4 ms·

I think this is really fascinating and I'm bullish on the idea of charter cities (or variances on them), and Nevada desperately needs to transition away from de

I think this is really fascinating and I'm bullish on the idea of charter cities (or variances on them), and Nevada desperately needs to transition away from dependence on gaming/tourism for their revenue. That said, this hasn't passed the legislature and I will be very curious if it doesn't get held up in federal court - I'd be surprised if there weren't a fight from the feds about ceding this amount of power to a state.

tyleo 6y ago
It is certainly fascinating. However, I don’t think Nevada needs to transition away from existing industries so badly that it’s worth allowing governments of unelected boards and directors to run localities. What rights can we guarantee for individuals if they lack the right to influence there government?
- bobthebuilders 6y ago
  It's important to remember that federal governments have imposed the Bill of Rights and federal laws on company towns during the 19th century. Now whether the same will happen nowadays I'm not too sure - company towns did not have good reputations in those days...
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > Zone requirements would include applicants owning at least 78 square miles (202 square kilometers) of undeveloped, uninhabited land within a single county but separate from any city, town or tax increment area. I guess I'm not sure I see a big problem here. if you have a bunch of land that no one lives on and isn't currently being used for anything, you get to set up your own little county there. no one has to move there if they don't like the deal, and federal environmental protection rules would still apply. there's more than enough land to go around in nevada, if you can actually think of something worthwhile to do with it.
  - antattack 6y ago
    What about water, air and ground pollution? We have quite a few Superfund sites, abandoned by businesses that once made money and now we have to foot the bill for the externalizes.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      I have to admit I don't understand much of the fine details here, but I assume those rules exist mostly at the state/federal level? I would be surprised to learn that counties have a lot of leeway to allow environmentally damaging activities within their borders.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        Often the damage is already done before people find out about it and are able to impose penalties. And then you still have to spend taxpayer money to clean it up.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> I'd be surprised if there weren't a fight from the feds about ceding this amount of power to a state. Huh, I had exactly the opposite reaction. Ceding what amount of power to a state? The article says a company would receive the same authority that a county government already gets. That's authority the feds never had; they're not losing anything here. Which kind of defeats the purpose. How is it a charter city if it's still subject to all the same laws that it would be if it weren't chartered? The Lübeck model wasn't based on being allowed to staff the courts -- it was based on being allowed to write the laws.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Though probably not what the article was referring to, Nevada is a bit of a special case here because in the past they created a county (Bullfrog County) for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site. Ironically, what Nevada is proposing to do might actually make it easier for the federal government to store nuclear waste in Nevada as long as it was contracted to one of these new company counties, though the specific details of the legislation would need to be reviewed to know for sure.
- atlasunshrugged 6y ago
  Interesting, maybe I'm misunderstanding it but my thought process was basically that yes, a company gets the same amount of authority that a county government gets but where I disagree is where you say this is authority the feds never had. I think the feds would see it as they've essentially granted (or bargained) with the state so they can have this authority, I'm not sure they'd see it as within the state's purview to unilaterally grant it to another. My disagreement isn't that it'd defeat the purpose of it being a charter city, if the feds don't allow it it would indeed defeat the purpose. My point is that my immediate concern is that this draft bill may be challenged in court by somebody (name a government, tribal group, nonprofit, or NIMBY cohort) on the grounds that the state doesn't have that authority to grant these rights and that it should rest with the feds.
  - clairity 6y ago
cat199 6y ago
Can't find a link to any real bill / action - Article seems to make it seem like this is legislation - i'd be surprised if power to simply 'legislate' this is even consistent with the state constitution..
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I'd be surprised if there weren't a fight from the feds about ceding this amount of power to a state. Huh? No federal power would be ceded: this would be, were it to pass, the State allocating power that is already the State’s in a different manner than it has previously OTOH, there are some federal issues raised; many of the things corporations might salivating over using their new public powers for would likely raise 14th Amendment issues, and the lack of an superficial arm's length relationship between government and the private actor might make it harder to deny the improper purpose than it is in the case where officials are merely covertly in the pocket of private interests.

tyleo 6y ago

It is certainly fascinating. However, I don’t think Nevada needs to transition away from existing industries so badly that it’s worth allowing governments of unelected boards and directors to run localities. What rights can we guarantee for individuals if they lack the right to influence there government?

bobthebuilders 6y ago
It's important to remember that federal governments have imposed the Bill of Rights and federal laws on company towns during the 19th century. Now whether the same will happen nowadays I'm not too sure - company towns did not have good reputations in those days...
leetcrew 6y ago
> Zone requirements would include applicants owning at least 78 square miles (202 square kilometers) of undeveloped, uninhabited land within a single county but separate from any city, town or tax increment area. I guess I'm not sure I see a big problem here. if you have a bunch of land that no one lives on and isn't currently being used for anything, you get to set up your own little county there. no one has to move there if they don't like the deal, and federal environmental protection rules would still apply. there's more than enough land to go around in nevada, if you can actually think of something worthwhile to do with it.
- antattack 6y ago
  What about water, air and ground pollution? We have quite a few Superfund sites, abandoned by businesses that once made money and now we have to foot the bill for the externalizes.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    I have to admit I don't understand much of the fine details here, but I assume those rules exist mostly at the state/federal level? I would be surprised to learn that counties have a lot of leeway to allow environmentally damaging activities within their borders.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Often the damage is already done before people find out about it and are able to impose penalties. And then you still have to spend taxpayer money to clean it up.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> I'd be surprised if there weren't a fight from the feds about ceding this amount of power to a state. Huh, I had exactly the opposite reaction. Ceding what amount of power to a state? The article says a company would receive the same authority that a county government already gets. That's authority the feds never had; they're not losing anything here. Which kind of defeats the purpose. How is it a charter city if it's still subject to all the same laws that it would be if it weren't chartered? The Lübeck model wasn't based on being allowed to staff the courts -- it was based on being allowed to write the laws.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Though probably not what the article was referring to, Nevada is a bit of a special case here because in the past they created a county (Bullfrog County) for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site. Ironically, what Nevada is proposing to do might actually make it easier for the federal government to store nuclear waste in Nevada as long as it was contracted to one of these new company counties, though the specific details of the legislation would need to be reviewed to know for sure.
atlasunshrugged 6y ago
Interesting, maybe I'm misunderstanding it but my thought process was basically that yes, a company gets the same amount of authority that a county government gets but where I disagree is where you say this is authority the feds never had. I think the feds would see it as they've essentially granted (or bargained) with the state so they can have this authority, I'm not sure they'd see it as within the state's purview to unilaterally grant it to another. My disagreement isn't that it'd defeat the purpose of it being a charter city, if the feds don't allow it it would indeed defeat the purpose. My point is that my immediate concern is that this draft bill may be challenged in court by somebody (name a government, tribal group, nonprofit, or NIMBY cohort) on the grounds that the state doesn't have that authority to grant these rights and that it should rest with the feds.
- clairity 6y ago

cat199 6y ago

Can't find a link to any real bill / action - Article seems to make it seem like this is legislation - i'd be surprised if power to simply 'legislate' this is even consistent with the state constitution..

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I'd be surprised if there weren't a fight from the feds about ceding this amount of power to a state. Huh? No federal power would be ceded: this would be, were it to pass, the State allocating power that is already the State’s in a different manner than it has previously OTOH, there are some federal issues raised; many of the things corporations might salivating over using their new public powers for would likely raise 14th Amendment issues, and the lack of an superficial arm's length relationship between government and the private actor might make it harder to deny the improper purpose than it is in the case where officials are merely covertly in the pocket of private interests.