This turned out to be a lot more serious and interesting than I expected. From the headline, Hall sounded like a Mormon nutcase. But his plans are actually a lot more realistic than you'd expect: a planned development of 20,000 people is not crazy. He's also putting real effort into the engineering required to fulfill the density of his vision. It also sounds like he's trying to make the venture sustainable and appears to have found some success in revenue through licensing or more traditional development projects.
He's probably crazy to be trying it in Vermont though. He'll have to import voters before he can get anything approved.
Maybe he just needs to listen to his PR people more. Downplay the Mormon angle, talk more about environmental efficiency, and pitch the communistic aspects—he might just get more sympathy.
"He's probably crazy to be trying it in Vermont though," is an understatement. The largest city in Vermont, Burlington, only has a population of ~40,000. He's proposing a city half the size of Burlington in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Vermonters are VERY resistant to people trying to change their landscape or way of life, and as you might expect, they (myself included) are not thrilled with this plan.
So if its nowhere, what's the resistance about? Vermonters want to do whatever the hell they want on their own land. But not this guy? He's got to do what Vermonters want? I never figured out what that's all about.
> Vermonters want to do whatever the hell they want on their own land.
Within the constraints of zoning, which are very strict both at the state level (Act 250 would certainly come into play for a development this large) and often at the town level also (don't know about Sharon). Vermont's zoning is partially oriented towards keeping as much green space and working farmland available as possible... maybe there are places where you can just buy up hundreds of acres farmland and turn it into strip malls and high density housing but Vermont is thankfully not one of them.
As another example of what you cannot do with your land in Vermont - you cannot put up a billboard on it. There was a case recently where a mural painted on a barn wall within sight of the highway was declared a roadside ad and had to be removed. You don't realize how just ugly and tacky billboards are until you live in a place without them for a few years...
It's several towns. What he's doing will disrupt the local economy by inflating prices on the real estate market. New people won't be able to afford to move to town because their pockets aren't billionaire deep. The people who moved out won't come back. Once the local economy is disrupted enough by the pressure on the real estate market, the residents that never planned on leaving won't be able to afford to stay. Then they'll sell their land, and that will feed back into the cycle until the town is either in depression. That will open the door for this billionaire to import enough new residents and hijack the local political processes. Monopoliznig the local real estate market is what will lower the barriers.
I imagine most resistance to this scheme is based in pragmatism. What's being discussed is essentially a paternalistic, religious company town. There is no way that a development of this size will be in any way self-sustaining; it will have significant impacts on the local infrastructure, culture and environment.
> They like thinks just the way they have always been.
Such a meta typo. So often, when people want things the same way they've always been[1], that means they want people to think the same way they always have[1], which they don't (because the new generation never does).
1: "always" generally being a short 10-20 year period the person vaguely remembers from their youth, but fondly, because they didn't have much responsibility as they were young and didn't actually have to pay much attention to anything outside their limited social circle.
The hazy miasma visions of a perfect past can legitimatize themselves, in some, with far far less than 10 to 20 years. Some can do it in a span of weeks – q.v. “Where I Was From,” the memoir by Joan Didion (which specifically is about California, but is quite relevant to these topics to anyone most anywhere in the USA).
> Vermonters seem resistant to change, no matter what.
Vermont was the first state to adopt same sex marriage by statute without a court-issued mandate, so I think "resistant to change" and "like things just the way they have always been" seems likely to be an overly simplistic view of their culture.
Politically, Vermont went from being staunchly Republican to being staunchly Democratic. They're also much more open to changing norms, like embracing gay rights.
You have to admit there's a huge difference between one or two people on a plot of land doing something, vs getting a plot of land and trying to bring 20,000 people onto it.
I think you can take consolation in the fact that it's going to be very hard to convince 20,000 people to pull up stakes and move to the middle of nowhere to tend crops and extract mineral resources. Or even to convince the church hierarchy to dispatch 20,000 Mormons to the middle of nowhere, assuming they could do that. (I don't know enough about Mormons to say whether this is possible.)
This venture has nothing to do with the Mormon (LDS) Church other than the fact this guy is a member.
The leadership of the Church will not acknowledge or encourage the project in any official capacity, and will definitely not 'dispatch' members to live there.
The only exception being if there are actually 20k people, there may be a single pair of missionaries assigned to visit every now and then.
>This venture has nothing to do with the Mormon (LDS) Church other than the fact this guy is a member.
That's the story, but in the same breath he says:
'A plat, says Hall, will be subject to state and regional laws, but will also be overseen by a board and heirachries of leaders with, it appears, strong Mormon Family values.'
> convince the church hierarchy to dispatch 20,000 Mormons to the middle of nowhere, assuming they could do that.
It's interesting, Mormonism originally encouraged its members to move to a central place, but around 1950 then prophet (i.e. leader) David O. McKay told people it was fine to remain at home [1]. There are some interesting pockets out there as a result of this "gathering attitude", though, like (AFAIK) a fairly substantial group of Polynesian Mormons in and around Independence, Missouri (a key area in Mormon theology)[2].
It may not be that hard. Mormons believe jesus is coming again and will arrive at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman. Some people have been buying land there for this reason.
Joseph's Smith's communal utopia, finally realized? Oh yeah, there are people who will go for this.
Edit: As for farming, yes mormons will be fine with it. Google "mormon food storage" and you'll be amazed. They are taught to be ready for disasters at all times.
I think it's extremely unlikely that this development would be sustainable in rural VT.
It's also worth noting that, despite the purported focus on 'sustainability', the corporation/cult ironically plans to rely upon drilling for fossil fuels and mining to remain profitable. Which is, by definition, not sustainable.
I do not know much about Vermont however it seams like a good place, it is said in the article "you have selected the most incongruous place imaginable"
Setting aside Indifference, Where would be a more congruous place?
> Meanwhile, why are people placing a harsh light on Mormons?
In most cases I would agree. For instance, knowing Clayton Christensen is a Mormon should have no impact on someone's opinion of disruption theory. And there are cases, like Mitt Romney, where the media placed way too much of a focus on his family being Mormon.
In this case though, the fact that the tycoon is Mormon plays a central role. His plans are literally based on drawings by Joseph Smith he found in researching mormon history. These are literally plans by the founder of Mormonism being implemented in the state where he was born (which is mentioned in the article as the reason why the tycoon is familiar with Vermont and thus chose it for his communities).
This isn't an article making fun of Mormons and "their sacred underwear" or other "let's point and laugh" material. It is an article about a man who studied Mormon history and decided to implement the vision of its founder. Mormonism is a key element to the story.
