military intelligence expert!"
    - unsupp0rted 3y ago
      Who are some "usually right" accounts to follow? Ideally ones that aren't plainly designed to spread propaganda of one sort or another.
      - reducesuffering 3y ago
        https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch https://twitter.com/RALee85 https://twitter.com/RALee85 https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical
whalesalad 3y ago
If this land is so precious to our national defense, why wasn't the land already owned by the federal government? Eminent domain is the uno reverse card here.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Also, if this is a genuine risk to be concerned about (as was the Cuban Missile Crisis), then why[1] are similar concerns out of Russia "not objective/logical/valid"? [1] No "correct by definition" memes, please. Imagine that you are writing code and thus have to be logical, exhaustively if you want to achieve correctness.
  - nonameiguess 3y ago
    I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair. We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert. When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too." Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair. Oh, I understand: it is that Westerners believe that what is mandatory for us is optional for others. > We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert. Right: regional security for us, but not for you. > When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too." Yes it is, because it illustrates hypocrisy, thus is a gotcha. > Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do. Right, but our politicians and media lie about what is going on, and lots of people believe them so now we have a mess on our hands.
CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
The USA has kept the top spot for paranoia for 70 consecutive years.
- barelyauser 3y ago
  It's not paranoia if they are really after you.
perihelions 3y ago
WSJ has a map (and more details) https://archive.is/PcfBc https://archive.is/PcfBc - "“Nobody can figure out who they are,” said Ronald Kott, mayor of Rio Vista, Calif., which is now largely surrounded by Flannery-owned land."
- jeffbee 3y ago
  "Mayor of Rio Vista unaware of California business entities database, according to Mayor of Rio Vista"
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rebelgecko 3y ago
    Does that say what billionaire is funding the purchases? I'm not familiar with that DB but the info for who is actually behind the company (vs just an agent of it or a lawyer or whatever) seems non-obvious (edit: for reference, this is what I see https://ibb.co/M2dDBZ1 https://ibb.co/M2dDBZ1. The address is just a mail forwarding service.)
- erentz 3y ago
  This map makes it seems hysterical to me that people think it's being done as espionage and is a national security issue. The land is wide open and easily observed. In any actual conflict anyone operating in that area could easily be shut down. And just look at the map, it's an awful lot of land to just "spy" on a military base, a lot of the land is as far as 20-30 km away. This land is all filling out a very good area for wind power generation, so I'm guessing they have plans for a lot of wind farms. EDIT: If you go to https://globalwindatlas.info/en https://globalwindatlas.info/en you'll have no trouble finding the area on a view of CA. It's one of the bright red areas between SAC and OAK and this land conveniently fills most of it.
gochi 3y ago
It's taken 5 years after numerous land purchases and a giant $500m lawsuit against landowners for people to get suspicious? Doesn't that seem entirely backwards, that a "mysterious company" can own so much in such short time and that's perfectly legal no red flags? It's only a problem now because it's near a base which is pure absurdity, they would likely also buy the land the base is on and demolish it for their given reason "interstate commerce".
- lazide 3y ago
  companies and people buy lots of things all over the place all the time. raising alarms about it gets ignored because of alarm fatigue, and because it rarely matters or can be stopped without grinding the economy to a halt. and someone will always be worried about literally anything and everything, even stuff that doesn’t exist or didn’t happen.
tracerbulletx 3y ago
I find it hard to believe if the Military was actually worried about this they would be going about it by having a House rep blast his mouth about it on local news.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  You think the military controls every elected dope? What country do you think this is?
  - tracerbulletx 3y ago
    I don't, it was a sarcastic way of saying that this is probably just political noise making and not connected to a real missed security threat.
rootusrootus 3y ago
I doubt very much that it’s actually a mystery to the US government.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  I've probably just watched too much X-Files, but I had the thought that maybe it's actually military/defense/intelligence buying the land in the first place.
rolph 3y ago
this sounds easy to figure, simply occupy the land,deny use or entry, watch who starts squirming.
jeffbee 3y ago
This is an incredibly silly story. Everything about this ownership is in public records. Flannery Assoc. has been openly buying land in this are for over 5 years and have spent over a billion dollars and sued dozens of parties. Everyone knows what they are doing. They want to lease the land for energy infrastructure.
- positron6000 3y ago
  flannery assoc is a shell company. who's providing the money for purchasing farmland at 5-10x its worth? can you name a single officer of flannery assoc?
  - avmich 3y ago
    They will gladly name themselves when you ask them on which grounds they want to stop your heavy equipment messing around their properties. They will bring all necessary papers to you. I guess you won't leave until they'll make it absolutely clear that they have the right to demand you to leave.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      Are you speaking from first-hand experience?
      - avmich 3y ago
        Doesn't it seem like a common sense? Can't government use this way to learn about the owners?
- maxlamb 3y ago
  why would then want to lease land for infrastructure right next to an air force base when there is lots of land further out?
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    Because it's windy AF and there are already large amounts of transmission lines. Look at all these windmills. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.141376,-121.8339739,17582m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@38.141376,-121.8339739,17582m/d... Also "near Travis AFB" is being used to mean that Travis is in Solano County and most of this property is also in Solano County. https://app.regrid.com/us/94585#b=none&o=FLANNERY+ASSOCIATES+LLC&op=/us/ca/solano https://app.regrid.com/us/94585#b=none&o=FLANNERY+ASSOCIATES...
