The Decent Idea Buried in Trump's Goofy 'Freedom Cities' Plan
The federal government owns the majority of land in states that have seen the biggest pandemic-era housing price spikes. Selling that land off for residential development makes abundant sense.

It might sound silly, but there's half a good idea tucked away in Donald Trump's proposal to create new "freedom cities" on federal lands.
"Past generations of Americans pursued big dreams and daring projects that once seemed impossible. They pushed across an unsettled continent and built new cities in the wild frontier," Trump said in a Friday campaign video.
The former president and current presidential candidate wants to bring this pioneering magic back by holding design contests for 10 new cities to be constructed on a small portion of the federal government's vast landholdings. The feds would vet submitted designs and then grant charters to the winners.
"These freedom cities will reopen the frontier, reignite the American imagination, and give hundreds of thousands of young people and other people, all hardworking families, a shot at home ownership and the American dream," declared Trump. He also announced his intentions to jumpstart a flying car industry, revive American manufacturing, and bring beauty and safety back to America's existing cities.
It's basically the grandiose MAGA version of the liberal "abundance agenda," which calls for America to build-baby-build until we have enough comfortably affordable housing to shelter one billion Americans.
Some of the proposals Trump outlined in his video are more ridiculous than others. As described, his vision of federally vetted and charted "freedom cities" certainly isn't a particularly libertarian—or practical—idea.
Like other products of the marketplace, cities tend to emerge naturally where they make sense. They require some matchmaking between geographic advantage, available resources, pre-existing industry or infrastructure, and more to really get going.
America already has a lot of cities and towns with jobs and housing. Anyone trying to build a new city from scratch needs to ask themselves why people would move there and what would they do once they arrive.
Trying to bootstrap a whole new city from scratch would almost certainly require a mess of incentives, subsidies, and industrial policy that would be anathema to anything deserving the name "freedom city." One need only look at Saudi Arabia's "The Line" project to see how badly off-track new cities can get when their government sponsors treat them like a Lego set.
All that said, Trump is correct when he notes that the federal government owns nearly a third of U.S. lands (28 percent to be precise) and that much of it is ripe for new development. Making that happen wouldn't require the feds to sign off on exquisitely designed charter cities. They'd just have to get out of the way.
The slightly less utopian but much more practical version of Trump's "freedom cities" is a 2022 bill from Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah), the Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter (HOUSES) Act. (I know.)
Lee's proposal would allow state and local governments to purchase federally owned lands at below-market rates for the purposes of building new residential communities. Jurisdictions buying the federal lands would have to agree to a minimum density of one home per quarter acre. They also wouldn't be allowed to purchase land located in national parks, monuments, wilderness preserves, or other protected areas. The U.S. Department of Interior would be approve the sales, with the revenue going to the maintenance of national parks, forest fire prevention, and public water infrastructure.
An August 2022 report on Lee's bill, published by Congress's Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Republicans, notes that the federal government owns a huge amount of land in Western states where home prices spiked during the pandemic.
Home prices increased 30 percent in Nevada and nearly 50 percent in Idaho from 2019 to 2021, according to the report. The federal government owns 80 percent of Nevada and 60 percent of Idaho. Much of that land is within the metro areas of Las Vegas and Boise.
The JEC report includes pictures of Las Vegas showing undeveloped federal lands surrounded by suburban subdivisions. Private developers would eagerly convert that land into new neighborhoods if they were allowed. The report's authors estimate that the HOUSES Act could lead to as many as 2.7 million new homes, growing the housing stock by as much as 15 percent in some western states.
The HOUSES Act sputtered out in the Senate last year. The Bureau of Land Management came out strongly against it. Lee has yet to reintroduce it this Congress.
If it did pass, it probably wouldn't produce the "freedom cities" Trump floated. But it could add a little bit of sweet freedom to existing cities in desperate need of new housing.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wonder where all those new Las Vegas houses would get their water from.
I bet 90% of that 80% federal land in Nevada is just about worthless for anything except military training. Sure aren't going to be building cities out there. Or grazing cattle.
You can also store nuclear waste on that land. For the two hundred power plants we desperately need to build.
OK, there's .001%. 89.999% to go.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link--------------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
I'm sure you could use some land for all of you adopted kids, right Angie?
😉
I would hope this single space in the Internet would be aware enough to understand that we don't have a shortage of water on the Colorado River but a gross mismanagement of resources.
80% of the water in the Colorado River area is used for agriculture which produces 2% of the economic activity. Arizona allows anyone to just put a well in and start sucking up water for extremely low-value crops such as hay. Enormous amounts of water are used for almonds.
