Hacker News Reader

Comment by morgante | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

"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.

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.'

That's not exactly nothing.

> 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].

[1] https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-...

(search the term "where they live" in the article)

[2] https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/06/saints-in-independence?la...

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.

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 also care about the environmental, social and fiscal consequences of major development projects in the state.

http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/permit-handbook/sheet...

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.

Vermonters seem resistant to change, no matter what. They like thinks just the way they have always been.

> 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).

This is very far from true.

Politically, Vermont went from being staunchly Republican to being staunchly Democratic. They're also much more open to changing norms, like embracing gay rights.

> 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.

> 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...

>You don't realize how just ugly and tacky billboards are until you live in a place without them for a few years...

I recently visited San Francisco and was appalled by the billboards. There's something very jarring about seeing internet memes on a billboard.[1]

[1] http://i0.wp.com/digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bill...

I wonder too if HipChat compensated the original artist.

I would guess not.

My tiny Canadian province doesn't allow billboards and yes they are very obvious to me when I travel.

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.

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 thought you people are all about freedom, independence, and property rights.

You were thinking about our Live Free or Die neighbors in New Hampshire.

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.

Vermont's Act 250 also likely precludes this development. http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/permit-handbook/sheet...

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?

Utah

And it's a district commission appointed by the governor that makes the decisions.

Meanwhile, why are people placing a harsh light on Mormons?

Go ahead and change the word Mormon to something else, and notice how repugnant everything becomes.

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.

There's a difference between integrating into the community and redefining it.

> 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].

1: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124819/

2: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705893/

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"

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?

Scientologist? Jehovah's Witness?

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.

I think the key is that it would be completely voluntary. Not many people are going to complain if you want to go off do your own thing.

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.

Vermont does already have the largest proportion of population of sovereign citizens in the nation. He may have picked it for that reason.

What's a "sovereign citizen"?

Shorthand for lunatic who believes that rule of law doesn't apply to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

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.

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.

Their motto: "Am I being detained?!"

please don't associate them with libertarians who don't condone violence let alone deception and theft.

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.

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.

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming

Wow, I didn't realize there were that many.

Alaska makes total sense, given that bears and moose roam populated areas. I'm surprised by the others.

All are characterized by free-roaming predators and very low population density. Seems unsurprising.

The same could be said for Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, and New Mexico.

Given that Wyoming has the lowest population density (of the 48 contiguous states, anyway), I sorta understand that one.

But given that a big chunk of the Arizona population is retirees, I'm surprised they haven't changed the carry laws yet.

There's no rhyme or reason or consistency to many US states' laws. I find it a bit bothersome.

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).

Because its not always convenient to carry a firearm openly - under a coat, in a holster for instance.

It doesn't make any sense. Rifles like you'd want for large predators or other animals aren't concealable.

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).

West Virginia, as of May 24, 2016

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/permitless-carry-now-law...

> 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.

So basically your solution is to have more money.

Or have less money

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.

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

Maybe @sama needs to take some hint from him for his new cities project!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com