abeppu 3y ago
If you were spying, surely you wouldn't need that much area? And if you were doing something nefarious, wouldn't you use more than one company to make the purchases?
- jlund-molfese 3y ago
  Yeah, right, it's not like they need to build a 20km long telescope. Plus there are hundreds of thousands of people living close by; this isn't Area 51.
soupfordummies 3y ago
Towards the end of the article is this depressing nugget: " Nearly one in five homes were purchased by investors in early 2023, including LLCs and other corporate entities, according to data compiled by real-estate firm Redfin of more than 40 of the largest U.S. metro areas. "
- Supermancho 3y ago
  The implication is that the land is for housing? Notably, Irvine California successfully transitioned from being an Army Base town (very large military blimps, etc) to a thriving city. A jewel of southern california.
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    "Thriving" if one considers an Orwellian and totalitarian worldview similar to that of Singapore to be a viable and humane philosophy.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      I have experience with the Irvine Company as well. There were decades where they were not in control of the city. Before Blizzard, before Google.
- jrk 3y ago
  Nearly every time single old houses in in-demand areas are bought for renovation or redevelopment into denser duplexes, they're "bought by investors, including LLCs and other corporate entities." This doesn't mean 20% of housing stock is being bought and left fallow or anything – this is exactly how densification and redevelopment in response to demand happens. Many of those LLCs are even individuals.
  - riskable 3y ago
    About a quarter of all single-family homes in the US are owned by investors: https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/investment-firms-and-home-buying/ https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/investment-firms-and-home-b... The percentage of investors that buy single-family homes in a given year may rise or fall but the long-term trend is clear: Investors are owning more and more of the total market over time. Actual single families are being priced out. Some markets are worse than the national statistic and entire neighborhoods are being bought in order to turn every single home into rentals. The New York Times wrote about this last year: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-investors-housing-market.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-... It's a very real issue and a few simple changes to the laws in regards to how many single-family homes may be owned by corporations would make a huge impact.
ryandrake 3y ago
Setting aside the national security question, more broadly it's pretty insane that the USA lets companies hide who owns/controls them. When you decide to hang out your shingle and profit at the expense of the general public, I would say the general public has a genuine right to know who you are. Reminds me of how Disney used aliases and codenames and shell companies and secretive ownership structures to buy up all the land for Disney World in Florida[1], so that sellers didn't know who was behind it. This should be illegal. 1: https://www.wesh.com/article/disney-world-beginnings/37807860 https://www.wesh.com/article/disney-world-beginnings/3780786...
- colechristensen 3y ago
  >Over a veto of President Trump, on January 1, 2021, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) went into effect as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). The CTA, many years in the making, introduces major changes to transparency requirements of entities registered in the United States. No longer can anonymous shell companies, limited liability companies, and the like hide the identities of their owners. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/02/04/the-end-of-the-anonymous-shell-company-in-the-united-states/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/02/04/the-end-of-the-an...
- Negitivefrags 3y ago
  I am also an advocate for transparency of ownership of companies, but that Disney example seems like more of a case against transparency than for it? Why should Disney be price gouged in that circumstance?
  - victorbstan 3y ago
    Free market?
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    Price gouged? Don't you mean, fair market value? Price is always contingent based on the information shared between the buyer and seller. No one would call selling a rare misprint 1978 US Quarter to a collector for $45,000 instead of 25 cents price gouging. (Maybe you would, I don't know what the going rate is. But this is literally an eBay auction price from a google search just now, so let's just say that it's not an exorbitant price.)
perihelions 3y ago
Could this be a stealth real estate investment? It seems to be one of the regions of farmland closest-ish to the urban Bay Area. That would parsimoniously explain why the LLC is paying multiples over market value, on what's currently zoned as mere agricultural land. Three things the Bay Area has in plenty right right now: (0) people with too much money; (1) people looking to escape the Bay Area; (2) people spooked about macroeconomic conditions. The mystery LLC claims to be a "group of families... looking to diversify their portfolio from equities to real assets". Maybe that's simply what it is: a conspiracy of techies stashing their loot in real estate, with a very long-term horizon, betting on a Detroit-ization of the SFC area and a consequent real estate boom in the greater exurbs. Why stealthy? To buy the land as cheap as possible. Maybe that's what those legal disputes are about: some landowners sussed out that the new buyers have a very high willingness-to-pay, and are trying aggressively to maximize their selling price.
- ehnto 3y ago
  It would be a wild long play, but this is how rail companies purchased land as well. I say it in past tense, but Bright Rail is currently using that playbook right now elsewhere. Buy the land, build the train connections, develop the land, sell or rent the now hopefully prime real eatate.
costco 3y ago
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/201905210181 https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/201905210181 says a guy named Thomas Mather was a director. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/2004-0012-dwq_noas/2004-0012-dwq-0004_rev5.pdf https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions... is some government application by Flannery that also has his name on it. Looks like this was covered in 2019: https://www.thereporter.com/2019/07/05/large-rural-land-purchase-near-suisun-city-draws-questions/ https://www.thereporter.com/2019/07/05/large-rural-land-purc... If Mather is not the true owner, it would take the government five seconds to figure out who actually owned it by just finding out who's paying their lawyers (Skadden!) in the current litigation they are involved in.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Lawyers aren't allowed to identify their clients if the identities of their clients are unknown. It's part of attorney-client privilege. Skadden has made use of in the past to hide their work for Putin affiliates. It's the reason that Skadden is the largest firm by revenue despite the lackluster quality of their work. (For an example of how bad Skadden is at the practice of law, see the clusterfuck that is the Twitter termination litigation.)
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    Mere identity is not usually covered under attorney-client privilege, I’m not sure why you think it would be. Here’s a semi-recent analysis of the situation. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/05/fifth-circuit-reaffirms-that-client-identity-is-privileged https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/05/fifth...
    - tiahura 3y ago
      I’m not sure why you think it would be. Probably because it is confidential and most people, and many attorneys, don’t understand that privilege and confidentiality are terms of art with distinct meanings.
  - deleted 3y ago
gamblor956 3y ago
The company is suing people for talking to each other about the company and demanding more money for their farms that the company is/was trying to buy. There is no legal justification for this lawsuit; it's a legal shakedown to try and drain their targets' resources so that they're compelled to sell below-market to avoid bankruptcy. Also known as the modus operandi for Skadden Arps, the most morally bankrupt firm in the country. Skadden's "illustrious" client list includes Elmo (they advised him on the strategy of forcing terminated employees into arbitration and then refusing to pay arbitration fees), organized crime, and multiple individuals and entities known to be KGB affiliates and Putin allies (Skadden has paid hefty fines for illegal lobbying on behalf of the Putin regime...multiple times.)
mikeInAlaska 3y ago
ARMA game dev team?
avmich 3y ago
> Even after eight months of investigation, Garamendi says federal authorities are still struggling to get those answers. What if somebody moves a few bulldozers to that land and start raising an obstacle which would be convenient to protect AFB from spying? I highly suspect somebody will show up and demand this to stop. That guy should be questioned - who he is and on what grounds he's managing the property. This will likely lead towards the owners. Can the beneficiaries be contacted this way, if other ways fail for months?
- jzb 3y ago
  Shell company lawyer can show up and demand the activity stop. Lawyer doesn’t have to disclose names, they are acting on behalf of the corporate entity.
  - avmich 3y ago
    They have to prove - at least in the court - that they own the property. So the documents are going to surface with the names of the owners. Actually, I think the registrar of the property could be able to issue a request for documentation leading to the owners or beneficiaries. It's either a physical person - could be talked with - or an organization - which is registered somewhere, and can be similarly contacted.
Havoc 3y ago
So US gov tripped up by their own secrecy laws? Hard to have sympathy for their dilemma
mmmBacon 3y ago
It kind of amazes me that our government can’t figure out who is behind this. Because it’s extremely hard to hide these kinds of things. When I last moved, there were a few toxic people in my life at the time and I didn’t want them to be able to find my new home. What I found is that it’s exceptionally difficult and expensive to keep this private. I looked at forming an LLC etc… The problem is that it eventually leaks out somehow. I have a lawyer friend who confirmed this from their own experience. They told us about a sibling who is a high profile senior exec at well known public company. This person tried to hide their home purchase for privacy and safety reasons. They had the resources to do this, spent a ton of money, and ultimately failed. You can easily Google their address.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Some states make this easier than others. I don't remember specifics but from what I remember one major disadvantage to hiding ownership is that you either can't get certain tax deductions or you don't qualify for things like FHA loans (don't remember which). > This person tried to hide their home purchase for privacy and safety reasons. They had the resources to do this, spent a ton of money, and ultimately failed. You can easily Google their address. I assume they made the mistake of actually living at that address. You're outed to Equifax and others the second you sign up for utilities as yourself. On paper, you can only remain anonymous if you don't live there... ...but the shadiest people I know use grandmothers' foreign maiden names to sign up for services at properties they obfuscate ownership of. Their "deadname" is kept very much alive after marriage and naturalization if you do this regularly. It amounts to synthetic identity fraud so I doubt any attorney would give this sort of direction.
moneycantbuy 3y ago
skadden. hopefully capitalism will eat itself in our lifetime.
paxys 3y ago
> But after eight months of investigation, government officials have been unable to identify who's behind it nor rule out any threat to national security. If nothing else this should be an indicator of how broken the land & real estate purchase system is in the US. We are literally the only country in the world that has no controls and no visibility over having large chunks of our territory bought out by a foreign resident, foreign business or even a foreign government.
KingLancelot 3y ago
[dead]
kmoser 3y ago
> The attorney representing Flannery Associates sent a letter to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, one of several agencies investigating the matter, issuing a formal response. > "No foreign person or group holds any significant interest or substantial control over Flannery, either now or at the time of any land purchase made by Flannery," the letter said. "Person or group" doesn't include "government". This also doesn't mean the (supposedly domestic) owners won't lease the land to a foreign entity. Also, note the word "significant." And, "foreign" compared to what? If the owners are, say, Chinese, "no foreign" means no NON-Chinese. Not trying to stoke paranoia, but just showing how statements like this are open to interpretation and should be taken with a grain of salt.
simonblack 3y ago
Bill Gates. Not to worry.
1letterunixname 3y ago
I'm unconcerned with the conspiracy theories. I'm concerned that it's a literal land grab by corporate profiteers to sink their ill-gotten gains into tangible assets including huge tracts of land blocking new developments. Cities, counties, and states must block these sort of extreme deals because they prevent expansion of direly needed housing and affordable housing.