If water was market priced for agriculture we would be awash in water. The $5B allocated in the inflation inflation act should be able to buy up 2M acre feet of water which would pretty much solve all of the problems as long as they made sensible water laws. 2M acre feet of water will house around 18 million people enough for a fair number of "freedom cities".
Within ten years precision fermentation will fallow millions of acres and we can finally get past this inane water problem that is made by politics and that politics and the news have no interest in fixing.
If those same crops can be grown elsewhere in the country where there is a more dependable water supply, perhaps it does make sense to think about phasing out water-intensive agriculture in California. Trying to grow these types crops in a semi-arid, Mediterranean climate is pretty stupid anyway.
The feds should not be allowed to own ANY land at all.
Not even the Capitol Building, or military bases?
Man, and people have accused me of being an anarchist!
I agree, not even the capitol building or military bases.
Lease the land and conform to the land-owner's lease agreement.
Plus there's just about nothing else the fedgov should even being doing other than the capitol building and military bases. So that's actually a pretty simple minarchy problem to solve.
Just checking -- sounds fine to me, except I don't think the government has enough to do that the legislature requires an office. All its business can be conducted even by snail mail.
now we're talking
ya I like all this.
absolutely
good job on taking it way too far
Hey tubby. How was your NAMBLA corporate retreat?
oh look, the usual ankle-biter brigade is back. kindly fuck off.
People who humiliate Jeff with facts and constantly make him sound like a retard are dismissed as "ankle-biters".
It's an attempt by Jeff to try and assume a superior position. If he wasn't an obvious moral monster and an idiot, and if he hadn't earned the animosity of everyone here, it might've worked.
says the communist on teh board.
Literally any reduction in gov for you is "taking it way too far"
lol communist
Me: I think the government should sell a bunch of federal land
You: If you don't support the government selling ALL of its land including military bases, then you are a COMMUNIST
Don't worry Jeffy. We all know you're a corporatist rather than a communist.
shutup fatso
Jurisdictions buying the federal lands would have to agree to a minimum density of one home per quarter acre.
Or to put it another way, no plot may exceed a quarter acre. So much for a decent yard.
What I want to know is, where are these federal lands in places that people actually want to live? I get it, most of Nevada is owned by the Feds and that is wrong, but I imagine if most of it was sold, it would not immediately turn into residential suburbia. It would be large ranches or wildlife preserves or strip mines or big parks or some other purpose like that.
Reminds me of when the Soviets would build a city in the middle of nowhere and say "Live here or else!"
Millions would want to live in Trump City.
Think of all the Trump statues and Trump malls you could visit. The Trump Cult would turn it into something like The Villages in Florida. All Donnie all the time. Anyone that is critical of Fatass would be locked up for one year minimum.
Their own little Rajneeshpuram.
So this is what a leftist circle jerk looks like.
It just needs Tony in the middle
Mike will be by in a few minutes to ask for a citation.
Nice!
You guys are the ones wearing red.
And your brownshirts are quite something too.
The land isn't necessarily the issue, although a lot of it on the Colorado Plateau, for instance, is worthless for large-scale habitation of anything except antelope and rattlesnakes. It's the water, or more precisely, the relative lack of it that is the issue. Any community would be instantly on the bottom of the barrel for water rights, because pretty much the entire American West practices prior appropriation. And no rights holder with any sense is going to even lease those rights off without getting massive bank for it. This is really the main reason why Trump's claim here is so stupid.
I think of where my dad lives, walking distance to Rocky Mountain National Forest. He occasionally has to have water trucked in from Boulder Reservoir to fill the cistern when the wells can’t keep up.
Hell, look at that subdivision near Scottsdale that can't get water delivered right now. And the real rub here is that probably 70-80% of what's actually used in the American West goes to agriculture, and extremely thirsty crops like alfalfa and almonds.
There was a historian, Hal Rothman, who spent the last few years of his life before he died from ALS arguing that cities and rural communities needed to sit down like adults and figure out a more reasonable water use agreement--cities were using water far more efficiently, but you still need farmland to grow food. There's really nothing like that anywhere except for maybe Las Vegas and Tucson.
What really needs to happen, and what I've banged the drum on before, is that the western states need to be redrawn along their watersheds and prior appropriation ditched entirely for a riparian system. Prior appropriation isn't even being fairly applied, because if it was, the Native tribes like the Utes and Pima would have first right to it, not Denver or the Imperial Valley.
Borders tend to mostly be what, rivers and latitude/longitude, right?
Easy shit to draw on a map.
