Just finished! This book made me think so hard about the critical elements for viable cities.
You focus on two key kinds of autonomy - ownership (trust) and revenue (land rent). But I think we need to tease them apart. Which one really matters for which part?
I would argue that the “benefit of residents” part comes from the revenue being tied to happy residents, and that’s why ground rent/LVT is so important. What the Trust or ownership brings is long-term incentive structure, so there is an entity that cares about future asset values instead of just today’s revenue.
FYI, you write about the Bournville Village Trust and Senekw, but do note that Prospera ZEDE is a public special jurisdiction, managed by the Prospera Council which acts as a public trust, with the board lead by the Technical Secretary of the ZEDE (by law a Honduran, currently Jorge Calindres). It’s the trust that contracts with Prospera Inc (the corporation) to operate the jurisdiction. So it’s structurally very similar.
In my mind, ownership and land rent are ideal when they go hand in hand. You can have one without the other, but the combo is powerful. For example, Eigg is a trust that uses land rents. Eigg wouldn't be as great if it were a trust that couldn't earn revenues that are reinvested in the community. Many cities have land rents without ownership—like Shenzhen where the land is owned by China.
Prospera can be a trust without earning a revenue from that trust and then reinvesting those funds back into the community. (There are many trusts like this). That's why I pair the two together as an important function of utopian cities.
Interesting. You are looking for the re-investment, and the trust is a good vehicle to incentivize that. Makes sense. At this point, Próspera Inc is earning revenue, but it's reinvesting enough in the community that it's definitely not profitable. Once it's revenue positive, it will be interesting to see if it ups reinvestment for future value, or turns some of that profit over to Próspera ZEDE (and other shareholders).
Yeah, that's a good point. It's still early enough that perhaps Próspera will turn a profit and use that profit for the good of residents. But they might not be able to do that if they sell off all their property and only make money from a fee structure. Or if politics intervenes!
We so need this sort of vision and ambition. When I look around my town and compare it to how it looked 100 years ago I can hardly believe that we’ve let ourselves destroy all of its functional elegance and beauty. We are so much richer now, but our built environment is horrible. I did a little project myself on one little idea. To create new beautiful car free networks, that could become economic corridors https://open.substack.com/pub/greenwaysnetwork
I´d love to read about the utopian cities in America. I know Ciudad Juarez was close to Epstein´s ranch. Hundreds of victims. Well, Mexico has its reputation with trafficking and mass killing of young girls, regardless of Epstein. Then I think he was in Próspera city for business meetings. Then in Perú. There was a similar case in Nicaragua. A poor girl was raped and later killed (supposedly) by an american tourist. Case was dismissed after pressure from the USA government. The MO was the same in this case. Recruiting, raping and then disappearing the victim. I am curious now. Thanks.
Sheesh!!! Yes, I write about both Ciudad Jaurez and Próspera in this piece, but the first was build by developers and sold off as private property (with no security remaining in place) and the second one is essentially a corporation earning profits, not providing a good quality of life for residents/citizens. It was an interesting experiment, but I have better ideas for future ones.
Thanks Roman! I definitely think cities need to be upgradable so that future innovations can easily be plugged into our cities. I have a post about that in the series!
Just finished! This book made me think so hard about the critical elements for viable cities.
You focus on two key kinds of autonomy - ownership (trust) and revenue (land rent). But I think we need to tease them apart. Which one really matters for which part?
I would argue that the “benefit of residents” part comes from the revenue being tied to happy residents, and that’s why ground rent/LVT is so important. What the Trust or ownership brings is long-term incentive structure, so there is an entity that cares about future asset values instead of just today’s revenue.
FYI, you write about the Bournville Village Trust and Senekw, but do note that Prospera ZEDE is a public special jurisdiction, managed by the Prospera Council which acts as a public trust, with the board lead by the Technical Secretary of the ZEDE (by law a Honduran, currently Jorge Calindres). It’s the trust that contracts with Prospera Inc (the corporation) to operate the jurisdiction. So it’s structurally very similar.
Excited to see all these experiments play out!
In my mind, ownership and land rent are ideal when they go hand in hand. You can have one without the other, but the combo is powerful. For example, Eigg is a trust that uses land rents. Eigg wouldn't be as great if it were a trust that couldn't earn revenues that are reinvested in the community. Many cities have land rents without ownership—like Shenzhen where the land is owned by China.
Prospera can be a trust without earning a revenue from that trust and then reinvesting those funds back into the community. (There are many trusts like this). That's why I pair the two together as an important function of utopian cities.
Interesting. You are looking for the re-investment, and the trust is a good vehicle to incentivize that. Makes sense. At this point, Próspera Inc is earning revenue, but it's reinvesting enough in the community that it's definitely not profitable. Once it's revenue positive, it will be interesting to see if it ups reinvestment for future value, or turns some of that profit over to Próspera ZEDE (and other shareholders).
Yeah, that's a good point. It's still early enough that perhaps Próspera will turn a profit and use that profit for the good of residents. But they might not be able to do that if they sell off all their property and only make money from a fee structure. Or if politics intervenes!
We so need this sort of vision and ambition. When I look around my town and compare it to how it looked 100 years ago I can hardly believe that we’ve let ourselves destroy all of its functional elegance and beauty. We are so much richer now, but our built environment is horrible. I did a little project myself on one little idea. To create new beautiful car free networks, that could become economic corridors https://open.substack.com/pub/greenwaysnetwork
There's a reason why real cities struggle to build utopia!!! I talk about this problem deeply in this series.
Is it Próspera, Honduras? Epstein paradise. The rich may have another one in Mexico, Peru, Argentina. Probably Guacalito in Nicaragua.
As I mentioned, I do not think Próspera is paradise. We have much better options than that!
I´d love to read about the utopian cities in America. I know Ciudad Juarez was close to Epstein´s ranch. Hundreds of victims. Well, Mexico has its reputation with trafficking and mass killing of young girls, regardless of Epstein. Then I think he was in Próspera city for business meetings. Then in Perú. There was a similar case in Nicaragua. A poor girl was raped and later killed (supposedly) by an american tourist. Case was dismissed after pressure from the USA government. The MO was the same in this case. Recruiting, raping and then disappearing the victim. I am curious now. Thanks.
Sheesh!!! Yes, I write about both Ciudad Jaurez and Próspera in this piece, but the first was build by developers and sold off as private property (with no security remaining in place) and the second one is essentially a corporation earning profits, not providing a good quality of life for residents/citizens. It was an interesting experiment, but I have better ideas for future ones.
Congratulations! What are your thoughts on the wireless digitization grid / smart cities - good or bad idea?
Thanks Roman! I definitely think cities need to be upgradable so that future innovations can easily be plugged into our cities. I have a post about that in the series!