114 points by Benlights 3y ago

Isn't Travis AFB for transport planes and tankers? This isn't like someone is buying land beside Groom Lake or Skunkworks...

cylinder714 3y ago
Yes, and it's also the home of E6-B Mercury "TACAMO" communications aircraft operated by the U.S. Navy: https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/military/navy-at-travis-quietly-keeps-communications-open-with-nations-submarines/ https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/milita... This unit pretty much represents the last remaining Navy presence in the Bay Area. Ironic, given the history of the Navy there, beginning with the establishment of the shipyard on Mare Island before the Civil War, and the first Navy radio station on the West Coast in 1904: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/technology/communications/radio/ug-21--us-naval-california-radio-station-collection/mare-island-naval-radio-station.html https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collec...
- cylinder714 3y ago
  Interestingly, for my fellow aviation buffs, the Navy is considering replacing the E-6Bs (built upon old Boeing C-135s—military 707s) with new C-130J planes, with stretched fuselage and those cool scimitar propellers. They're more fuel-efficient, I suspect, and they can operate out of rough airstrips. https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/breaking-c-130-tacamo-is-back https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/breaking-c-130-tacamo-...
  - nicholasbraker 3y ago
    Interestingly the predecessors of the current E-6B TACAMO platform are C-130's also. These EC-130Q's were based on C-130H. Full circle again.
- nicholasbraker 3y ago
  But they only have a small detachment there. The main E-6B/TACAMO stuff is at Tinker AFB Oklahoma

