Another Blow to the Cause of Honduran "Free Cities": Future Cities Development Organization Closing Up Shop

Future Cities Development, a company dedicated to helping create "free cities" within the nation of Honduras to demonstrate the business and social advantages of competitive governance, has folded.

From their announcement:

In July 2011, Honduras amended their constitution[1] to create the world’s first free city program.  Passing with a vote of 126-1, the RED[2] program was intended to create new cities on empty land with semi-independent governance systems[3] under Honduran and international oversight.

Because we share a deep passion for innovative governance, we responded by founding Future Cities Development in August of 2011.  We saw the historically unprecedented program as a compelling and urgent opportunity to improve economic prospects for Hondurans and put our principles into action.

Unfortunately, the early political momentum for the RED program faltered, and the program’s implementation suffered a number of setbacks and delays over the last year.  These culminated in the October 18th, 2012 ruling by the Honduran Supreme Court that the RED legislation was unconstitutional, by a vote of 13-2.

As a result, we no longer see any imminent development prospects in Honduras. Since our funding was contingent on making substantial progress within a year, we are winding down the company and returning our remaining funds to our investors. We thank them for their support of our work towards a better world for all.

While we are saddened that the RED program did not materialize, we are proud to have participated and learned much from the experience. We remain convinced that free city initiatives are the most promising strategy for alleviating global poverty

Even before the Supreme Court's bad decision, the immediate prospects for getting actual "free cities" moving in Honduras were seeming grim. The government, after its initial hugely popular vote to theoretically create a RED program, failed to define the actual boundaries or locations of such zones, or get moving with official appointments of either a Transparency Commission or an executive governor for the project.

I blogged about the initial bad Supreme Court decision putting the kibosh on the Honduran private city idea in early October; that decision was merely by a five-judge panel, and was upheld by the full court later in October. That post also discusses controversy over whether a Transparency Commission was or was not officially created. Charter cities guru Paul Romer thought there was one, and that he was running it, though the Honduran government disagreed.

I blogged about the launch of Future Cities Development back in December 2011. It was founded by Patri Friedman, grandson of Milton and son of David, and already a pioneer in experimenting with competitive governance through the Seasteading Institute. I wrote at length about Seasteading, in Reason back in July 2009. Friedman is writing a book on Seasteading for Simon & Schuster.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Fuck Honduras. Somebody should try this here.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can't do that here. This is a free country.
    It is only free because you can't do much of anything without first asking permission or taking orders from someone in government.
    Take that away and the streets will run with blood.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I hate to ask this, but why exactly was this a 'bad' Supreme Court decision? Bad for liberty but was RED unconstitutional?

  • rts||

    Maybe if I RTFA this will be explained, but here's what I don't get:

    In July 2011, Honduras amended their constitution[1] to create the world’s first free city program.

    How can a constitutional amendment be found unconstitutional?

  • ||

    Because a court said so. Interpreting constitutions out of existence has been a trend unrestricted to Honduras.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Court spokesman Daniel Aguirre said the justices voted 13-2 Wednesday evening that legislation permitting the creation of special development zones outside the jurisdiction of ordinary Honduran law was unconstitutional, partly because it placed Honduran territory out of government control.
  • ||

    ANARCH!1

  • Robert||

    It wasn't the constitutional amendment. Apparently what was ruled unconstitutional was the implement'n, which despite the amendments must've run afoul of another provision of the constit'n.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Another Blow to the Cause of Honduran "Free Cities"

    Wow.

    Never. Saw. This. Coming.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Maybe I'm just cynical, but the Honduran govt would have started shaking down this development. The whole project would have folded quickly under the burden of buereaucratic payoffs and government extortion.

  • ||

    I think it's more that the Honduran government had second thoughts about allowing a competitor to exist.

  • sarcasmic||

    Exactly how would that make that government any different from any other?

  • ||

    How can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement