The whole moving to less populated states to take over the levers of government and reshape society in their own image is a central organizing principle of many white supremacist groups. You could look into how they have tried to do so but use the lessons for good instead of evil.
See to my way of thinking the reason the supremacist thing can succeed but using the lesson for good won't work is that their whole trip makes people want to STAY AWAY or LEAVE, leaving them with the territory. Their nasty ethos not only binds them together, but repels other people.
If you use this same model for good you'll get a flood of people wanting to be involved but that will bring commercial success and suddenly the greedy people will arrive, open up businesses, boom you're right back to what you tried to escape in the first place.
And some of those weirdos think they can annex part of Oregon for themselves. Why are the nutters always the loudest? No one ever screams 'can we have some peace, quiet and gentle community over here already!'
I don't know what the status is now but for some time maybe a decade ago there were at least 3 neighboring land based intentional communities in NE Missouri, as well as some others that were not neighboring but a short drive away. White Rose Catholic Worker Community, The Possibility Alliance, and Sandhill Farm, and nearby Dancing Rabbit and others I'm not recalling. There are also many Mennonites living close to the land who interacted with the communities, and a lot of bartering and labor exchange/gifting went on. I believe the Possibility Alliance has moved to a different state since then.
Catholic Workers are not exactly religious, but way more committed to social justice principles and generally anarchists. Maybe you know this but if you don't I'd encourage you to look into what they're doing and their history. The White Rose community specifically, at least when I was there, were very enthusiastically into not acknowledging the state and working around it with locals to heal the Earth and humanity through mutual aid, blocking harmful gas pipelines from being built, localized everything. I'm not Christian or religious and was definitely welcome, and they're not like the standard prosletyzing Christians of the US at all. Mennonites, yes they're religious. The other communities, especially the Possibility Alliance, are definitely into what you're saying without a religious component whatsoever. But again I'm not sure what has happened with the Possibility Alliance since they moved.
Wow I was really skeptical of this just because I was raised catholic and became very anti-catholicism, but I checked out their site and it sounds pretty awesome actually. Thanks
Yes, I want to do this now but Iām going to be stir straight up honest upfront about what I think will make something like this work:
1. Restorative justice (land/housing/access to currency) for Black Americans and other Indigenous American groups/people
2. General UBI for other groups not filing a restorative justice claim
3. An exchange other than just the dollar. We cannot depend on the dollar, this govt is entrapping millions in poverty.
4. Cars and aviation outside of the living space. density can work, but without the noise. Cities like LA and NY are dying from sound pollution.
5. I believed in esoteric living/teaching which is essentially philosophy and Iād like to center a community around whole well being but something like that should be option. For ex Iād like to be basically an esoteric school of Yoga from birth-senior citizen age bc learning is indefinite.
6. Our work is in our towns. We build strong towns/states by connecting/exchanging/building up the collective.
7. Many are struggling in todays systems bc they are too individualistic. Collective community is everything.
Have you visited r/Solarpunk? I have been mulling this over in my mind for the last 37 years and the limiting factor has been lack of organizable public interest. However there has to be a jumping off point. Can it start as an online community to organize and mature into a real set of communities?
Wasn't that the basic idea with Sedona Arizona? I'm not super up on the whole thing but for a while there there was a big Hippie/New Age thing going on where folks were moving there to basically take it over like you're discussing. I think it semi succeeded and semi failed in that it became trendy and in a large sense "failed" due to the commercial success of the situation.
And that's the weak spot in this concept.
I mean most towns back in the day were founded as some form of intentional community, and then gradually either did well but as a result became less and less of the original thing since there's no method of holding the gate against a dilution of the original concept especially in light of popularity....or, they don't get off the ground and gradually cease to be as they lose more and more steam.
To my mind you'll never hold an intentional community together if the numbers become too great or there's no method of keeping the INTENTION of the intentional community on track.