> the media placed way too much of a focus on his family being Mormon.
You're telling me. Four years later I'm in London and the city buses are still advertising the "Book of Mormon" musical. (admittedly that wasn't 100% a Romney thing, but the timing was no coincidence, either.)
What? The advertisements or the play itself? If you are attributing the play itself to the presidential race, I think you are mistaken, because the play was in development long before the Romney was a candidate, and is by the creators of South Park (Trey Parker and Matt Stone), which have often featured the Mormon religion in their works[1].
Wow and did you see that model community? All about work and money; no place whatsoever for recreation or privacy. A warren of worker bees farming and sweating - his "utopia"
I tend to not be a fan of ideologues or zealots, no matter their persuasion. If a Jewish entrepreneur were basing their real estate development plans on Talmudic scholarship, I would be similarly skeptical.
It's not the word "Mormon" (although South Park comes to mind) but the concept of founding communities designed according to religious ideology and the implicit idea that anyone of a different religion (or of no religion) would not be welcome.
> and the implicit idea that anyone of a different religion (or of no religion) would not be welcome.
Historically, it's always been the other way around. Mormons have always tried to reach out to connect to their communities (vs. making an impenetrable fortress/cult community like FLDS), and were met with hostility due to differences in culture (i.e. polygamy, different bible beliefs, etc.). Most of the time it was the community that was not welcoming of the mormons.
This seems to be the case again here in this article with Vermont.
I'm surprised how kindly people are treating this plan.
Ignore any mention of Mormonism and talk about a planned community where to participate people must give up all of their net worth to that community, work for a 'business' that gives up all profit to that community for a 'dividend' from the shared resources, all under an explicit and rigid hierarchy and see how people react.
Having a theoretical option to do a thing is not the same as having the freedom to do it.
Do you think the community is going to give that person's net worth back so they can start a new life? Do you think someone is going to spend time building a business just to walk away with nothing? What about the friends and family left behind who will no doubt be encouraged to shun you.
Cults are completely voluntary, too, if you think only in theoreticals and ignore the practical implications of their policies.
Yes, why would we place a harsh light on a group that has tried everything it can to strip rights away from LGBT folks and until recently had explicitly racist restrictions on who could do what within the church.
Are people not aware that black men were banned from being pastors until 1978? Or that the Church funded huge campaigns against gay marriage? And continues to use its influence over the Boy Scouts to slow progress there as well?
Fringe libertarians that believe that large swaths of the constitution, and thus many modern laws, don't apply to them. A common calling card is seeing a car with a sign that says "not for hire" as they make a distinction between driving "commercial activity" and "traveling" non-commercial. Many claim the latter doesn't require a drivers license. Youtube is littered with videos of them getting arrested in often violent confrontations with police officers as they refuse to comply with simple orders.
Well, it is the only US state (I think) that requires no permits for concealed gun carry. So they do strive to reduce the trampling of people's rights.
Now, if they legalized pot (or drugs in general), prostitution, and gambling, it would be paradise for anyone who believes that adults should be able to live like adults without a meddling nanny state.
> it would be paradise for anyone who believes that adults should be able to live like adults without a meddling nanny state.
Some of us adults though don't like living with the other adults who indulge in these things. My current "adult" neighbors are legal drug users, and to be honest I don't really find it to be a paradise, especially when their pot smoke leaks into my condo.
I would rather move to a place where people have the same values as me.
Fair enough. I had the same complaint about regular smokers at my last apartment. Smoke from a neighbor would somehow seep into my place a bit, which bugged me. The upstairs neighbor had kids and a dog that irked me with their constant noise.
I solved the problem by buying a house.
Freedom has it's perks and problems for all involved.
A small clarification that pertains to your comment and several child comments.
Vermont has no requirements for concealed gun carry implicitly. Meaning they have passed no laws (ever) pertaining to carrying guns one way or another apart from
1. not allowing firearms on state owned land or in state buildings (without permission) or schools.
2. laws pertaining to crimes committed with firearms
3. A law specifically disallowing local governments and municipalities from restricting gun carrying beyond what the state government has.
4. Laws pertaining to children using and possessing guns.
Granted. Many states allow open carry, which seems more fitting for such circumstances.
However, hunting large(-ish) game like boar with large caliber handguns is a thing. I don't know how they'd fare against bear and moose. It might be easier to tote something like a .44 magnum handgun to and from work in Alaska than a rifle or shotgun.
Ultimately I was just speculating as to why Alaska might allow permit-free conceal carry. It may have more to do with the self-reliance and history of the population than anything else.
I've never lived in Alaska, never hunted anything larger than jack rabbit, and never fired anything larger than a .44-mag revolver and rifle (they are pretty powerful, though).
Because a bear would be able to see a gun if it were not concealed? (I live in Montana and have never heard anyone talk about concealed carry in the context of animals).
There are plenty of libertarians who support overthrowing the state's monopoly on use of force with violence. Of course there are plenty that don't as well.
Your characterization might suggest that they hold too to little faith in rule of law, but the opposite is true. What true-believer "sovereign citizens" do not recognize is that there is no rule of law in relations between sovereign entities, only deterrence. Having a Snow Crash-style personal nuke is a lowball estimate of where the barrier to entry lies.
I would love to see an Arcology, I always enjoyed Oath of Fealty mainly for the ideas he referenced about one. With regards to the article, a sustainable community built with the drive of someone similar to Disney might be able to work, the issue outside of money and drive is NIMBYs. We certainly have the technology to do it.
However, you don't need complete independence, I think energy independence and protecting the environment with a family and pedestrian friendly layout are the best achievable goals
As a Mormon myself, I've never heard of this guy or his plans. I've heard of lots of "niche" Mormons with crazy ideas though, so I read on for entertainment purposes.
I was pretty surprised by the quality of thought going into the project. This guy probably has a lot in common with the HN crowd so I can see why the article was submitted. He's a type of visionary/intuitive/big-picture thinker, someone who is concerned about the quality of systems, sustainability, things like that.
The end of the article outlines the problem nicely though; there's a real conundrum--do we trust the guy who seems to know what he's doing and addresses the exact problems we complain about, or do we trust our fears that something always seems to go wrong?
It reminds me a bit of the Daybreak[1] privately built master planned community in Utah build by a mining company. Not sure how well it's coming along, but seems like they wanted everything to be walkable and pleasant.
My sister lived in Daybreak, and one time I came to visit and ended up a half block shifted from her place. The house looked identical and I almost let myself into some random strangers house. I decided to knock at the last second and was quite surprised when a stranger answered.