What you say makes more sense. If you're going to have a governing body, have it be the sole referee over this natural resource.
Several western states are well over 50% owned by the federal government. Oregon, Alaskan, Idaho and Utah are majority owned by the federal government. Wyoming and California are just under 50% federal property and several other states are over 1/3 federal property. Nationally over 27% of the land in the USA is under federal control
The majority of the population is on the coasts. Most of the rest is near a river or lake. Would that describe the land owned by the federal government? Perhaps federal land exists because the owners couldn’t give the land away, so they got their Congressman to buy it.
The land in Oregon includes coastal areas and along the Columbia River as well as large forests.
Just about the only federal land that was purchased from a prior owner is the sites of federal buildings in cities. The rest of it was taken by force from native tribes. (That even applies to Alaska, the Gadsden Purchase, and the Louisiana Purchase, where we paid foreign governments and ignored the people actually on the land.)
But you're correct about one thing: Most of the federal land is still in federal hands because no one ever offered to buy it, and homesteaders would not even take it for free because they'd have to live on it.
Not necessarily, 16 homes on an 1/8 acre each means an additional 4 can built with 1/2 and acre each. Higher density developments like apartment complexes would allow for even more/larger single family homes plots.
And 1/4 acre is a decent yard I think, I have just under 1/8 and its pretty good.
I didn't think vertical. My last place was on a quarter acre and it wasn't much.
1/4 acre is 104 by 104 feet. Unless the house is huge, that's more lawn than I want to mow.
The idea is to force the land being used for high density urban areas such as Democrats basically always end up controlling. (There's a reliable association between voting habits and population density, and max 1/4 acre lots plunk you right in the "Democrats always win" zone.)
You might ask why Republican Mike Lee wants to make sure all these new communities are run by Democrats. He seems to have a good score from all the usual conservative rating organizations. Perhaps he just didn't think this through, or maybe it's a scrivener's error, and it was supposed to be a minimum lot size?
Or maybe the usual conservative rating organizations aren't actually all that conservative.
>>cities tend to emerge naturally where they make sense
been in Dallas 27 years and still can't figure out why people settled here.
You should visit Fresno, CA. I'm amazed anyone lives there.
It has a river.
does it?
Yes. Dallas was founded just below a major fork in the Trinity River.
Hahahaha, you sir are definitely a resident of this fine city.
I’ve never visited a city that actively tried to not engage the river from its inception forward.
^ This.
I used to live right next to it, but in fairness it's also not very impressive most of the time.
In fact, cities 'naturally' build on rivers or any other body of water for pretty obvious reasons. It's been that way for, oh, give or take 10,000 years now.
Yeah, even Phoenix popped up in the vicinity of the Salt River. If it was still in its pre-World War II state, it wouldn't even need CAP water.
Land for Cattle too.
For Charlene Tilton?
Why would it sound silly? Oh wait, I know why...
you're right, there is no way that anyone could possibly think that building ten fake cities in places no one wants to live (otherwise there'd already be cities there!) in, featuring flying cars and paying people to fuck and have kids, was silly other than pure hatred of Trump.
I would imagine that if I judged ideas based upon who said it as opposed to what was said, I might assume that when others criticize things said by someone I like it must be because of dislike. Not because of what was said.
You are getting so close to the meaning of your favorite malapropism.
I think there are probably a few places on federal land that a city could be build were it not federal land. The best plan seems to be make the land available for purchase and let developers buy what they think has value.
The biggest problem for developing cities are regulations and politicians and NIMBYs. There are a fair number of proposals out there for new cities and remote work will make them appear in time.
There is a reason why we are 5 million homes short nationwide and housing prices have skyrocketed.
This proposal clearly doesn't fix all of that but what is the downside to trying it out?
If Jacob didn’t want that to be the implication, maybe he shouldn’t have written the sentence the way he did?
Jurisdictions buying the federal lands would have to agree to a minimum density of one
homedrag show per quarter acre.I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
That's a lot of drag shows Joann Burch.
Color me shocked that the bureaucrats would rather protect their phony-baloney jobs.
Just sell the land, and the private landowners will develop it (or not) based on their own preferences.
Frankly, the government selling land is about the only realistic way they are going to get out of the huge debt hole they are in, short of straight-up default.
Nah, they'll get out of debt the old fashioned way: inflation.
Or nuke your creditors.
Right, because all that land is worth $30T.
I did a quick google and it looks like the value of federal land is around $2T. Barely enough to cover the deficit, let alone the debt.
Well, then I guess we're doomed.
Only savers. Debtors will come out fine since the money they use to pay back loans will be worth significantly less than the money they borrowed.
