Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,131,933 times
Reputation: 57755
Advertisements
"Build it and they will come" may apply to a baseball field among the cornfields, but no one wants to live in the middle of the desert, trapped in a city hours away from any other civilization.
"Build it and they will come" may apply to a baseball field among the cornfields, but no one wants to live in the middle of the desert, trapped in a city hours away from any other civilization.
Tell that to people in Las Vegas and Phoenix. Two of the fastest growing cities in the country.
Tell that to people in Las Vegas and Phoenix. Two of the fastest growing cities in the country.
it's questionable whether those cities would be started from scratch today under conditions of severe drought while other major cities and agricultural business already are in place with the political power to demand all the water in the region.
As to relocating to a place close to the geographic center, which is located (in a 1918 survey) at 39°50′N 98°35′W, in Kansas about 2.6 miles (4.2 km) northwest of the center of Lebanon, approximately 12 miles (19 km) south of the Kansas-Nebraska border... why not?
I would put it in Salina, KS. It's pretty close to the geographic center, and it is already served by two interstate highways.
"Build it and they will come" may apply to a baseball field among the cornfields, but no one wants to live in the middle of the desert, trapped in a city hours away from any other civilization.
Not that I really see the point of this new city, but if one were bound and determined to build a new city in the Southwestern desert, I would put it at Cove Fort, Utah. It's served by two interstate highways (I-15 and I-70), it's somewhat greener than other areas in the desert, and it's not an unreasonable drive from Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and even Denver.
Tell that to people in Las Vegas and Phoenix. Two of the fastest growing cities in the country.
That's about ALL this city has in common. People went to Las Vegas and Phoenix for a reason - they had jobs there!
China has over 50 massive cities just like the one being discussed. There is virtually no one in those cities, which were built with state money and intended to show "massive growth" to the rest of the world. Now Chinese population is decreasing and real estate is decreasing in value. Looks like trouble ahead.
But if he can get backers other than US government, then go for it; it's his money.
Love that futuristic looking airplane flying around....
Let's imagine relocating the nation's capital from foggy bottom, to a new central location we will call City of Jefferson, District of New Columbia.
Well, we already have a City of Jefferson. It is located on the Missouri River and is the capital city of Missouri.
This proposed new city can be built in Canada. They could probably use it. Kansas is too risky due to tornadoes and such. The cows won't want to give up their homes. There is no place in the "American desert" for it.
Although planners are still scouting for locations, possible targets include Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas and the Appalachian region, according to the project's official website.
There's no desert in Appalachia. And parts of those states aren't desert, either. Did anyone bother to scan the link?
2) Odds of this actually happening? Somewhere between zero and nada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
Well, we already have a City of Jefferson. It is located on the Missouri River and is the capital city of Missouri.
Half the states have a city or town called 'Jefferson'. Wisconsin alone has five of them. Portland, Maine and Oregon? Rochester, New York and Minnesota? Have you seriously never noticed that city names are not limited to one?
Half the states have a city or town called 'Jefferson'. Wisconsin alone has five of them. Portland, Maine and Oregon? Rochester, New York and Minnesota? Have you seriously never noticed that city names are not limited to one?
FYI, This one is specifically and officially the "City of Jefferson".
Thanks for posting.
I went to the link, and right at the beginning, it says
"capturing the increase in land value in a city and using it to provide social services."
The "residents" will be able to "participate in the decision-making and budgeting process." A community endowment will meanwhile offer residents shared ownership of the land.
They don't differentiate between citizens and residents. So, who controls the government?
The land will be owned by a non-profit. A non-profit, I assume, that will be controlled by a self-selected Board that he will initially fill, and probably control
The only way I can see the "non-profit" making enough money to provide social services by "capturing the increase in land value" is by raising rents. No one will own anything (shades of World Economic Forum "You will own nothing and be happy!" (If you're not familiar with that phrase, go to a search engine and be enlightened).
So if they are not going to realizle the increase in land value by making a profit when they sell, how WILL they make the money to provide social services to all the ones who come, looking ofr a free handout?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