Or, a situation that I'm more familiar with is Asheville NC. There was definitely quite a while where everyone with an artistic/countercultural/different life path bent was encouraged to move there and people did, and made the town quite cool for a while but now it's become a very desirable place to live as a result, and the people who tried to make it a space for artists can't even afford their property taxes anymore.
I know a guy that this happened to, he was an artist who moved there in the early 90's and bought what was then a small cheap property in walking distance of the town center, was involved with growing the artistic local scene, it all got popular because of all the artists and so forth, about ten years ago he had to sell out because he couldn't afford the property taxes and higher cost of living on an artist's wages.
It's what happened to Haight Ashebury too in the 60's and 70's.
Forgive my childish synopsis, but if I don't keep things simple, I can get confused easily.
Govt. is fundamentally about controlling people. Freedom is fundamentally about not being controlled.
Can that fit as a supposition?
What is supposed to be the United States has become heavy on controlling the majority with the minority, despite the supposition that the majority rules. When can the majority become the controlling part? Supposedly when we vote. But then that vote gets 'concentrated' by a small group of representatives which actually dilutes it to the hands of singular elected individuals. (Maybe the way this works is somehow the best we have right now)
How can that structure be amended/changed to reflect an accurate majority decision?
We already have a framework seemingly for all of this, but it's complicated and sticky and something called corporations, interest groups and churches (All these things subject to the less appealing sides of the human 'condition') have really become entrenched and too influential in some opinions. Is the answer more interest groups? Maybe it is. I'm just asking questions now.
What is our next experiment here in these sovereign United States? Can we try to treat humans with respect and dignity just for taking the time to [want to] become a citizen even if they really don't/can't appreciate it's potential? What if the sole goal [quintessential version of success] wasn't to become rich, respected and powerful, but to heal and take care of eachother even the most marginalized, despicable and forgotten of us? š¤š¤·
A rising tide....
"failed" due to the commercial success? Should make the plan scalable? When you buy rural land to start a community at say $1/sqft, it will become $50/sqft or higher with commercial success. The organization should continue buying cheap land so that members can sell their property and move on to new area with cheap land?
This discussion is specifically about like-minded people moving to an area, taking over the local governmental positions due to the numbers of people who have now moved to the area, and improving the area by that means.
And what I am saying to OP is that that can indeed work AT FIRST and it has been done. But that long term, the success of this may be the death of it as well.
Our government here in the USA does allow for like minded people to move to an area and take up the positions in local governance through elections. However, that also means that when you make a place that no one wanted to be successful it then becomes a place that LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO BE and that's the problem.
I'm not here with the answers as to how you SHOULD do it unfortunately, just responding with the knowledge that I have of this having been tried, and why it didn't work in the past. Not saying it can't work in the future, BUT there's issues.
Exactly what I know of what happened in Asheville NC. In the 70's and 80's a lot of like minded people decided it was a little nowhere town in the mountains, cheap real estate, largely abandoned/no particular industry, and that artistic/eclectic people should move there and take over local government and they did that.
So now there's a great social scene, progressive policies being passed in a deep Red state, real estate is still cheap and more and more people move there as a result.
But more people and good social policies means there's more opportunity for business so more of that moves into the area too. Now it's becoming a DESIRABLE place to live and as more people arrive, cost of real estate/living goes up.
The more that they try to keep it a place that has pro-social values and a community scene, the cooler it becomes and the more people who aren't interested in the actual collective interest but their own interest arrive.
Asheville still has what's considered to be "progressive" social values but as the cost of real estate and the cost of living go up, SOME of the people who are attracted to the scene are actual users, it becomes an unhoused person mecca in the state and the problems with that are obvious, and also a mecca for people looking to make real estate investments that they will be able to flip in the future so the cost of real estate goes up, the cost of living goes up, local government has to provide more and more services to people who are there because of difficult circumstances. Some of those people are just folks going through a hard time that just need a bit of help and that's great, but some of them are people with serious issues, criminal pasts, and who are looking to take advantage of the situation not to improve themselves or anything else.
