In central Kern County, California, the small town of Shafter is moving forward with a housing construction project in collaboration with developer Lennar Homes that aligns with the elements of California housing. The project, named “Gossamer Grove,” consists of 1,200 homes and happens to lie along the planned route of the California high-speed rail.
Shafter, with an area of 38.7 square miles (approximately 100 square kilometers) and a population of fewer than 20,000, has historically opposed the high-speed rail project and advocated for the rail tracks to be placed outside the city limits.
According to Lennar Homes, Gossamer Grove is envisioned as a master-planned community featuring amenities such as picnic areas, playgrounds, dog-walking trails, as well as provisions for school sites and parks.
Walter Diamond, the project approval supervisor at Lennar, expressed during a city planning meeting in April that this undeveloped land, owned by them, is set for development and they look forward to advancing the project.
Lennar, one of the largest builders in the Central Valley, plans to offer 3-4 bedroom homes in the higher price range of over $300,000.
City officials state that, based on California housing regulations and the fact that the high-speed rail authority has not purchased land in the area, they are legally obligated to approve the project.
Mayor Chad Givens mentioned to The Bee that the housing project could potentially force revisions in the high-speed rail department’s route planning. The city is prepared to defend the planned real estate development project through legal means in cooperation with the significant business volume developer opposing the high-speed rail project. “There’s a city and a big monster developer both willing to push back on the high-speed rail project,” he said.
The high-speed rail authority opposes Lennar’s development plan, expressing willingness to negotiate with the city. They assert that the rail route was established following a lawsuit and settlement on environmental issues initiated by the city in 2018.
Initially projected at $33 billion, the high-speed rail project’s revised estimated cost stands at $126.3 billion, but actual costs could soar to $150 billion or $200 billion.
Commenced in 2015, the project’s completion timeline remains uncertain. Currently under construction in the Central Valley from Merced to Bakersfield, covering a stretch of 171 miles, it is set for completion in 2034. The full line from San Francisco to Los Angeles lacks definite funding. Anticipated overall completion could span from 2045 to 2080 if substantial funds are injected.
Republican lawmakers in California criticize the project as a “fantasy project” wasting taxpayer money.
Senator Tony Strickland from the 36th District stated, “I’ve been saying for years that this may be the biggest waste of government money in world history.” He criticized Governor Newsom’s 2026-27 budget for squandering taxpayer funds, including allocating $1.5 billion to the high-speed rail project.
In 2018, multiple parties including Shafter filed a lawsuit regarding the high-speed rail route, reaching a settlement that fixed the route in the city and revoked the city’s ability to object on environmental grounds, demanding the California High-Speed Rail Authority to commit to remedial measures.
Eight years later, the rail authority has yet to purchase the land for the planned route segment, which remains within the city’s jurisdiction. Options for the rail authority include prompt land acquisition, legal action, or altering the route.
Immediate land acquisition poses challenges as the federal government is reluctant to invest further due to high project costs and slow progress in construction (being incomplete after 11 years within less than 200 miles). State government budgets are tight in recent years, seeking to avoid deficits while continuing to allocate funds to preferred projects.
Moreover, Shafter not only possesses ownership of the land but also holds a valid tentative tract map until 2028. Unless the city is found to have violated approval procedures, courts typically disfavor revoking approved housing projects, giving Shafter considerable confidence in its challenge. ◇