Americans are now familiar with the iconic red and blue political map. The 2024 election results show, from a bird's-eye view, that much of the country's landmass is blood red, with blue predominating in the metropolitan centres. This urban-rural divide remains the most important factor in America's political polarization. Any policies we pursue must promote rural growth, not urban expansion. Supporters of Donald Trump need to be careful about where some people are taking his “Free Cities” vision.
Those on the right broadly agree that the federal government owns too much land in the West and should sell it to states and individuals. But the goal is to strengthen rural life in the Western states, not to urbanize the land with a “15-minute city” concept. Such structures are likely to attract liberal voters who support the idea and undermine the goal of promoting local empowerment.
The problem is not a lack of new construction. That is the soaring cost of construction due to inflation, driven by general debt.
President Trump announces plan In March, as part of Agenda 47, 10 “free cities” would be built on 3.2 million acres of federal land. Cities will be selected through a contest and the best development proposal will win. President Trump has suggested that the housing crisis is caused by a lack of supply, not inflation or monetary policy, and that building cities in rural red America could help solve it.
But with urbanist Doug Burgum leading the project and billionaire “tech bros” likely influencing its direction, the plan risks backfiring. It could introduce ideas of venture socialism that would act like a “nuclear bomb” on red America, turning red states into blue states. Instead of boosting rural growth, which could advance the World Economic Forum's “15-minute city” dream, it gets the MAGA stamp of approval.
Bringing tech-bro liberalism to red America
Wealthy technology entrepreneurs, driven by disillusionment with the Democratic Party's radical direction, played a key role in financing President Trump's election victory. But they are not full allies of the movement. Many remain socially liberal, supporting increased legal immigration and prioritizing high-tech public-private partnerships over cultural and political concerns.
“When we build new cities in America, we have the potential to create new industries and create a new middle class,” said Nick Allen, a technology entrepreneur close to President Trump. interview With the Epoch Times. Added Allen, a member of the Frontier Foundation, an organization that promotes these cities: ”
Well, that's exactly why I'm doing it do not have Optimistic. Incoming Interior Secretary Doug Burgum will likely oversee the plan. Burgum, famous urbanist A supporter of the “carbon neutral” agenda, criticized America Because it's “made for cars, not designed for humans.” He lamented the lack of “investment in building multimodal transportation infrastructure” and blamed rising home prices on cars.
As Governor of North Dakota, Establishment of Burgum The North Dakota Housing Initiative Advisory Committee called for a focus on “improving housing availability, affordability, and stability.” This is a phrase often used by planners promoting 15-minute cities and car-free urban bubbles. Burgum also kilbourne groupan organization dedicated to creating vibrant city centers and downtown revitalization.
Do we really want this “yuppie” mentality shaping the development of states like Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Idaho?
Economically, the plan mirrors China's “ghost cities” and could exacerbate the very factors that cause housing shortages and soaring prices. Injecting borrowed and printed cash into these projects expands the money supply and funnels loan guarantees and crony contracts to technology developers. result? Attracting liberal yuppies to red states while enriching venture socialists.
Advocates of the idea say they want to create autonomous and less regulated economic opportunity zones. But if these cities are less structured like rural farms, they could attract liberal voters and ultimately turn these red areas blue. Under the semi-autonomy plan, these cities would receive some direction from the Republican-controlled Legislature.
The truth about the housing crisis
The rush to build new homes is based on a false premise. Supporters say there is a massive housing shortage, while others say zoning laws are squeezing the housing market.
The reality is that even with the most liberal zoning laws imaginable, housing would still be unaffordable. General inflation and the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies create generational disparities in mortgage rates, lock in the resale market, and increase home prices.
Home construction remains strong, according to the National Association of Home Builders. Last 10 monthsbuilders issued 846,446 single-family home permits nationwide. This is a 9.4% increase from 2023. The number of homes under construction or already completed has reached its highest level since. 2007 housing bubble. Overall, the supply of new homes has increased by 70% over the past three years.
The problem is not a lack of new construction. That is the soaring cost of construction due to inflation, driven by general debt. The housing market has also been affected by the Federal Reserve's policies, which created an asset bubble by purchasing $2.5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. The Fed encouraged cheap borrowing by keeping interest rates artificially low for generations.
As inflation skyrocketed, the Fed quickly raised interest rates, creating a “death trap” for homeowners. Homeowners are now refusing to sell and mortgage payments have increased significantly.
Currently, budget deficits and inflation remain so high that even the Fed's recent rate cuts have not been able to lower mortgage rates. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which has a big impact on mortgage rates, has risen 85 basis points since the Fed cut interest rates by 50 basis points on September 19th.
Simply put, the housing crisis is caused by debt-driven inflation, not a lack of supply.
For the first time in modern history, new homes cost almost as much as existing homes. This is not a supply issue. It's an unnatural housing bubble and an interest rate cliff that has frozen the existing inventory market. Other small factors also contribute, but this remains the clear culprit.
Spending millions on building red-state cities will ironically exacerbate the very thing that causes the housing crisis: inflation. The solution is not to build more houses. We need to tackle inflation. If we need to reuse federal lands, we must prioritize quality of life over quantity. A better alternative to “Free City” is “Free Homestead”.
new homestead law
Rather than urbanize red-state America, a better plan would be to re-ruralize the country and encourage conservatives across the country to move organically to red states. The federal government should sell parcels of land ranging from 10 to 50 acres to individuals, allowing them to live and farm as needed. This would create the ultimate version of freedom: rural-based economic freedom zones.
Promoting rural land use could counteract the negative effects of the Farm Bill, which distorts markets in favor of certain crops. This approach would attract people aligned with rugged individualism rather than urbanization, making red states even redder.
By encouraging privacy and independence, we can avoid high-tech surveillance programs that threaten to turn America into a version of China. True freedom is found in wide open spaces, not in crowded cities.
Homesteading ended in 1979 with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which created the Bureau of Land Management. Since then, the Leviathan Bureau of Land Management has restricted the rights of farmers and ranchers, including the Bundy family, by closing access to private land and land that has historically been in public use.
Today, much of America's land is bought up by foreign actors, converted into green energy projects, or used for subsidized government crops. In some cases, compensation is paid to the landowner. do not have In order to operate agriculture, we artificially support the prices of agricultural products from large-scale farms.
If President Trump wants to usher in a new era of American prosperity, he should look to the past for inspiration instead of falling into the technocratic abyss.