It felt a little creepy, things were just a little too uniform.
I think in general, people seem to prefer character...at least some do. This is why people are so anti-sprawl, not just because of pollution and unwalkable-ness, etc, but because they lack character.
Even if you had a perfect, walkable, sustainable, 22nd century community with chi and all that, if it seems like Commune 2A, people won't be as crazy about it as say, a flat in NYC or a cobblestone street in Europe. Not that everyone can afford such places (I can't), but something near a sense of place probably is 80% of people's desires.
There is a famous romantic comedy from the Soviet Union (I forget the name) based in this premise- a drunk guy gets off an airplane in the wrong city, goes to "his" apartment (identical) and his key even fits the door so he enters. It turns out to be a woman's apartment and hijinks ensue
As noted in the article, we engineers love to plan solutions to problems but in reality people like randomness, cities that grew over time, and the illusion of choice
From the pictures, it's not my kind of town either --but to be fair, lots of tract housing is very uniform with slight color variation, sometimes.
I think they could have used some "reinterpretation" of Victorian, cape, colonial, etc... rather than replicate en-masse. But, like I said, lots of places are cookie cutter developments; it's not unique in that way.
That's pretty cool, didn't know about it. Thanks. I thought it was interesting that their sales went up in a down housing market. That seems like a pretty clear mark of quality.
The source for 1/5 is the original wiki article[1], which also includes this gem:
"
On October 1, 2005, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced the construction of the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple, which was built in a prominent ___location in the Daybreak development. Ground was broken for the temple on December 16, 2006, and the temple was dedicated on August 23, 2009.
"
If the fact that a temple was built in a prominent ___location in the community doesn't convince you there was a push/bias from the church I don't know what would. Certainly more evidence than "must be quality".
That doesn't entirely characterize the whole story. First off, people should realize there are 4 LDS Temples (3 running, 1 being renovated) in the Salt Lake Valley. There are even more within a short drives distance (including two in Provo, UT, within walking distance of each other!). There is no shortage of Temples around Utah. Where there are large populations of similarly minded individuals, you will give them the amenities they want (and Mormon's want Temples).
Second, while only active members of the LDS Church in good standing can attend the Temple, anyone who can attend the Temple may attend any Temple within the Church at any time and for any reason. The Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple is not exclusive to Daybreak.
Finally, Temples are split into "Temple Districts" which is where most of the volunteers for running a Temple are selected from. The Oquirrh Mountain Temple District runs from Magna and the Salt Lake City International Airport in the North to Herriman and Bluffdale in the South. Daybreak is a tiny dot on that map. It serves a lot of people outside of Daybreak and is anything but exclusive.
Now, I can safely say I don't believe that people move to Daybreak because of quality but they also don't move there because the Church endorsed it. They move there because of good, old fashioned, marketing. Daybreak has huge signs all over the place offering "affording living with amazing amenities". They send out mailers and even people door to door inviting whole neighborhoods to come to open houses, have a BBQ in Daybreak, enjoy the lake and pools, shopping, and entertainment. It's all very enticing. But that's all it is, marketing.
The LDS Church builds temples in an area _after_ there is a large enough group of members in the surrounding area to ensure the temple will get used.
There are very specific numbers used to determine where temples should be built. It is only an endorsement that there were enough nearby members to justify building one, not that members should move there.
This man is my uncle. FYI, I have NO affiliation with the project, but I have watched it with rapt attention since I have connections to both the Mormon community and “Uncle David,” as well as very close Vermont friends, so I definitely see both sides of the coin. Again, ZERO affiliation other than relation, but happy to answer any questions from an unofficial role. ;)
That's really cool. Do you know of any sources for his inspiration other than JS? And any standout memories of your uncle you can share? He seems like a really intelligent guy. It'd be neat if some scaled-down version of this could be tested without creating so many waves.
He's definitely bright. My Dad and he worked together for many years, though not on this project. When I asked my Dad about it he said, “no comment.” Ha.
I confess I don't know other sources of inspiration, though I'm certain he's very familiar with other engineering efforts of similar kind. The reporting in this article is pretty sound; he's drawing much of his inspiration from an abstract document.
Completely off-topic random question: how closely related are Mormon families, generally? With similarly insular populations (Mormons seem to tend to marry other Mormons), that have families that are larger than normal, it seems like family ties would proliferate and you'd end up with communities that are rather closely knit through webs of marriage.
Def. off topic. ;) UTAH-based (note the qualifier) are insular, though that is most certainly less and less the case. Both Mormon and Gentile (I'm being cheeky) populations are significant enough that marriages are factional across the board. There are still some not-so-distant 2nd, 3rd, and so-forth cousins, but that would be the exception not the rule (guesstimating here).
I'm certain someone has done a study on this, and if not it'd be interesting to see one done.
It uses information from https://www.familysearch.org/ (sponsored by the LDS church, but widely used by those interested in genealogy). To get started, you'd need to enter some data to get back to your deceased ancestors.
My wife and I are "9th cousins once removed" (common ancestor 10-11 generations back).
Mormons settled Utah in the 1800s, and in the 200 years since they've been quite incredibly successful at attracting other people to their faith (and consequently often to their state too) from other states, Canada, and European countries, with everyone multiplying fruitfully. There's plenty of genetic diversity. You could satisfy your curiosity with almost any specific Mormon couple though by asking how closely related they are, Mormons are good at keeping track of their ancestry.
Do you have any idea how sustainable/profitable his ventures are?
It sounds like he's been trying to license technology to finance the venture. There's also a mention of other nearer-term real estate developments. Has any of this worked, or is he basically just spending his fortune down?
He's definitely worked in “suspect” environmental industries (industrial), but his flagship product (intellipipe; look it up) was an engineering marvel in redefining how to get oil with far less land disruption. One could look at that with a scant eye, and I wouldn't judge. I intend to ask him at some point how he maintains that seeming contradiction in his mind.
He's said it himself (in other articles), though tongue in cheek, he plans to die broke.
But he's simultaneously investing in multiple technology innovations, hoping to forward the cause. (My words, not his.)
Off-topic too but are all Mormons successful, or do we (the world-wide general public) just see them because they talk about being wealthy, successful and Mormon at the same time, and the evangelists give the impression too because they all wear well-cut suits?
A look at Utah's various statistics you might want to use as measures of overall success ought to paint a different picture, also visiting different areas of the state for a while will too. But that's not to say you'd be wrong in giving a higher prior for success after hearing someone is a proper Mormon (and many Mormons the world generally hears about are even if the majority aren't and will never get a temple recommend). Proper Mormons don't drink alcohol, smoke, or drink caffeine, they try to marry young, have children, stay in contact with their (extended and large) families, are active Church-goers (and hence active in the Community), and they pay an extra tax to the Church without becoming financially crippled. This is basically an immense filter for self discipline / resistance to temptation and solid social networks, which tend to be factors with a lot of successful people.
Not all by any means. But the church does encourage self-reliance, frugality, saving, education, emergency preparedness, and hard work; promotes stable families; and discourages various expensive and life-destroying vices.
Can you comment on how hard it would be to get 20,000 Mormons to move to Vermont? Would such a big migration have to be endorsed by the church hierarchy? Where would these 20,000 people work?
David has said that he in no way intends this to be a Mormon community, that such an idea is the insular failure of early Mormon community-building efforts. I tend to agree with him on that notion, though history is a different topic. But New Vistas is certainly not a "Mormon" effort, just inspired by an early and obscure Mormon document. That said, the idea of community building is doctrinal to Mormonism, so there's that.
But again, he has no intentions of transplanting 20,000 Mormons into Vermont and thinks that would be a failure of the project.
As to the feasibility of transplanting 20,000 people from all walks of life? Completely different matter. In his grand vision, they would all eat, live, play, and work in the community. Is that possible? There are larger cities, some planned, some more organically grown from immigration.
Thanks for the clarification! I'm definitely interested in seeing how utopian projects like this progress, although I think his chances of attracting settlers are very slim.
I think people are underestimating the number of people that are unhappy with the typical American life they've been given. Since the article stated that he doesn't intend this to be a Mormon only community, I could easily see there being at least 20,000 people wanting a fresh start in a new system, however experimental. How having a bunch of disenfranchised people populate this city would effect its viability in the long run, I don't know...
They have had less success moving en masse into populated areas.
See: The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri and the subsequent failed attempt to do the same thing in Illinois that eventually lead to their founder's murder.
David Hall has been my boss for the past 10 years. I have worked a little on some of these projects over the years but I work for the oil & gas part of the company that was sold to Schlumberger. David has lots of ideas, many I have helped him kill quickly. Some are great though and have lead to major innovations in diamond technology, oil & gas drilling, and a growing number of other fields.
Not sure if this is meant in a positive way or negative way... If negative, I'd say, an idea-man with the funds to see his ideas through to completion isn't your typical Hey I have an idea, want to build it for me for rev share type of guy that is typically lambasted around here...
I'm from Salt Lake City and a former Mormon. I want to emphasize former because I'm in no way affiliated with the church and have a bit of lifelong bitterness toward it (used to be much worse, mostly over it now) and while I think a lot of things about Mormonism are completely stupid, they sure know how to build cities and be settlers and pioneers.
I think that mentality has passed through generations and it's really exciting to see this kind of advanced utopian dream come to life, even if it pisses off neighbors and if it ultimately fails.
I'm obsessed with cities and I would love to see this turn into the vision that Joseph smith had in mind, even if all his other visions are laughable loads of whatever.
From a sustainable community aspect it is fascinating.
However, look at what he's proposing. Edit: lots of people moving to a state of 600,000 people, with the first locations built up around areas with strong connections to Joseph Smith.
It probably won't work. However, should he get only 60,000 people and the majority of them Mormons, yeah, Vermont changes completely. Mormons tend to vote along church lines, they outbreed everyone else, as you said, they know how to colonize.
I don't want to cast a wet blanket over all Mormons, but you can see why this would make people unhappy. Vermont with its socialist senator could became East Utah in a generation.
“I’m the darn guy who caused all these problems,” Hall tells the seated group by way of introduction. He doesn’t let his PR handlers do any talking, and he doesn’t rein in the extent of his vision. Despite Vermont’s beauty, he points out, the state has high levels of pollution and sprawl, paired with poverty and unemployment. He recounts visiting Vermont as a boy, memories of which, along with Smith’s birthplace and memorial, drew him to this state, and says he would preserve the state’s natural grandeur. “In my crazy mind, two-thirds of Vermont would be wilderness and one-third would be the farms that are occupied, and you’d have 20 million people in Vermont,” he tells the group, slapping the table. “That’s a crazy idea. But that’s what I can lay out.”
That's about double the population density of New Jersey (currently the most densely populated state). On the other hand if you add New York City into New Jersey you have over 17 million people in an area smaller than Vermont.
There is no connection to actual Mormonism here. If there was, Hall would certainly not be encountering serious opposition in Provo, of all places.
Hall's practices are immediately suspect because he's advertising his affiliation with the Mormon Church as a major part of this endeavor. It's extremely common for scammers to try to exploit religious people by falsely claiming some sort of sanction or approval from religious bodies.
I also wish Hall luck in building a sustainable, walkable, high-end development, and in reading other articles about his clashes with neighbors in Provo I was even kind of rooting for him, but I'm really put off by the insinuation that either the Mormon Church or Mormon doctrine has anything to do with it.
How can there be no connection. The guy is mormon, the inspiration is directly from Smith's writings, etc. I don't know anything about the writings, but from the article, it seems Smith was fairly clear in wanting to do something like this.
Of course, yes this is an entrepreneur wanting to do a grandiose thing, but to say there's no connection is silly.
(I'm not a Mormon, and have no horse in this race.)
Because in Mormon (and Christian) eschatology, Zion, the New Jerusalem, is a real thing. It's not just one man's experiment to build a utopia. Zion is swamped in religious significance. It can't be built without specific forms of divine help, and it's not Zion without specific markers, like divinely-authorized temples.
Smith's early drawings are good as far as they go, but they are non-canonical. They are of only historical interest to the Church. It is fine that Hall has drawn inspiration from them, but it is not fine to imply that there is any connection between Zion the Mormon Concept and Hall's NewVistas project.
A copy of an old drawing isn't the distinctive characteristic of Zion. The distinctive characteristic is that a group of people within a specific geographic region are so completely realizing their religious precepts that divine beings make a home there.
Joseph Smith's teachings re: Zion are meaningless outside of that context, and invoking Zion in any other way is sacrilege (doubly so when it's to promote a commercial endeavor).
I think what he means is that mormon concept of Zion/New Jerusalem cannot be brought about by someone with his standing in the mormon church. It would need to be initiated by the leaders of the church who presumably act in God's name. In fact, the ___location of the New Jerusalem has already been prophesied. It is supposed to be built up in Missouri. It was already started but never finished. You can go and see where the corner stones for the temples were placed decades ago but never completed. It doesn't mean this guy can't create a nice community but it will never be Zion in the mormon sense of the word.
Source: I was raised mormon and my family used to go visit the ___location where Zion was to be created.
I don't think it necessarily has to be initiated top-down. But the thing is that this is nothing like Zion, except that it resembles an old drawing. The physical layout of Zion is an unimportant implementation detail. Not only does Hall have no authority, but he also, as far as I know, has not expressed any intention for this to be an attempt at real Zion, and even if he had, it wouldn't matter. One man can't make Zion by himself. Not even the President of the Church can do that, which is abundantly clear from a cursory review of Smith's biography. It requires a people that so fully live the principles of the Celestial Kingdom that divine beings can take up residence among them (see D&C 105:5 [0]). Hall may believe he has found a great city layout in the archives of the Church, and if so, more power to him, but this all has no relation to the real Zion, which is the pure in heart. That's why I keep saying these have nothing to do with each other, except that Hall is copying an old drawing by Smith.
If someone was making a serious attempt at building Zion, they would do so by committing themselves to teaching the pure doctrine, engaging in as much service as possible, helping other people fix their economic woes in a self-sufficient, sustainable manner that doesn't necessitate a patron (which basically means supplying the basics while they learn an in-demand skill), and so on. In short, they would do all the things the Church is already doing. All an individual can do is seek to augment that.
So, again, while Hall's project is admirable, it has no relation to Zion, because Zion is Zion only once a heavenly people inhabit it. It's not about building a city out to a certain spec.
Edit: I guess I partially disagree. In order for you to be a 'True Believing Mormon' you would not be able to embark on a project as large as creating Zion/New Jerusalem without the express permission/mandate from the first presidency. Anything outside of this would make you an apostate in their eyes. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of that but the rules are clear within the church proper.
>In order for you to be a 'True Believing Mormon' you would not be able to embark on a project as large as creating Zion/New Jerusalem without the express permission/mandate from the first presidency. Anything outside of this would make you an apostate in their eyes. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of that but the rules are clear within the church proper.
I don't think this is correct. Everyone is a participant in creating the New Jerusalem insofar as they working to make themselves and those around them more heavenly.
The physical buildings and structure are practically an afterthought. They'll come into being once the people who can live there exist. I don't believe that there will be a call out or a "project" embarked upon per se; I know a lot of Mormons expect the prophet to say "We're going to Missouri" out of the blue one day, but I don't think it will happen that way. Even in Joseph Smith's day, when proclamations along those lines did occur, the process was long and gradual, and ultimately used to facilitate the journey out to the Saints' settling place in Utah. Saints who expected immediate redemption were quickly and repeatedly disappointed. It will be the same way with the New Jerusalem. It will be built gradually, almost without being noticed.
I believe the people will continue improving, begin by happenstance to converge in the appointed place, and the city will spring up around it (this is especially plausible if you believe other End Times revelation that indicates people will be forced to flee most populated places). Temples will be built to accommodate the population. Eventually the Church will move HQ there. Around this time there may be a formal call or encouragement for people to come out to the center place in a reasonable, orderly manner, as they're able.
Yes, the Priesthood has to be involved to a certain extent, but that part will occur automatically as the people qualify. We already see that with temple building; the First Presidency designates places for new temples if they believe the Saints are qualified to care for one. The same pattern will be followed here. As the people in this place improve, the Law of Consecration will begin to be practiced, the people's hearts will be prepared, and the Church will facilitate it within its existing structure by expanding the relevant bishopric's responsibilities to the full breadth of their scriptural mandate.
So yes, the Priesthood has to be there to provide some of the edifices and oversee some of the practices. But it will be there once the people are ready, and it's not going to happen all at once.
The only way that anyone can actually work to build Zion is to make themselves, and work to influence those around them to be, worthy to live there.
I'm as TBM as they come, so if you have contradictory evidence, I'd be interested in reviewing it.
>>> Rooftop farms will make use of advanced techniques drawn from marijuana cultivation, and box-shaped greenhouses will improve yields and prevent the spread of disease and insects.
So many of these grand plans do not appreciate the manpower necessary to harvest crops. If you want to do everything by hand, in tiny batches without the advantages of large mechanized devices, 90+% of the people are going to be engaged primarily in cultivation. That might have been fine 200+ years ago, but not today.
The problem with implementation is not one of planning, but of wants and needs. Does everyone here, or at least 90% of you, want to be a farmer? Growing your own tomatoes on the balcony is fine when you are a 20-somthing kid. Try growing enough for you, your partner, three kids, gran and grandpa, the dog ... suddenly those big greenhouses and giant JohnDeer harvesters are looking a little less evil.
I hope he doesn't have a repeat of the The Mormon War of 1838 where Mormons tried to massively settle areas and then take over the government of the area and mold that government according to their own values with little consideration of the current residents.
There are things that are highly concerning:
'A plat, says Hall, will be subject to state and regional laws, but will also be overseen by a board and heirachries of leaders with, it appears, strong Mormon Family values.'
'Families and individuals who wish to join must invest their net worth...'
'Those who start Vista Bizzes will be given startup funds by thte community but must surrender their IP rights. They also must agree to put nearly all their profits back into the community in exchance for what Hall calls "dividends" -- payouts from overall wealth earned by the plat businesses.'
I don't say this lightly, but how is this not a plan for building a Communist cult with an explicit plan to centralize power of the plats, presumably to Hall himself?
> I don't say this lightly, but how is this not a plan for building a Communist cult with an explicit plan to centralize power of the plats, presumably to Hall himself?
From the paragraph you quoted:
> But everyone is also free to leave and take their companies with them, if dissatisfied. "Competition and the freedom to walk is crucial," he says.
My initial comparison was going to be to the Free State Project -- not as an insult, as I like FSP, but the idea of congregating enough people in one area to tip the scales of politics, hopefully as a "proof of concept" for "how to do governance right".
I found it odd that several brands were mentioned where it adds nothing to the story; feels like product placement in soap opera's. e.g. Moleskin and Toyota; anyone know if they are actually getting paid for putting in those brand names?
Knowing that someone uses Moleskine notebooks adds nothing to the story? To me, it says a lot. Writers are taught to be specific, in part because it keeps a story interesting and makes it more vivid. I'd attribute the details to that over paid product placement. But then again I'm not an "idea man" who ignores inconvenient details when they can't be reconciled with my amazing vision based on something a lunatic scribbled on an 18th century cocktail napkin
You could just as well write "Italian-made luxury notebook"; this had the benefit of being understandable internationally (for people who don't know the brand) or long after the company is closed.
That's exactly what I thought. Mentioning those products was useless and they gave way too much about details about that. It felt like the same product placement of the movies.
It's like people only do these things because they can get paid. And that's just really sad.
I think it is just a writing device for tying the story to the real world and building character. Bloomberg does that quite often, "oh it's the type of person who drives a Toyota".
I grew up in Vermont. Friends that still live there have been telling me about this. The biggest potential problem is that he will be able to take over the town and outvote those who have lived there for years. Like many places in Vermont there is likely only one road that runs through the town and many are worried there will be issue once this man owns all the land around it. But there is quite a few other established cults in Vermont. I assume it will end happening and not being that big of a deal. Vermonters MO is to leave people alone and let them do what they want.
This seems like an insane thing to do in that part of Vermont. TFA doesn't have a map anywhere in it, but this is on the eastern edge of Vermont, near Hanover, NH, and Queechee, VT, except slightly north and farther away from those islands of quasi-civilization. I went to school near there, and spent almost a month building trail on the AT right around this area one summer. It's a backwards, old-timey redneck New England farming community, that reminds me far too much of my home in the Sandy River valley of Maine (aka I would love to live there and be a subsistence farmer...)
The link to Mormonism is incredibly tenuous here. It seems that Hall's plans look vaguely like a grid, and so did Joseph Smith's. That's about the limit of the connection.
Well, that and "Utah-based foundation" and "all of the land was either adjacent or close to the birthplace and memorial of Joseph Smith" and it's based on "Plat of the City of Zion."
Also, if you're a Mormon, you probably see some other very Mormon things come through in the description of Mr. Hall. The endeavor itself seems pretty characteristic not only of Mormonism but a whole variety of faith, social, and industrial experiments from the 19th century. California entrepreneurs aren't the first hackers/disrupters. :)
And I think that's the point of the article, really. This isn't a "those crazy/weird Mormons" thing. This is an "Ambitious Guy is Ambitious" and "Humans Be Utopian-ing" thing.
And also a reminder that San Francisco isn't the only place where people are resistant to having the character of the community they live in changed.
I went to novatek before he sold it, and was given a presentation on this project. It didn't seem complete, and there were many things that just didn't make sense. When other people I talked to explained that it was an effort to build a religeous utopia some of the stranger things made a little more sense, but still many of the choices he is making seem arbitrary and odd.
There was the main meeting building with movable floors and walls that were justified by the ability to use it as a chapel, and a gym, and that it could also be sectioned off into individual meeting rooms. The underground monorail system with individual autonomous cars is supposed to be the main transportation... No cars allowed. The size of the living quarters is very small. It's supposed to be all mixed use, with one main boulevard that all the shops are on. Living space would all be on level 2, and gardens on the top floor. Lots of farm area right out back, but communal.
It's odd, but if he's got the money to try it, more power to him.
He's a Mormon and the idea is inspired by Smith's writings though.
Seems like a fairly strong case of resurrecting and updating some of old plans just like if someone wanted to build a Greek city based on some old writings.
(Not a Mormon and don't have any horses in this race, just find the push to distance these plans from Mormonism odd.)
Joseph's plat was not a "plan". It was a record of something he thought he saw. It was specific to a time and a place. The inscription recited in the linked article to "spread this throughout the world" is made contingent upon it actually being reflective of the layout of Zion in the next clause, and was intended for a time when Zion is a real thing.
I want to distance these plans from Mormonism simply because the project has no meaningful relationship to it. There is no problem whatsoever with Hall drawing inspiration from an old document drawn out by Joseph Smith et al, I take no umbrage with that. The issue is the attempt to pretend that it is some realization of Joseph's intent or visions, some significant step forward in the creation of the Zion of scripture (which, for the record, is mostly defined in the Bible).
NewVistas is one man's plan for a city he thinks will work well. He may even believe the plan has some divine sanction over it, which is fine. I wish him luck in his attempts to lawfully build his ideal city.
What I do not wish to see is the false association, the false significance, ascribed to this project, merely based on Hall's assertion that he drew inspiration from a document authored by Smith. It creates the false impression that Mormons will accept this as religiously significant, and they don't and won't, because it isn't.
There's more than one kind of mormon. There are the skeptical types like you and me, and there are the doomsday-prepping Julie Rowe followers, and more.
There is certainly a subgroup of mormons that would see religious significance in him using Joseph's plat of Zion document for the layout.
If he were doing this in Independence MO, then you'd really have something.
The sense I'm getting from what you're saying is that this plan to create a "Zion" is like various Christian groups doing X or Y to hasten the Second Coming of Christ?
Also, if you have a minute, I'd love to hear your understanding of what the real Zion will be. (Honest curiosity.)
Mormon eschatology is pretty thin but the core beliefs are that the people are of "one heart and one mind" and that "there are no poor among them".
Specifically this mean that Zion can only be built from "within" and not by force of arms and an economic system not based on self interest but on "love thy neighbors as thyself".
Early Mormon's made attempts in Kirtland Ohio and Far West Missiouri which mostly failed due to rampant speculation and broader economic panics. Some of the ideas were adopted in Nauvoo, Illinois and later is small communities in Utah by Brigham Young.
Some of these experiments yielded later economic benefits because it allowed the Mormon's to divorce their economic system somewhat from gold (which was I short supply). While trades with non-Mormons would need to be settled with gold trade between Mormons could be settled with script that could be exchanged for goods at the "bishop's storehouse." Tradesmen and famers would sell items to the storehouse and get back script which they could then use to buy finsished good or services.
This created a currency that was functionally backed by finished goods and commodities and was immune to speculation and banking system panics that were common at the time.
A great place to look for a Mormon view on what Zion will be like, at least in principle, is a book called The Enoch Letters written by Neal Maxwell, a LDS apostle. It is written in the style of The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. It a quick read and I found it to be quite interesting.
As someone who lives not to far from here can I say, this is nuts. Mega-city and Vermont are opposites. It just seems crazy that someone with tons of money and nothing to spend it on can just walk in and try to build a city in the middle of nowhere and where everybody there besides him wants it that way.
Mega-city? It's a city of 20,000 people in a very small area (1 mile square?). 20,000 people is more like a town than a city and certainly not a "mega" city.
“In my crazy mind, two-thirds of Vermont would be wilderness and one-third would be the farms that are occupied, and you’d have 20 million people in Vermont,” he tells the group, slapping the table.
