I really love this idea of starting with these smaller communities that have the space and some prior sense of community that enable them to become self-sustaining in this way. They help us see the necessary fundamentals, and I think examining the building blocks in this way allows us to see how it could work better on a larger scale.
I don't think any of this is as unique as you think.
I only wish some of your visions could be relied upon. Hing Kong was largely self-sufficient while Great Britain controlled it. Now, China controls it, and freedoms are being eviscerated.
In America, cities are self-sufficient to a large degree. So far as governments go, the local government is generally a much greater presences in a citizen's life than the state or federal government. So, American cities at least resemble you ideal. The trouble is, those local governments, more often than not, treat citizens like just so much chattel. So, now what?
Keep in mind that, in America, two parties control all governments at all levels. It wasn't meant to be that way, but it's the way it is. With almost no exceptions, a city council member or other city official, is more concerned with serving his party than with serving citizens. If a developer wants to deface a neighborhood with inappropriate construction, they bypass the citizens and go straight to the party in power. They make their deals, and the citizen can protest to their heart's content, but it will make no difference. Trust me, I am quite knowledgeable in this regard.
If you have viable solutions to this, I am all ears.
It's pretty unique. Not very many places own their own land and can turn their own profit from it. American cities are certainly not self-sufficient (well, except one of them). They have little to no control over how much money they make and certainly can't turn a profit, they rely on state and federal jurisdictions to do anything including taxation and zoning, and they don't own any land which makes it near impossible to build or do anything. Budgets and regulations all come from above them. But we'll get to all of that in the series—hold your horses!
First, why should cities own land, but not citizens?
Second, yes, cities can own land. Can and do. They own schools and parks and are not generally restricted from buying any land that they care to buy. Public/private partnerships are a thing, theses days, with governments owning the real estate, and businesses running whatever it is that they're running there.
Zoning within a municipality is almost entirely under the authority of the municipality. The municipality can levy income taxes and property taxes (depends on the state).
And who should be in charge of all this? I would say it should be primarily up to the citizens of the municipality, and it mostly is. They vote either directly or indirectly thru their elected council to levy taxes for schools, police, fire, parks or anything else they want to levy a tax for. One little problem: Citizens tend to disagree with each other. What some want, others reject. That's where Utopia goes straight to hell.
I think we might agree that the federal government should be involved in none of this, and state government only a little. I'd be glad to discuss THAT.
❤️
Would love to hear more about this!
I highly recommend Community Land Scotland, I spent hours reading this website in research, and there are so many incredible case studies!
ttps://www.communitylandscotland.org.uk/
Thank you for writing about Eigg. The story is so inspiring!
It really is!
I really love this idea of starting with these smaller communities that have the space and some prior sense of community that enable them to become self-sustaining in this way. They help us see the necessary fundamentals, and I think examining the building blocks in this way allows us to see how it could work better on a larger scale.
Good for them! My Scottish ancestors would be most pleased.
I don't think any of this is as unique as you think.
I only wish some of your visions could be relied upon. Hing Kong was largely self-sufficient while Great Britain controlled it. Now, China controls it, and freedoms are being eviscerated.
In America, cities are self-sufficient to a large degree. So far as governments go, the local government is generally a much greater presences in a citizen's life than the state or federal government. So, American cities at least resemble you ideal. The trouble is, those local governments, more often than not, treat citizens like just so much chattel. So, now what?
Keep in mind that, in America, two parties control all governments at all levels. It wasn't meant to be that way, but it's the way it is. With almost no exceptions, a city council member or other city official, is more concerned with serving his party than with serving citizens. If a developer wants to deface a neighborhood with inappropriate construction, they bypass the citizens and go straight to the party in power. They make their deals, and the citizen can protest to their heart's content, but it will make no difference. Trust me, I am quite knowledgeable in this regard.
If you have viable solutions to this, I am all ears.
It's pretty unique. Not very many places own their own land and can turn their own profit from it. American cities are certainly not self-sufficient (well, except one of them). They have little to no control over how much money they make and certainly can't turn a profit, they rely on state and federal jurisdictions to do anything including taxation and zoning, and they don't own any land which makes it near impossible to build or do anything. Budgets and regulations all come from above them. But we'll get to all of that in the series—hold your horses!
First, why should cities own land, but not citizens?
Second, yes, cities can own land. Can and do. They own schools and parks and are not generally restricted from buying any land that they care to buy. Public/private partnerships are a thing, theses days, with governments owning the real estate, and businesses running whatever it is that they're running there.
Zoning within a municipality is almost entirely under the authority of the municipality. The municipality can levy income taxes and property taxes (depends on the state).
And who should be in charge of all this? I would say it should be primarily up to the citizens of the municipality, and it mostly is. They vote either directly or indirectly thru their elected council to levy taxes for schools, police, fire, parks or anything else they want to levy a tax for. One little problem: Citizens tend to disagree with each other. What some want, others reject. That's where Utopia goes straight to hell.
I think we might agree that the federal government should be involved in none of this, and state government only a little. I'd be glad to discuss THAT.
I think you’re just going to have to wait and read the series. Because I discuss a lot of this coming up…..
Can't wait!