poundtown 3y ago

yeah the CIA doesnt know who this is…ok mmm hmmm yeah…/s

danpalmer 3y ago

Maybe a bit off topic, but my first thought was wondering whether the OSINT community would get any further with figuring out who it was, but I then realised, the OSINT community often look successful because they publish, but we don't know if "closed source" intelligence knows the same things or is even more successful, but just doesn't publish. Does anyone have any evidence one way or another? Are OSINT thinking outside the box and doing something materially different, or are they just visible? Are traditional intelligence communities still doing this but just being understandable secretive about methods? This is not to down play the importance of the OSINT community in any way, I believe publishing does materially change things by increasing accountability to the public.

unsupp0rted 3y ago
Judging by OSINT Twitter, the OSINT community is 100% confident in whatever the next day turns out to be the opposite of reality.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  There's a lot of posers on OSINT twitter. You need to be a much more discerning on who you follow. As the meme goes, "I am tired of being an infectious disease expert. Today, I'm a military intelligence expert!"
  - unsupp0rted 3y ago
    Who are some "usually right" accounts to follow? Ideally ones that aren't plainly designed to spread propaganda of one sort or another.
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch https://twitter.com/RALee85 https://twitter.com/RALee85 https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical

whalesalad 3y ago

If this land is so precious to our national defense, why wasn't the land already owned by the federal government? Eminent domain is the uno reverse card here.

mistermann 3y ago
Also, if this is a genuine risk to be concerned about (as was the Cuban Missile Crisis), then why[1] are similar concerns out of Russia "not objective/logical/valid"? [1] No "correct by definition" memes, please. Imagine that you are writing code and thus have to be logical, exhaustively if you want to achieve correctness.
- nonameiguess 3y ago
  I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair. We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert. When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too." Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > I think you misunderstand the purpose of statecraft and adversarial relationships. The point is to gain and maintain a strategic advantage, not to be maximally fair. Oh, I understand: it is that Westerners believe that what is mandatory for us is optional for others. > We want to have capabilities and exert a level of control and influence that Russia is not also able to exert. Right: regional security for us, but not for you. > When we try to prevent China from controlling popular media narratives, it's not a gotcha to say "ha, but the US does that, too." Yes it is, because it illustrates hypocrisy, thus is a gotcha. > Yes, that is the entire point. We're trying to win, not to play fair. Which is also what they're trying to do. Right, but our politicians and media lie about what is going on, and lots of people believe them so now we have a mess on our hands.

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

The USA has kept the top spot for paranoia for 70 consecutive years.

barelyauser 3y ago
It's not paranoia if they are really after you.

perihelions 3y ago

WSJ has a map (and more details) https://archive.is/PcfBc https://archive.is/PcfBc - "“Nobody can figure out who they are,” said Ronald Kott, mayor of Rio Vista, Calif., which is now largely surrounded by Flannery-owned land."

jeffbee 3y ago
"Mayor of Rio Vista unaware of California business entities database, according to Mayor of Rio Vista"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Does that say what billionaire is funding the purchases? I'm not familiar with that DB but the info for who is actually behind the company (vs just an agent of it or a lawyer or whatever) seems non-obvious (edit: for reference, this is what I see https://ibb.co/M2dDBZ1 https://ibb.co/M2dDBZ1. The address is just a mail forwarding service.)
erentz 3y ago
This map makes it seems hysterical to me that people think it's being done as espionage and is a national security issue. The land is wide open and easily observed. In any actual conflict anyone operating in that area could easily be shut down. And just look at the map, it's an awful lot of land to just "spy" on a military base, a lot of the land is as far as 20-30 km away. This land is all filling out a very good area for wind power generation, so I'm guessing they have plans for a lot of wind farms. EDIT: If you go to https://globalwindatlas.info/en https://globalwindatlas.info/en you'll have no trouble finding the area on a view of CA. It's one of the bright red areas between SAC and OAK and this land conveniently fills most of it.

gochi 3y ago

It's taken 5 years after numerous land purchases and a giant $500m lawsuit against landowners for people to get suspicious? Doesn't that seem entirely backwards, that a "mysterious company" can own so much in such short time and that's perfectly legal no red flags? It's only a problem now because it's near a base which is pure absurdity, they would likely also buy the land the base is on and demolish it for their given reason "interstate commerce".

lazide 3y ago
companies and people buy lots of things all over the place all the time. raising alarms about it gets ignored because of alarm fatigue, and because it rarely matters or can be stopped without grinding the economy to a halt. and someone will always be worried about literally anything and everything, even stuff that doesn’t exist or didn’t happen.

tracerbulletx 3y ago

I find it hard to believe if the Military was actually worried about this they would be going about it by having a House rep blast his mouth about it on local news.

jonathankoren 3y ago
You think the military controls every elected dope? What country do you think this is?
- tracerbulletx 3y ago
  I don't, it was a sarcastic way of saying that this is probably just political noise making and not connected to a real missed security threat.

rootusrootus 3y ago

I doubt very much that it’s actually a mystery to the US government.

nerdponx 3y ago
I've probably just watched too much X-Files, but I had the thought that maybe it's actually military/defense/intelligence buying the land in the first place.

rolph 3y ago

this sounds easy to figure, simply occupy the land,deny use or entry, watch who starts squirming.

jeffbee 3y ago

This is an incredibly silly story. Everything about this ownership is in public records. Flannery Assoc. has been openly buying land in this are for over 5 years and have spent over a billion dollars and sued dozens of parties. Everyone knows what they are doing. They want to lease the land for energy infrastructure.

positron6000 3y ago
flannery assoc is a shell company. who's providing the money for purchasing farmland at 5-10x its worth? can you name a single officer of flannery assoc?
- avmich 3y ago
  They will gladly name themselves when you ask them on which grounds they want to stop your heavy equipment messing around their properties. They will bring all necessary papers to you. I guess you won't leave until they'll make it absolutely clear that they have the right to demand you to leave.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    Are you speaking from first-hand experience?
    - avmich 3y ago
      Doesn't it seem like a common sense? Can't government use this way to learn about the owners?
maxlamb 3y ago
why would then want to lease land for infrastructure right next to an air force base when there is lots of land further out?
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Because it's windy AF and there are already large amounts of transmission lines. Look at all these windmills. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.141376,-121.8339739,17582m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@38.141376,-121.8339739,17582m/d... Also "near Travis AFB" is being used to mean that Travis is in Solano County and most of this property is also in Solano County. https://app.regrid.com/us/94585#b=none&o=FLANNERY+ASSOCIATES+LLC&op=/us/ca/solano https://app.regrid.com/us/94585#b=none&o=FLANNERY+ASSOCIATES...

abeppu 3y ago

If you were spying, surely you wouldn't need that much area? And if you were doing something nefarious, wouldn't you use more than one company to make the purchases?

jlund-molfese 3y ago
Yeah, right, it's not like they need to build a 20km long telescope. Plus there are hundreds of thousands of people living close by; this isn't Area 51.

soupfordummies 3y ago

Towards the end of the article is this depressing nugget: " Nearly one in five homes were purchased by investors in early 2023, including LLCs and other corporate entities, according to data compiled by real-estate firm Redfin of more than 40 of the largest U.S. metro areas. "

Supermancho 3y ago
The implication is that the land is for housing? Notably, Irvine California successfully transitioned from being an Army Base town (very large military blimps, etc) to a thriving city. A jewel of southern california.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  "Thriving" if one considers an Orwellian and totalitarian worldview similar to that of Singapore to be a viable and humane philosophy.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    I have experience with the Irvine Company as well. There were decades where they were not in control of the city. Before Blizzard, before Google.
jrk 3y ago
Nearly every time single old houses in in-demand areas are bought for renovation or redevelopment into denser duplexes, they're "bought by investors, including LLCs and other corporate entities." This doesn't mean 20% of housing stock is being bought and left fallow or anything – this is exactly how densification and redevelopment in response to demand happens. Many of those LLCs are even individuals.
- riskable 3y ago
  About a quarter of all single-family homes in the US are owned by investors: https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/investment-firms-and-home-buying/ https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/investment-firms-and-home-b... The percentage of investors that buy single-family homes in a given year may rise or fall but the long-term trend is clear: Investors are owning more and more of the total market over time. Actual single families are being priced out. Some markets are worse than the national statistic and entire neighborhoods are being bought in order to turn every single home into rentals. The New York Times wrote about this last year: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-investors-housing-market.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/us/corporate-real-estate-... It's a very real issue and a few simple changes to the laws in regards to how many single-family homes may be owned by corporations would make a huge impact.