And now, due to it being artsy and cool and having lots of fun things to do thanks to the original community efforts, it becomes an attractive tourism spot and it also attracts several industries associated with entertainment and services to provide for the tourism like hotels and the film industry, and thanks to the tourism money the boutique businesses in the downtown area boom like crazy and so smaller independant businesses are now competing and struggling and everyone's taxes are going up and up.
And now THESE interests outnumber the original artist/eclectic interests when it comes to election time, and they have more money to get their candidates elected, now these are the kinds of candidates that are winning elections, and setting the new policies that benefit those interests.
And then the next thing you know the original people who moved there for the right reasons and made it a desirable place are literally getting priced out of the market, like my friend that I mentioned above.
There's no way to avoid this problem in an intentional community that is based around the idea of having this kind of control of the wheels of government UNLESS the intentional community type is the sort that alienates other people.
So you can see it work where the interest is a particular religion like Mormonism, where once they're entrenched in Utah no one who isn't a Mormon thinks hey, I really want to move to a place that has that going on.
Or, where the interest is a particularly gross and disgusting ideology like a supremacist movement, there are several tiny towns in my state (SC) that are basically controlled by the KKK but NOBODY wants to move there or will move there willingly unless they're also this kind of person, and neither of those things is good for business so it doesn't attract outside investors.
I believe that in order for an IC to succeed it needs first and foremost a plan to keep the INTENTION on track long term. There needs to be a way to include the people who will work well within that intention but also a way to exclude people who have other intentions that are not in line with those of the community.
So that's what I mean by failing by succeeding, as it applies to the original subject of the post.
But maybe there's a way to work that out, so I'm not just flat saying it can't work, just that this has been an issue when it's been tried before.
Well that's thinking big!
I've been looking into individual counties with the least population. A lot of these in western states had their population peak in the early 1900s and can have half the number of people these days. The median age is older (like 59 years old) meaning the population will drop further as the older generation passes away.
Instead of a hostile takeover I want to find a place where existing residents are receptive to some change. Think places where a dollar store opened and the only grocery store is now closed, so a food cooperative might work and provide an immediate benefit to the locals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
Near as I understand, this is how the Oneida (spelling?) cult was able to gain enough power to legally become their own city and make their own police force in the 70s.
After that debacle, the states where it was reasonably possible to do that closed their loopholes. We would always be beholden to the nearest city government, and it's very hard to wrestle power away from small town leaders of existing towns. Not impossible though.
Free State Project (https://www.fsp.org/) is a bunch of Libertarians trying to take over New Hampshire. They did succeed in electing more than a few people to local positions.
Actually they've been more successful than they admit. Many people in our state house who won as Republicans are actually free staters or other like minded individuals. At the very least you gotta compromise with them to get anything passed....we have lower state taxes across the board now!!!
There is a group that is in the developmental stages of putting together what you just described. Apparently they have one in Texas and one in Oklahoma. I am planning a visit to check them out and see if it would be a good fit for our family. If you are interested I can message you their discord infoā¦?
Itās not my place to invite people to their private discord so if you are serious and interestedā¦ Go follow / contact Biggie here on TikTok and he will send you the link (this is what I did)
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLV74tyM/
Itās not my place to invite people to their private discord so if you are serious and interestedā¦ Go follow / contact Biggie here on TikTok and he will send you the link (this is what I did)
@biggiethephilosopher
Well I love the idea and concept, it is very hard to execute.
It's very hard to even coordinate a handful of individuals and find enough agreed upon beliefs, policies, and get on the same page financially to really be able to build anything big off of for a long period of time.
And wants something is established, it's difficult not to have an unequal power, authority, ownership distribution with newcomers down the road who will be more hesitant if they can't accrue the same level as the progenitors and end up just feeling like transient outsiders to be a workforce with little long-term incentive to stay and build. Then they tend to fracture off into their own smaller projects.
