Attached is the above document. I don't understand how this one fits into the mix of the previous documents, but it is chilling to me because it seems to be a copy of what the CCP has already done where they have built many mega cities in China, but the people are refusing to occupy them and prefer to live in the country. These cities appear to be abandoned from what I have seen on several TV documentaries about this. Why are huge cities necessary, anyway, and who wants to live in sterile boxes they laughenly call "condos"with enameled steel walls in high-rise concrete and steel buildings? Sounds to me like so many typical Communist promises of a "perfect society" where everything is free and there are no significant problems that cannot be solved by the central planners, but look at where all of these Communist countries are now. Their people are the least free there than anywhere else in the developed world.
If this is the future of the world, I don't want any part of it. I worked most of my life to move out of the city, into the country. Now the big developers such as D R Horton are building large subdivisions all around our area with houses so close to each other that you could spit out your window and hit the window in the house next to you. Huntsville is growing so fast that the developers must be paying outrageous prices for our cotton-growing farmland to accomplish this. I don't blame the farmers for selling, because most of this property has been owned by families in our area for generations, and this is a landfall moneywise for them because they could not make close to that amount from growing cotton on a few acres anyway.
What do you think about this possible new trend, Jim? Everett
Response: I am just getting in and have not read in detail but I have seen concepts like this before. The first was Edward Bellamy's book Looking Backward (circa 1890). It is about a man that fell asleep and woke up in the 20th century and saw how people lived. Their cities were somewhat similar with most of the people working. It was a light introduction into communism/communial living I think. It had good points and drawbacks.
Later I saw similar cities in rings designed by Buckminster Fuller (Circa 1990). One could order from delivery stores located there, automobiles not needed due to trams, etc. One ring was business and industrial sector. Other rings were residential towers, one parks and recreation, one farms and gardens, etc.
Both have advantages but only if they are optional to people and persons may choose them. Nothing is for everybody. But if their concept is that is for all citizens then we have a problem. Therefore, the ideas need to be explored but not mandated.
Remember this, in communism one is not free to leave. In freedom one is free to choose and rechoose at will. That is the difference. So in freedom if such a city fails to deliver people will sell out and leave.
See my website: CoOp Villages It is not communism. It is simply a way to work less and enjoy more of life and security, a way to break free of the Banksters.