ryandrake 3y ago

Setting aside the national security question, more broadly it's pretty insane that the USA lets companies hide who owns/controls them. When you decide to hang out your shingle and profit at the expense of the general public, I would say the general public has a genuine right to know who you are. Reminds me of how Disney used aliases and codenames and shell companies and secretive ownership structures to buy up all the land for Disney World in Florida[1], so that sellers didn't know who was behind it. This should be illegal. 1: https://www.wesh.com/article/disney-world-beginnings/37807860 https://www.wesh.com/article/disney-world-beginnings/3780786...

colechristensen 3y ago
>Over a veto of President Trump, on January 1, 2021, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) went into effect as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). The CTA, many years in the making, introduces major changes to transparency requirements of entities registered in the United States. No longer can anonymous shell companies, limited liability companies, and the like hide the identities of their owners. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/02/04/the-end-of-the-anonymous-shell-company-in-the-united-states/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/02/04/the-end-of-the-an...
Negitivefrags 3y ago
I am also an advocate for transparency of ownership of companies, but that Disney example seems like more of a case against transparency than for it? Why should Disney be price gouged in that circumstance?
- victorbstan 3y ago
  Free market?
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  Price gouged? Don't you mean, fair market value? Price is always contingent based on the information shared between the buyer and seller. No one would call selling a rare misprint 1978 US Quarter to a collector for $45,000 instead of 25 cents price gouging. (Maybe you would, I don't know what the going rate is. But this is literally an eBay auction price from a google search just now, so let's just say that it's not an exorbitant price.)

perihelions 3y ago

Could this be a stealth real estate investment? It seems to be one of the regions of farmland closest-ish to the urban Bay Area. That would parsimoniously explain why the LLC is paying multiples over market value, on what's currently zoned as mere agricultural land. Three things the Bay Area has in plenty right right now: (0) people with too much money; (1) people looking to escape the Bay Area; (2) people spooked about macroeconomic conditions. The mystery LLC claims to be a "group of families... looking to diversify their portfolio from equities to real assets". Maybe that's simply what it is: a conspiracy of techies stashing their loot in real estate, with a very long-term horizon, betting on a Detroit-ization of the SFC area and a consequent real estate boom in the greater exurbs. Why stealthy? To buy the land as cheap as possible. Maybe that's what those legal disputes are about: some landowners sussed out that the new buyers have a very high willingness-to-pay, and are trying aggressively to maximize their selling price.

ehnto 3y ago
It would be a wild long play, but this is how rail companies purchased land as well. I say it in past tense, but Bright Rail is currently using that playbook right now elsewhere. Buy the land, build the train connections, develop the land, sell or rent the now hopefully prime real eatate.

costco 3y ago

https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/201905210181 https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/201905210181 says a guy named Thomas Mather was a director. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/2004-0012-dwq_noas/2004-0012-dwq-0004_rev5.pdf https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions... is some government application by Flannery that also has his name on it. Looks like this was covered in 2019: https://www.thereporter.com/2019/07/05/large-rural-land-purchase-near-suisun-city-draws-questions/ https://www.thereporter.com/2019/07/05/large-rural-land-purc... If Mather is not the true owner, it would take the government five seconds to figure out who actually owned it by just finding out who's paying their lawyers (Skadden!) in the current litigation they are involved in.

gamblor956 3y ago
Lawyers aren't allowed to identify their clients if the identities of their clients are unknown. It's part of attorney-client privilege. Skadden has made use of in the past to hide their work for Putin affiliates. It's the reason that Skadden is the largest firm by revenue despite the lackluster quality of their work. (For an example of how bad Skadden is at the practice of law, see the clusterfuck that is the Twitter termination litigation.)
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  Mere identity is not usually covered under attorney-client privilege, I’m not sure why you think it would be. Here’s a semi-recent analysis of the situation. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/05/fifth-circuit-reaffirms-that-client-identity-is-privileged https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2020/05/fifth...
  - tiahura 3y ago
    I’m not sure why you think it would be. Probably because it is confidential and most people, and many attorneys, don’t understand that privilege and confidentiality are terms of art with distinct meanings.
- deleted 3y ago

gamblor956 3y ago

The company is suing people for talking to each other about the company and demanding more money for their farms that the company is/was trying to buy. There is no legal justification for this lawsuit; it's a legal shakedown to try and drain their targets' resources so that they're compelled to sell below-market to avoid bankruptcy. Also known as the modus operandi for Skadden Arps, the most morally bankrupt firm in the country. Skadden's "illustrious" client list includes Elmo (they advised him on the strategy of forcing terminated employees into arbitration and then refusing to pay arbitration fees), organized crime, and multiple individuals and entities known to be KGB affiliates and Putin allies (Skadden has paid hefty fines for illegal lobbying on behalf of the Putin regime...multiple times.)

mikeInAlaska 3y ago

ARMA game dev team?

avmich 3y ago

> Even after eight months of investigation, Garamendi says federal authorities are still struggling to get those answers. What if somebody moves a few bulldozers to that land and start raising an obstacle which would be convenient to protect AFB from spying? I highly suspect somebody will show up and demand this to stop. That guy should be questioned - who he is and on what grounds he's managing the property. This will likely lead towards the owners. Can the beneficiaries be contacted this way, if other ways fail for months?

jzb 3y ago
Shell company lawyer can show up and demand the activity stop. Lawyer doesn’t have to disclose names, they are acting on behalf of the corporate entity.
- avmich 3y ago
  They have to prove - at least in the court - that they own the property. So the documents are going to surface with the names of the owners. Actually, I think the registrar of the property could be able to issue a request for documentation leading to the owners or beneficiaries. It's either a physical person - could be talked with - or an organization - which is registered somewhere, and can be similarly contacted.

Havoc 3y ago

So US gov tripped up by their own secrecy laws? Hard to have sympathy for their dilemma

mmmBacon 3y ago

It kind of amazes me that our government can’t figure out who is behind this. Because it’s extremely hard to hide these kinds of things. When I last moved, there were a few toxic people in my life at the time and I didn’t want them to be able to find my new home. What I found is that it’s exceptionally difficult and expensive to keep this private. I looked at forming an LLC etc… The problem is that it eventually leaks out somehow. I have a lawyer friend who confirmed this from their own experience. They told us about a sibling who is a high profile senior exec at well known public company. This person tried to hide their home purchase for privacy and safety reasons. They had the resources to do this, spent a ton of money, and ultimately failed. You can easily Google their address.

jstarfish 3y ago
Some states make this easier than others. I don't remember specifics but from what I remember one major disadvantage to hiding ownership is that you either can't get certain tax deductions or you don't qualify for things like FHA loans (don't remember which). > This person tried to hide their home purchase for privacy and safety reasons. They had the resources to do this, spent a ton of money, and ultimately failed. You can easily Google their address. I assume they made the mistake of actually living at that address. You're outed to Equifax and others the second you sign up for utilities as yourself. On paper, you can only remain anonymous if you don't live there... ...but the shadiest people I know use grandmothers' foreign maiden names to sign up for services at properties they obfuscate ownership of. Their "deadname" is kept very much alive after marriage and naturalization if you do this regularly. It amounts to synthetic identity fraud so I doubt any attorney would give this sort of direction.

moneycantbuy 3y ago

skadden. hopefully capitalism will eat itself in our lifetime.

paxys 3y ago

> But after eight months of investigation, government officials have been unable to identify who's behind it nor rule out any threat to national security. If nothing else this should be an indicator of how broken the land & real estate purchase system is in the US. We are literally the only country in the world that has no controls and no visibility over having large chunks of our territory bought out by a foreign resident, foreign business or even a foreign government.

KingLancelot 3y ago

[dead]

kmoser 3y ago

> The attorney representing Flannery Associates sent a letter to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, one of several agencies investigating the matter, issuing a formal response. > "No foreign person or group holds any significant interest or substantial control over Flannery, either now or at the time of any land purchase made by Flannery," the letter said. "Person or group" doesn't include "government". This also doesn't mean the (supposedly domestic) owners won't lease the land to a foreign entity. Also, note the word "significant." And, "foreign" compared to what? If the owners are, say, Chinese, "no foreign" means no NON-Chinese. Not trying to stoke paranoia, but just showing how statements like this are open to interpretation and should be taken with a grain of salt.

simonblack 3y ago

Bill Gates. Not to worry.

1letterunixname 3y ago

I'm unconcerned with the conspiracy theories. I'm concerned that it's a literal land grab by corporate profiteers to sink their ill-gotten gains into tangible assets including huge tracts of land blocking new developments. Cities, counties, and states must block these sort of extreme deals because they prevent expansion of direly needed housing and affordable housing.