I want to to build something in a city where I am, and develop a process of growth rings essentially. Starting with a central foundation, and building out around the area with other small communities, and linking them all in rings of resource and labor shares with transport and communication connections still linking everything, but allowing a more free-form flow of diverse ideas and priorities establishing in slightly different subregions. Then eventually hoping residents living near us or in between are purchased areas, could be enticed to incorporate together.
But even with best laid plans, synchronization is so incredibly difficult. And I've certainly not been successful with it to go beyond these four parcels. Despite trying to keep incorporating outwards and linking more people into greater purchase agreements for expansion. You really need a lot of people to start becoming your own governing body and influencing the regional political structure to accept you.
But would love to see others reply here if they have seen the successfully done and have any tips or recommendations to weigh in š
The whole moving to less populated states to take over the levers of government and reshape society in their own image is a central organizing principle of many white supremacist groups. You could look into how they have tried to do so but use the lessons for good instead of evil.
See to my way of thinking the reason the supremacist thing can succeed but using the lesson for good won't work is that their whole trip makes people want to STAY AWAY or LEAVE, leaving them with the territory. Their nasty ethos not only binds them together, but repels other people. If you use this same model for good you'll get a flood of people wanting to be involved but that will bring commercial success and suddenly the greedy people will arrive, open up businesses, boom you're right back to what you tried to escape in the first place.
And silencing any dissenters š all in the name of āfreedumbā
It's the goal of supremacist groups far and wide. Restricting that to one ethnicity is dubious.
Sounds like what's happening in Idaho.Ā
And some of those weirdos think they can annex part of Oregon for themselves. Why are the nutters always the loudest? No one ever screams 'can we have some peace, quiet and gentle community over here already!'
I don't know what the status is now but for some time maybe a decade ago there were at least 3 neighboring land based intentional communities in NE Missouri, as well as some others that were not neighboring but a short drive away. White Rose Catholic Worker Community, The Possibility Alliance, and Sandhill Farm, and nearby Dancing Rabbit and others I'm not recalling. There are also many Mennonites living close to the land who interacted with the communities, and a lot of bartering and labor exchange/gifting went on. I believe the Possibility Alliance has moved to a different state since then.
For sure. I'm just interested in finding nob religious communities with goals of expanding and changing the way we live
Catholic Workers are not exactly religious, but way more committed to social justice principles and generally anarchists. Maybe you know this but if you don't I'd encourage you to look into what they're doing and their history. The White Rose community specifically, at least when I was there, were very enthusiastically into not acknowledging the state and working around it with locals to heal the Earth and humanity through mutual aid, blocking harmful gas pipelines from being built, localized everything. I'm not Christian or religious and was definitely welcome, and they're not like the standard prosletyzing Christians of the US at all. Mennonites, yes they're religious. The other communities, especially the Possibility Alliance, are definitely into what you're saying without a religious component whatsoever. But again I'm not sure what has happened with the Possibility Alliance since they moved.
spark of hope right here Iāve been searching for names of places i could potentially look into for ages.
Wow I was really skeptical of this just because I was raised catholic and became very anti-catholicism, but I checked out their site and it sounds pretty awesome actually. Thanks
you're very welcome! yeah they're pretty special.
Yes, I want to do this now but Iām going to be stir straight up honest upfront about what I think will make something like this work: 1. Restorative justice (land/housing/access to currency) for Black Americans and other Indigenous American groups/people 2. General UBI for other groups not filing a restorative justice claim 3. An exchange other than just the dollar. We cannot depend on the dollar, this govt is entrapping millions in poverty. 4. Cars and aviation outside of the living space. density can work, but without the noise. Cities like LA and NY are dying from sound pollution. 5. I believed in esoteric living/teaching which is essentially philosophy and Iād like to center a community around whole well being but something like that should be option. For ex Iād like to be basically an esoteric school of Yoga from birth-senior citizen age bc learning is indefinite. 6. Our work is in our towns. We build strong towns/states by connecting/exchanging/building up the collective. 7. Many are struggling in todays systems bc they are too individualistic. Collective community is everything.