The issue for me isn't him being Mormon or if he wanted to build a little community at a religious site. For me, the issue is that he bought up a community to impose his vision and his will on everyone there. No one there asked for this. It'd be upsetting if anyone of any background tried this same thing. He's not working with the community. He's trying to demolish it to build his own. That's incredibly selfish and arrogant. He tries to justify it saying it will be sustainable and a model for the future. But he is in no way working with the community. I think his ideas are admirable but he's going about it all the wrong way. He should have looked for a community wanting change and worked with them to make it better. It should be a collaborative process with compromise, not imperialistic.
One Vista Biz, called Medic, is developing a water-efficient toilet that also measures blood pressure, weight, and overall health by using sensors and sampling what passes through it. Hall hopes insurance companies will eventually cover the costs of installing such toilets at companies to track worker health.
This seems like a blatant invasion/abuse of privacy. Not to mention requiring people to give up their net worth and surrender all IP to live at the place.
The irony is that Vermont is already basically its own utopian community, where the culture is that development never gets approved unless it's being done by a resident of the state. Oh and you're not considered a resident unless you've been there at least generations. If Hall moves there now, maybe they'll let his great grandkids start building it. (If they can get the ski mountains to sell them any water rights, which isn't likely.)
The state is very far from being a utopia, and new development does get routinely approved (though it can be controversial). We do tend to oppose giant chains or people trying to push systems onto the state.
Utopia just means 'non-existent place.' Which I feel like fairly describes the state, given that they only survive by giving out tons of speeding tickets to non-residents and jacking up their property taxes.
I don't really feel like defending my state on Hacker News, but I would like a citation for the notion that we survive by giving out tons of speeding tickets. At the very least, income tax is a much bigger contributor than speeding tickets.
Mormons were persecuted and kept moving west to avoid persecution. As their new settlements became cities, people would get nervous again and push them out. Eventually, they simply packed up and moved west until they were outside of the Unites States (Utah was not a state at the time).
Utah became a state only after Mormons agreed to stop practicing polygamy.
Utah was a literal hell on earth: desert, rocks, salt lakes, extremely remote. Think Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote. Few Americans wanted it, so when the Mormons pushed their wheelbarrows (no shit!) there, they found no one disgusted enough with nontraditional Mormon family structures to run them off as previous communities had. The Mormons weren't super thrilled with Utah either, but through years of hard work they made it somewhat livable.
Without the mormons, Utah would likely be identical to Wyoming - barren and empty with no major airports, but perhaps an interstate or 2 to get you through as quickly as possible.
As a very active member of the LDS (Mormon) faith (former Missionary, active weekly attender, holder of a volunteer calling, etc), as a person who lives in Utah, and as someone with business and investment experience, I'll give a few thoughts. You can take them for what they are worth knowing my background.
First of all, in my area, people who talk like Mr. Hall generally scare the daylights out of us. I work with some rather wealthy Mormon investors (Peterson's, Sorenson's, Marriott's, Romney's) in a technical capacity and I have never run into Mr. Hall. But I have met plenty of people who believe they are resurrecting some idea from Joseph Smith. They generally use these sorts of ideological fallacies to attempt to extract investment money from well meaning but less than experienced middle class Mormon "investors" (read: retirees with 401k's and pensions). It's sad but in Utah one of the best places to find a crook or a fraud is in your church congregation.
Second, there was a time early in church history when Mormon's had a really hard time finding a safe place to live. There are a few reasons for this (in the world according to me, again take it with a grain of salt). In the early days of the church, Mormon's would ALL move together. Look at Nauvoo, IL, as a good example. It started out as a single road village that was in essentially the swamp lands along the Mississippi River and in no time grew to tens of thousands of people who all thought very similar to one another, and more importantly controlled politics together. That had to be scary for the residents of villages, counties, and states that we would move into. So people fought back against the Mormons. Of course there were also some horrible massacres against Mormons [1] [2]. Nevertheless, moving together, planning communities, and sustaining ourselves was a big deal at the time.
Now, things have changed. The church actively teaches that you are to build up the church community where you are. You are to participate in local and national politics according to your own conscious and education. We should not all gather in one spot but help in our communities bother civicly and religiously. I have not heard a Church leader in public or private in my lifetime even hint at the idea of moving together to a planned community or "Utopia".
One final note. Mormon's (myself included) are generally very conservative. There is no doubt about that. With that, one of the things that really stuck out in the article was this idea that anyone moving to this community would give up all they had for the greater good in some communist style ownership and profit sharing scheme. That is nearly laughable. Many of the more wealthy church members I know are generous and knowledgable philanthropists but they are not going to suddenly wake up and say "A ha! A scroll from Joseph Smith which says we should make planned communities and turn over all of our wealth to said community!" [3] Mormon's are conservative and often unapologetic capitalists.
This is either someones delusion or someones horrible scam.
[3] Yes there is some historical precedence for a communistic Mormon idea called the United Order, aka the United Order of Enoch, which is honestly where some of Mr. Hall's ideas came from. There are some within the Church who believes we will at some point live in this way. The idea is well outside of the scope of my comment here and suffice it to say, the United Order cannot be overseen by some random guy who read a document in a library.
>It's sad but in Utah one of the best places to find a crook or a fraud is in your church congregation.
That's true of many scams - and it applies everywhere, not just Utah. I've seen it happen.
It's easier to get people to believe in unproven lies when they are perfectly willing to believe in other unprovable things (basically the definition of faith). And no, that doesn't apply to all people of faith, but I would be willing to bet it's higher than more rational people.
> one of the things that really stuck out in the article was this idea that anyone moving to this community would give up all they had for the greater good in some communist style ownership and profit sharing scheme. That is nearly laughable.
I know you added a footnote to this but how is it laughable? That is exactly what the law of consecration was/is. It has never been denounced that I know of. It was postponed due to the saints inability to follow it. Afaik, mormons still believe that the law of consecration is a divine construct and will be brought back once the saints are faithful enough to obey.
> We should not all gather in one spot but help in our communities bother civicly and religiously. I have not heard a Church leader in public or private in my lifetime even hint at the idea of moving together to a planned community or "Utopia".
Really? I was always taught that in the last days all of the saints will be called to gather in Zion (Missouri). That sounds pretty similar. In fact I used to know people in the mormon church that had 50 gallon barrels of gas stashed away for when armageddon hits and they need to b-line it for Zion.
I know that what this guy is doing doesn't fit into the Mormon structure/hierarchy because it isn't coming from the top but it isn't that these ideas are coming from left field.
If you want I can provide sources for this stuff but anyone raised in the church has heard these ideas since day one and I know that you have too.
> I know you added a footnote to this but how is it laughable?
That's a good question and you are right. I also happen to believe in the Law of Consecration (aka The United Order of Enoch). However, the fact that Mr. Hall would suggest it is the laughable part.