Ain't that the truth. My wife and I were financing some major appliances at 5%, we were making double payments until inflation blew up, then we just started making the minimums because we were coming out on top.
I got a 3% car loan in January of 2022. As much as I'd like the note to go away, minimum payments make financial sense.
Based on the Fed's assessment? Stop drinking.
I suspect they could get more out of that based on the mineral rights alone, but most of it is definitely not the kind you'd see as desirable for building large-scale communities. A lot of the pueblo ruins in the region are pretty elegant proof that even medium-size communities aren't sustainable there.
They will inflate away the debt. It's actually they're only option.
Everyone should have some holdings that are immune to inflation. This is why they hate bitcoin and gold. I look forward to them trying to make private gold ownership illegal again.
They only outlawed owning gold because of the gold standard. Once the dollar became a fiat currency it became legal to own it. I wouldn't invest in gold anyway. The way I see it it's a zero sum game because there's only so much of it. Getting a slice of the economic pie is better because when the pie grows, so does your slice.
Gold and Bitcoin are not even in the same universe of assets, for what it's worth.
Bitcoin's only value is what you ascribe to it, gold has value as an actual resource. Also, a solar flare doesn't erase gold.
regardless if crypto or gold can do it, you should have ways to avoid inflation
"They pushed across an unsettled continent and built new cities in the wild frontier,' Trump said in a Friday campaign video."
Damned Indian giver.
Do Not Fuck With Me Reason. We all know Orange Man Bad.
When I read about this speech this morning I thought it was a joke. Is this one of those aw shucks moments where we're not supposed to take him seriously? Does anyone think what he proposed is a good idea?
I much prefer a more organic form of free-market growth or development, to the type of central planning that seems to be what Trump is on about with these new cities.
However, as Christian stated, the federal land giveaway does not sound like a bad idea, in theory. Well, maybe they should sell it at market rate and pay off some debt (or buy something shiny that goes BOOM from Raytheon). They could get rid of half of the federally owned land pretty easily and not miss it.
You can't have any 'organic growth' on land that is specifically prohibited from developing. That's worth pointing out.
When I think of federal land I think of mountains and deserts. Places you couldn't develop if you wanted to due to terrain or lack of water. Maybe that's why the feds bought the land in the first place.
It's not. They actually own more than 50% of some western states, and it's not all National Parks, either.
Remember those crazy rancher / militia guys that were so bent out of shape the other year and took over that visitor center? One of the main things they were upset about was the feds owning all the land around them, and suddenly changing their terms and conditions for using that land for grazing and hunting and etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#/media/File:US_federal_land.agencies.svg
What was the land like? Were there any rivers nearby to support a population of people? Or was it mostly rattlesnakes and antelopes like Red Rocks said above in a reply to one of my posts?
Often what you think is based on total ignorance.
The difference between us is that I’m man enough to admit to being wrong because I’m interested in the truth, while you will double down when you know you’re wrong because to you it’s a contest.
Facts change!
I don't think the feds bought the land so much as never sold it after the territories became states.
Best solution is just make the land available for sale, and let developers/homesteaders/whoever buy whatever land they think is worth having.
I didn't think of that angle. Maybe they didn't sell it because nobody wanted it.
Nah. A bit after the Civil war the Federal government started to get land hungry, and just held on to huge tracts of the territories. Initially the excuse was that they'd parcel it out to homesteaders as the population increased, but that got shut down fairly fast, because the feds just didn't like the idea of letting go of land.
Why not the whole National Debt? Priced at the right starting bids, it could be done.
It's basically the grandiose MAGA version of the liberal "abundance agenda," which calls for America to build-baby-build until we have enough comfortably affordable housing to shelter one billion Americans.
Which, last I checked, expanding supply of housing is an actual solution to all the complaints about housing. Of course, it wouldn't be in the hipster part of San Francisco or Austin but cities like that have proven they aren't interested in building.
Also, last I checked, a new city won't have 100+ years of housing control ordinances and much less red tape. While it's absurd one would build a new city to get around that trash, I can at least understand the sentiment.
It's kind of pathetic it takes someone like Trump to state these facts, but he isn't wrong that it might be the easiest way forward with expanding housing. And since Reason wants to get rid of border and invite in the whole third world, it would seem irresponsible not to have housing for at least a billion immigrants...right?
Also, last I checked, a new city won’t have 100+ years of housing control ordinances and much less red tape. While it’s absurd one would build a new city to get around that trash, I can at least understand the sentiment.
He's not stating ANY of those facts. That is you projecting on to his speech what you think he meant.