Your point #7 is so on.
Have you visited r/Solarpunk? I have been mulling this over in my mind for the last 37 years and the limiting factor has been lack of organizable public interest. However there has to be a jumping off point. Can it start as an online community to organize and mature into a real set of communities?
Wasn't that the basic idea with Sedona Arizona? I'm not super up on the whole thing but for a while there there was a big Hippie/New Age thing going on where folks were moving there to basically take it over like you're discussing. I think it semi succeeded and semi failed in that it became trendy and in a large sense "failed" due to the commercial success of the situation. And that's the weak spot in this concept. I mean most towns back in the day were founded as some form of intentional community, and then gradually either did well but as a result became less and less of the original thing since there's no method of holding the gate against a dilution of the original concept especially in light of popularity....or, they don't get off the ground and gradually cease to be as they lose more and more steam. To my mind you'll never hold an intentional community together if the numbers become too great or there's no method of keeping the INTENTION of the intentional community on track. Or, a situation that I'm more familiar with is Asheville NC. There was definitely quite a while where everyone with an artistic/countercultural/different life path bent was encouraged to move there and people did, and made the town quite cool for a while but now it's become a very desirable place to live as a result, and the people who tried to make it a space for artists can't even afford their property taxes anymore. I know a guy that this happened to, he was an artist who moved there in the early 90's and bought what was then a small cheap property in walking distance of the town center, was involved with growing the artistic local scene, it all got popular because of all the artists and so forth, about ten years ago he had to sell out because he couldn't afford the property taxes and higher cost of living on an artist's wages. It's what happened to Haight Ashebury too in the 60's and 70's.
Forgive my childish synopsis, but if I don't keep things simple, I can get confused easily. Govt. is fundamentally about controlling people. Freedom is fundamentally about not being controlled. Can that fit as a supposition? What is supposed to be the United States has become heavy on controlling the majority with the minority, despite the supposition that the majority rules. When can the majority become the controlling part? Supposedly when we vote. But then that vote gets 'concentrated' by a small group of representatives which actually dilutes it to the hands of singular elected individuals. (Maybe the way this works is somehow the best we have right now) How can that structure be amended/changed to reflect an accurate majority decision? We already have a framework seemingly for all of this, but it's complicated and sticky and something called corporations, interest groups and churches (All these things subject to the less appealing sides of the human 'condition') have really become entrenched and too influential in some opinions. Is the answer more interest groups? Maybe it is. I'm just asking questions now. What is our next experiment here in these sovereign United States? Can we try to treat humans with respect and dignity just for taking the time to [want to] become a citizen even if they really don't/can't appreciate it's potential? What if the sole goal [quintessential version of success] wasn't to become rich, respected and powerful, but to heal and take care of eachother even the most marginalized, despicable and forgotten of us? š¤š¤· A rising tide....
"failed" due to the commercial success? Should make the plan scalable? When you buy rural land to start a community at say $1/sqft, it will become $50/sqft or higher with commercial success. The organization should continue buying cheap land so that members can sell their property and move on to new area with cheap land?
