by Jeffery Rendall
We’ve all heard it: “You can’t make somethin’ out of nothin’.”
Or so it would seem, though president elect Donald J. Trump appears destined to try if his plan to create new American cities out of currently mostly barren federal lands ever comes to fruition.
You’ve probably heard Trump mention fashioning “Freedom Cities” before but might’ve figured he wasn’t serious about actually doing it especially considering such a massive undertaking as building whole new metropolises out of the wilderness or desert probably isn’t something most down-to-earth pragmatic folks envision doing on a regular basis. For those of us who’ve gone about overseeing the building of a new house realize it isn’t a task that can be done overnight.
The old saying “Rome wasn’t built in a day” has real shades of truth to it.
Yet, dreaming up “big” things and bringing the ideas to life is what Trump has done since a young age as a real estate developer. Trump seemingly took the attitude that nothing was impossible. I myself have seen a number of his buildings – and he’s designed golf courses (with huge Niagara Falls-like waterfalls), too.
There just aren’t many limitations when it comes to Trump. Can he do the practically impossible as president? In an article titled, “Interest in Trump’s ‘Freedom Cities’ Grows”, Nathan Worcester reported at The Epoch Times recently:
On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald J. Trump outlined many big plans, from achieving energy dominance to carrying out the largest deportation operation in American history. Now, as his administration begins to take shape, enthusiasm is building for Trump’s proposed solution to the housing crisis: chartering new ‘Freedom Cities’ using millions of acres of what is currently federal land.
“We’ll actually build new cities in our country again,” Trump said in the 2023 ‘Agenda 47’ video announcing his plan, which hinges on a contest to create up to 10 such cities…
The Walt Disney World Resort grew up in Florida’s Reedy Creek Improvement District, now the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The 1967 act that created Disney’s special district gave the company considerable autonomy over the remote swamp land that it acquired and developed—in the words of a University of Miami Business Law Review analysis, ‘authority generally reserved for municipal and county governments.’ That’s real sovereignty for the Magic Kingdom.
Yes, it is, and the State of Florida did battle with the Disney people in the last couple years seeking to rescind some of the entity’s sovereignty due to the company’s “woke” cultural intrusions and attempts to steer public policy – basically, sticking its mouse nose where it doesn’t belong.
But, at any rate, the concept of a “Freedom City” isn’t exactly brand new, as Worcester’s report points out. The Epoch Times reporter also details some of the problems involved with basically creating something out of nothing, a mission liberals would have never, ever thought up in the first place. Democrats are too preoccupied with making our current cities and towns unlivable with their immigration, economic, crime and social policies.
They’re too busy ruining the country to engage over the idea of designating semi-autonomous zones full of people who love liberty and are bent on leaving others alone to create their own personal versions of the American Dream.
But leave it to Donald J. Trump to champion such a futuristic yet doable hypothesis – basically, taking unused federally owned land and turning it over to the people to generate economic opportunity and alleviate crowding at the same time. In his introductory video, Trump informs us that only a very, very small portion of federal lands would be used for such a rededicated purpose, essentially a fraction of one percent of total acreage.
No, Yosemite National Park and Yellowstone aren’t in danger.
Still, there will be those who learn of the idea and hate it, not trusting human beings to be good stewards of God’s creation. These people see problems before anything is ever tried. Trump is a visionary; Democrats aren’t. They’re like the friend’s mother who says “No!” to any group idea because she’s afraid she can’t control the guidelines and who gets to attend the party.
What could easily ruin the concept of “Freedom Cities” is an unnecessary amount of “woke” restrictions on who can – and cannot – relocate there. Everyone familiar with the way government works understands that federal lawmakers and bureaucrats impose their own views on businesses in the form of regulations, etc. – rules that have nothing to do with the function of the business yet, through mandates, greatly increase the cost of operating those entities.
I recall a time from my youth when my father talked about how small mom n’ pop-type shops and restaurants had to close down completely because they couldn’t afford to fix a restroom on site to comply with the Americans for Disabilities Act. Even though only a microscopic percentage of their clientele would even need such accommodations, they would still be required by the bureaucracy to spend thousands of dollars so as to comply with the political dictates.
In other words, there just can’t be a “one size fits all” notion of entry into a Freedom City. This would also brush up against the concept of property rights and usage which is a fundamental tenet of this nation yet we continue to wrestle with when “smart growth” and “sustainable development” enter the picture.
Similarly, if Trump’s “Freedom Cities” are ordered under pain of arrest or heavy fine that x number of certain minority groups must populate the streets and avenues, there goes the concept of throwing open the door to any settler who may be inclined to uproot and move there. Ethnic and cultural “diversity” is a worthy goal – supposedly – but is it vital enough to have to scrub the entire idea if external factors prevent it?
One would think non-discrimination would be the law, meaning only objective factors and criteria could be used to determine who gets in or must wait to satisfy the entrance prerequisites.
The myriad of potential politician-inspired hurdles regarding “Freedom Cities” is endless, indeed. Whenever politicians get their grubby little hands and mouths around a good idea, things tend to go bad quickly. But again, this is Donald J. Trump we’re talking about, so perk up and pay attention.
A “Freedom City” just might be on the horizon.
If for nothing else, Trump’s proposal will initiate a conversation on the meaning of liberty
One frequently heard Democrat criticism of Trump during the recently concluded campaign was that he “didn’t offer any new plans or ideas” and he would therefore defeat the “progress” Democrats have made over the decades on their social agenda. You know, the feminist movement, “free love”, etc.
“We ain’t going back!” cackling Kamala Harris would lead her rally audiences in a repetitive chant. It got people stirred up, didn’t it?
What they really meant is they weren’t going to give up abortion up until birth on demand. And sometimes after. Democrats always make it sound like the post-war productive America and 1980’s economic boom were times to be ashamed of rather than fostering nostalgia.
Conservatives understood the Democrats’ claims were campaign tactics intended to scare the uninformed – the “low information” voters who often decide elections. Democrats were the ones who had no new ideas to offer the people on the economy, immigration, education, taxes, government reform, etc.
Moving forward means more than furthering the cultural deterioration of this nation. Trump’s DOGE will work on bringing the government into line and his agenda items like “Freedom Cities” will encourage Americans to dream big and strive to make lives better.
That’s the way Americans have always done it. Why not build some new cities? Let’s hope it happens.
– – –
Jeffery Rendall is a senior contributor to Conservative HQ.
