how is this any different than gun free zones and free speech areas?

f*&k that!

It just another form of control and more like a prison.

Not too jazzed about any government program to "Build" anything. There is a long history of government planned "from a greenfield" cities failing and becoming boondoggles.

First the Elections must be secure , fair and legal.
And all the swamp must be tried for crimes against humanity and treason. The Fed must be bankrupted and the Dollar pegged to gold. The Eurodollars declared worthless unless proven they were not illegally obtained. That said we do need a vision for the future and talking about having competition to find the best designs is a novel approach.lol
Nothing said by Trump is a negative imo.
This sounds like an idea that could be similar to a homesteading of federal land with a twist. I can see
Many benefits of working from scratch to build a city.

I watched Trump's speech on this and had mixed thoughts. Yes to the Fed giving up land to the people, but would this be another multi-trillion dollar government boondoggle in the end? Didn't China and North Korea build cities of no use? Good intentions here, but I'm sure the Neo Communists (Democrats) will have a lot of say and that will spoil the whole thing - let your imaginations run wild on that one.

not if democrats have any hand in them

This is facepalm material, but Trump has done us all a favor in revealing a.) that the driving force behind his entire mindset is pragmatism and b.) that he is oblivious to what ought to be that driving force: principle.

Where to begin? Morality of course. Everything about this proposal presupposes government planning, not free enterprise and individual choice. Government urban planning is not permitted by the United States Constitution, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the sole purpose for which governments are instituted among men in the first place, per the Declaration: "to secure rights." As Rand correctly pointed out, this means 1. The Armed Forces, to secure rights against foreign aggressors, 2. the Police, to secure rights against internal criminals (I was a crime victim just an hour and a half ago, as it happens,) and 3. the Courts, to secure rights via the arbitration of disputes and the enforcement of contracts. Nothing about "hold[ing] a contest to charter up to 10 new cities" in my copy of the Constitution. The fact that governments at levels Federal, State and Local do indeed engage in planning-by-force does not alter the fact, it just means government entities are flouting their Constitutional constraints. Trump ought to know this, but he either does not know or does not care.

Secondly is simple no-brainer logic: American cities and cities everywhere on Earth arose spontaneously by the free choices of individual people because their locations are central to trade, transportation and resources. Yes, the fact that government - again, extra-Constitutionally - has confiscated vast acreages of the people's land (not to mention truly mind-boggling areas of ocean,) is a factor in preventing development on those lands from the outset. But cities developed where they did - and failed to develop elsewhere - long before the government began its massive, repeated and multi-partisan land-thefts, and did so - or failed to do so - for a reason. Their locations make sense. Others don't.

Which brings us to number three: In proposing this idiotic scheme, using "a small portion of Federally-controlled land" - while utterly defaulting on the leadership needed to force government to divest of all such confiscated land (and ocean areas) - he only primes the collectivist crowd's backlash pump. If he keeps spouting this stuff it will provide the Left with a rallying cry for strengthening and solidifying the government's hold on these ill-gotten lands, not for releasing them back to the people to which they belong. It's almost as if that's his intent. "A small portion?" WTH

Fourth, and a related point, he apparently remains oblivious too to the United Nations' "Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030" plan, of which those land confiscations have been a key part and which massive land divestitures under a principled Republican leader would comprise a crippling blow against that UN "Agenda." But we've gotten pin-drop silence from him on the entire issue. His labeling his proposal as "Agenda 47" (whatever the "47" means,) is almost like thumbing his nose at us people who have been sounding the alarm on the UN's atrocious blueprint for global serfdom by the end of this century.

This idea is at once inexplicable and idiotic.
.

Asking the government for permission to do something is admitting that you have no rights. The government is not permitted to own land, except the 10 square miles for the seat of government. If the government owns and controls land then the people are not free. The government indebts your land without permission and then forces you to pay property taxes to prevent eviction.
Trying to tinker with the current system and hope something beneficial happens is a waste of time and resources.

Not a chance, not even with Trump, as he never gets the right people. Gult's Gulch, could only be private, government soon corrupts anything it touches, then lies about it. Even Wright's Broadacre City, never rally came into being as planned. We would need a serious revanp of our government to even plan such a thing. Instead, we are seeing the complete loss of personal repsonsibility in each new generation.

I took some interest on The Donald's comments on this. First, it will never be allowed to happen because he brought it up. But, it's a nice idea coming from a candidate for the highest office...

A Quantum Leap. Oh dear! The perils of having studied physics!

In the 20th Century the quantum-leap concept was popular. (Physicists now use other terms instead.) The amount of energy for a single quantum leap was perhaps one tenth of an attojoule. Wanna know how much that is? "Atto" means 10 to the negative 18th, and a joule is one watt-second. Still mystified? Physics homework beckons. Get out your dusty books that languish unread on that shelf in the basement.

So it's a term for something that's very, very tiny being misused to mean something rather huge. Yugely, perhaps.

It actually serves its purpose well, though, because anything Trump says is designed to create controversy. It's how he can live in your head, or nearly anybody's, almost totally rent free.

I like the idea of the federal government releasing land into the private sector for development. But government shouldn't dictate how that development happens. Government-planned cities always fail.

The issue of federal land has always bothered me. For one thing, if the federal government was to get out of the "business" (monopoly) of controlling money and the issuance of currency, it would have to have some asset it could use to compensate the holders of government currency. What else does it have besides federally owned real estate (including national forest and national parks)? Does anyone actually believe the federal government still has a gold reserve?

Therefore I'm skeptical about piecemeal privatization of federal assets. They should be kept as a last reserve in case the people ever see the light and demand the government quit the money/banking business. Unless people with paper dollars get something for them if the government quits, there will be a lot of extremely angry people who will know they've been cheated.

This intense discussion has led me to wonder just exactly what this group would do to establish a thriving Gulch. For myself, the basic move would be a plainly stated Constitution for a Constitutional republic. The simple document would limit terms, make any property illegal to own by the very limited government, except for the few square miles of the capitol city. There would be no Federal Reserve running the show, there WOULD BE a gold standard, the yearly budget would be balanced and strictly adhered to, no bill would pass with more than one item to deal with. Tax would be a local/state sales tax--no tax on property sales, food, medicine, fuel, delete irs, no minimum wage. Even if with the Objectivist philosophy we all share, there is a huge variation in how we all see a functioning Galt's Gulch. The Freedom Cities will never fit their intended purpose. I plan on posting an Ask the Gulch on just this subject.

Having grown up in an inner-city housing project, color me jaded.

First, I LOVE the concept of starting over.
We know that we can design houses that use 70% less energy by design. This is well worth the investment. Next, we CAN design much much better environments to live in...

But from the guy who brought us the VAXX...

What's the difference between a Trump City, and a 15 Minute City?

The person selling it? The Price? Because I don't see a difference otherwise!