There will, of course, be a Trump Tower, hotel and golf course in every one of those new cities. Contractors beware.
It would be much better if we were all forcefully moved into one of the 5-minute cities as planned for by the WEF. No driving or private vehicles allowed. Only sidewalks, bike paths, and public EV buses.
Voluntarily moving into one of the cities envisioned by Trump would be too much like a dictatorship.
Voluntarily moving into one of the cities envisioned by Trump would be too much like a dictatorship.
IDK, Trumptown would have flying cars.
But the environmentalists will find some endangered species on every plot, and tie the land up in court forever.
Contrary to popular belief; The 'feds' never did "own" that land but by Electing treasonous [Na]tional So[zi]alist - Representatives we no longer live in a USA. A "new woke" Nazi-Empire has conquered the USA right under everyone's noses.
Pretending the 'Feds' own 28% of the USA landmass is 100% putting 28% of the USA under Commie-Control. Add in the other factors of wealth redistribution, welfare, staggering tax rates, Commie-Education, Commie-Healthcare, and etc, etc, etc, etc.....
WE are the new USSR.
The Nazi-Empire *pretends* to own it because they won't title it. That's it. The Title Company refused to transfer ownership and held the land hostage for themselves.
soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively. Secondly, the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States. Thirdly, the right of the United States to the public lands, and the power of Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the sale and disposition thereof, conferred no power to grant to the plaintiffs the land in controversy
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html
It's a good thing you used that word "almost".
The obvious move here, actually, is regulatory arbitrage. If the Feds hold title to the land, the Feds can exercise exclusive legislation under the Constitution. So, for example, they could take a chunk of BLM grazing land and turn it into a city that offers a more-libertarian-than-California legal-regulatory regime just forty miles southeast of Santa Clara.
You want to bet on how successful, say, "The Federal City of Westphal Ranch", a new no-California-laws-apply city with reasonable proximity to Silicon Valley, would be?
(I mean, assuming that the Feds could manage to maintain a regulatory regime more sensible than the State of California.)
Maybe the Feds might have trouble actually selling title to the land in the zone without California law suddenly applying, but it would be pretty easy to construct a renewable-and-transferable lease agreement that de facto is just a modest property tax.
I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
If there is Federal land close to a small but growing city, that would make sense. New cities - well, for example, Brasilia is a fucking disaster, for a number of reasons, but one reason is that it was build in the middle of nowhere. Or perhaps I've read too much dystopian SF where engineered cities don't fare well. Regardless, "if you build it they will come" is the song of bankrupt developers across the US.
China has built several new cities, which are remaining unoccupied because there's no reason to move there.
OTOH, moving the government out into the middle of nowhere seems like a good idea - if you got them all there, then closed the airport and roads, cut the wires, and jammed the wireless.
This is a VERY bad plan, and contrary to the US Cinstitution.
FedGov are prohibited ownership/control of these lands already. HOW can letting out for bids and designs to what would have to be private developers to take the lands and make them into what THEY think they should become? And HOW can FedGov be the ones to pick winnders and dump the rest, and enabling such YUUUUGE profits on what BELONGS to the public already but is denied them to use?
FedGov must divest itself of ALL such illegally controlled lands and allow all such lands to cede back to the state within whose boundaries the land exists. Let each state deal with them as the PEOPLE of that state deem best through their elected representatives. Those lands belong to ALL of us and mist NOT be doled out to favourites to enrich themselves.
My friends makes 80-100 every hour on the internet..(SW-10) she has been without work for eight months but the previous month her revenue was 20,000 only working on the laptop 5 hours a day..
Check this……….>>>https://www.join.hiring9.com
Having lived out west growing up the general sentiment was the the Federal government owns way too much of the western states. The percentages are jaw dropping. The other sentiment is that much of the west also cherishes the wilderness and enjoys having access.
The notion of allowing the selling of federal lands will divide the residents. Getting the federal government out of the business of the state is very appealing. Selling huge tracts of land for development really depends on what land. It is reasonable to expand development in some areas, but the worry is that this will lead to development of areas that should be preserved as wild.
The fact is that a pack of imbeciles in Washington DC from a different state would be making the decision on what land would be sold.
A more intelligent method would be to have the states decide on the land within their state. This way the residents of the state have a chance of holding the officials accountable for their actions. There is zero chance that the pack of imbeciles in Washington DC would ever be held to account for flawed decisions.
Housing would be very affordable if only we would export 40 million illegal aliens.
Then who would build the houses?
A good idea so deeply buried, you had to dig into someone else's proposal to find it.