It is exactly for the reason you stated "I know that what this guy is doing doesn't fit into the Mormon structure/hierarchy". Exactly. People can decide whatever they would like about my faith and my deeply held beliefs, as well as those of my religion. But my faith and beliefs go far deeper than "Someday we will live the Law of Consecration". My personal faith says that the structure and hierarchy of our religion is built and managed by God himself and that he will direct the work involved with the Law of Consecration in his own time and own ways and that I will know when that time is right because of my faith and closeness to Him. A random church member cannot bring about the Law of Consecration.
> Really? I was always taught that in the last days all of the saints will be called to gather in Zion (Missouri).
This is an interesting one. I wouldn't say I was "taught" this as much as I was told this from time to time by people who were, again, rather laughable. This is such a common LDS church myth that the church itself put out an explanation with some great references [1]. There are plenty of crazy people in the world, Mormon and non-Mormon. I have a neighbor who believes a 2 year supply (another suggestion the church gives) actually means a 2 year supply of ammunition for his firearms because he believes this will be "the only currency after the great destruction". I personally keep a two year supply more in line with what is suggested by Dave Ramsey. To each their own, I guess.
Now, just to curb some of the comments that I might receive from this. These are my beliefs and this is my faith which I have gained over a large swath of my life. I did not gain it randomly and I understand others might not believe what I do and may think I am crazy/delusional/"a sheeple" or whatnot. I understand you might not agree. I am fine with that, my faith doesn't require you to.
Thanks for suggesting this, that part was not clear to me at all.
That said, if you have to sign your entire net worth over to the collective for the time that you are in, maybe it's still "your capital" on the year-to-year timescale, but it's socialism on the day-to-day scale.
And I would also suggest that there is still room for coercion even if you are allowed to liquidate your holding. I was heartened to see that the option to leave is a feature. But that's a value that they would have to hold throughout every design decision for the community and the contract. It's one thing to say "people should be able to leave", it's another to repeatedly sacrifice other design goals to make it easy to do so. Where there is friction, it can add up to coercion.
That map drawn by Joseph Smith looks awfully similar to a 5280x5280 .PNG I made a while ago, minus the 6-lane expressway and the 5-lane arterial roads.
Based on that thought experiment, my opinion is that there is no way this guy is ever going to get a town of 20000 people in one square mile of Vermont and still sustain a modernized economy.
In my image, I tessellated a square mile into 9600 rectangles, each 88'x33'. 928 of those rectangles became 50'-wide arterial roads flanked by 8'-wide sidewalks. 320 of those rectangles became a 176'-wide expressway corridor with 8 double-crossover overpass interchanges to the arterial roads. (These road areas would also have utility conduits underneath the road surface.) The remaining 8352 lots have an identical access easement for 18'-wide streets, 20' on each side for perpendicular parking, and another 4' on each side for sidewalks.
I assumed 60% of building lots would be residential buildings, with average occupancy of 4 people per residential lot, for a maximum of 20045 residents, with a total of 15776 on-street parking spaces, and 223 of the 640 acres left over for parks, commercial buildings, and government buildings.
The image ignores potential geographical obstructions, so the only way you could get all 29 local access streets, all 8 arterial roads, and the expressway to go through is to build on flat, featureless land, as one might find somewhere between Wichita, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis. In Vermont, there's no way.
And if you are intending to build a city in America without reserving at least 1.8 parking spaces per household, you're going to have problems. Some of the non-residential lots would have to be dedicated parking lots or garages, because the non-residential buildings need more than 1.8 parking spaces per unit cell. About a third of your permanent "residents" are going to be cars, and half of your money-importing commercial visitors will be cars. If you plan your whole city around temples, rather than truck routes, sewers, and optical fiber backbones, you're doing it wrong.
I have my doubts about the social structure proposed, though that is interesting too.
However, the actual physical layout is pretty neat. Though I prefer that there be some provisions for existing vehicles rather than rely on pod technology that hasn't been developed / deployed yet. But I would definitely want to have any motor vehicles relegated be considered secondary users and their use kept at least a little inconvenient. Rather than with current urban planning, where vehicles are the primary user, and pedestrians are an afterthought.
Most Utopian visions eventually lead to Dystopian reality. The French Revolution is nice historical lesson in how seemingly good ideas can lead to the opposite.
I was just listening to the Mad Dogs and Englishmen podcast. In the most recent episode they point out that the American Revolution was different precisely because it wasn't a make-a-society-from-whole-cloth revolution like most, but a return to the ancient rights they had previously enjoyed as British citizens. In the French revolution, they changed everything including the calendar. The hubris involved in that kind of revolution rarely works out.
This seems like a control fantasy. Convince a bunch of rootless and naively optimistic folks to live in your planned community, where every aspect of their lives -- personal and economic -- is supervised, and they live in tiny boxes. Oh sure, residents are free to leave anytime, but will have to fight to extract their assets and may be shunned by their erstwhile friends, family, and colleagues.
> "...each plat should house 15,000 to 20,000 people within one square mile..."
15,000 to 20,000 people per square mile means 43.11 to 37.34 sq-feet/person. That is below the dimensions of most tiny houses.
EDIT: please correct me in a comment if I am mistaken.
5280'/mile
square mile is 5280' x 5280' = 27,878,400 sq'
27,878,400 sq' / 20,000 persons = 1,393.92 sq'/person
Yup - you are right. I was off by ~2 orders of magnitude. I took the square root one more time for no reason. I ended up calculating the length of the walls of the (multistory?) box you get to live in - 37.34' to 43.11'.
Seems off a square mile is 640 acres an acre is 43560sf. So 640 * 43560 / 20,000 = ~1400 sf of land per person. Multi story buildings would increase it, and area not part of buildings would decrease it. But, overall it's not that crazy.
My start up idea: Take all the social aspects of Mormonism, delete the theology (magic underwear), make gender roles symmetric, and allow gay people as long as they otherwise follow the rules. Then charge a membership fee, maybe keeping it under 10% of your income in order to remain competitive. Perhaps there can be an Uber-style app...
I think Mormonism/ LDS is possibly the most innovative social experiments in the USA in the last 200 years, even when stood up against such gems as the Land Grant Colleges, public schooling, public health, etc. You just have to see past the mystical bullshit (as you always must if you want to understand what is powerful in a religious movement).
He's probably crazy to be trying it in Vermont though. He'll have to import voters before he can get anything approved.
Maybe he just needs to listen to his PR people more. Downplay the Mormon angle, talk more about environmental efficiency, and pitch the communistic aspects—he might just get more sympathy.