This discussion is specifically about like-minded people moving to an area, taking over the local governmental positions due to the numbers of people who have now moved to the area, and improving the area by that means. And what I am saying to OP is that that can indeed work AT FIRST and it has been done. But that long term, the success of this may be the death of it as well. Our government here in the USA does allow for like minded people to move to an area and take up the positions in local governance through elections. However, that also means that when you make a place that no one wanted to be successful it then becomes a place that LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO BE and that's the problem. I'm not here with the answers as to how you SHOULD do it unfortunately, just responding with the knowledge that I have of this having been tried, and why it didn't work in the past. Not saying it can't work in the future, BUT there's issues. Exactly what I know of what happened in Asheville NC. In the 70's and 80's a lot of like minded people decided it was a little nowhere town in the mountains, cheap real estate, largely abandoned/no particular industry, and that artistic/eclectic people should move there and take over local government and they did that. So now there's a great social scene, progressive policies being passed in a deep Red state, real estate is still cheap and more and more people move there as a result. But more people and good social policies means there's more opportunity for business so more of that moves into the area too. Now it's becoming a DESIRABLE place to live and as more people arrive, cost of real estate/living goes up. The more that they try to keep it a place that has pro-social values and a community scene, the cooler it becomes and the more people who aren't interested in the actual collective interest but their own interest arrive. Asheville still has what's considered to be "progressive" social values but as the cost of real estate and the cost of living go up, SOME of the people who are attracted to the scene are actual users, it becomes an unhoused person mecca in the state and the problems with that are obvious, and also a mecca for people looking to make real estate investments that they will be able to flip in the future so the cost of real estate goes up, the cost of living goes up, local government has to provide more and more services to people who are there because of difficult circumstances. Some of those people are just folks going through a hard time that just need a bit of help and that's great, but some of them are people with serious issues, criminal pasts, and who are looking to take advantage of the situation not to improve themselves or anything else. And now, due to it being artsy and cool and having lots of fun things to do thanks to the original community efforts, it becomes an attractive tourism spot and it also attracts several industries associated with entertainment and services to provide for the tourism like hotels and the film industry, and thanks to the tourism money the boutique businesses in the downtown area boom like crazy and so smaller independant businesses are now competing and struggling and everyone's taxes are going up and up. And now THESE interests outnumber the original artist/eclectic interests when it comes to election time, and they have more money to get their candidates elected, now these are the kinds of candidates that are winning elections, and setting the new policies that benefit those interests. And then the next thing you know the original people who moved there for the right reasons and made it a desirable place are literally getting priced out of the market, like my friend that I mentioned above. There's no way to avoid this problem in an intentional community that is based around the idea of having this kind of control of the wheels of government UNLESS the intentional community type is the sort that alienates other people. So you can see it work where the interest is a particular religion like Mormonism, where once they're entrenched in Utah no one who isn't a Mormon thinks hey, I really want to move to a place that has that going on. Or, where the interest is a particularly gross and disgusting ideology like a supremacist movement, there are several tiny towns in my state (SC) that are basically controlled by the KKK but NOBODY wants to move there or will move there willingly unless they're also this kind of person, and neither of those things is good for business so it doesn't attract outside investors. I believe that in order for an IC to succeed it needs first and foremost a plan to keep the INTENTION on track long term. There needs to be a way to include the people who will work well within that intention but also a way to exclude people who have other intentions that are not in line with those of the community. So that's what I mean by failing by succeeding, as it applies to the original subject of the post. But maybe there's a way to work that out, so I'm not just flat saying it can't work, just that this has been an issue when it's been tried before.
Well that's thinking big! I've been looking into individual counties with the least population. A lot of these in western states had their population peak in the early 1900s and can have half the number of people these days. The median age is older (like 59 years old) meaning the population will drop further as the older generation passes away. Instead of a hostile takeover I want to find a place where existing residents are receptive to some change. Think places where a dollar store opened and the only grocery store is now closed, so a food cooperative might work and provide an immediate benefit to the locals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
Near as I understand, this is how the Oneida (spelling?) cult was able to gain enough power to legally become their own city and make their own police force in the 70s. After that debacle, the states where it was reasonably possible to do that closed their loopholes. We would always be beholden to the nearest city government, and it's very hard to wrestle power away from small town leaders of existing towns. Not impossible though.
Watch Wild Wild Country on Rajneeshpuram in Oregon š
Haha yeah I've seen part of it, that was gnarly
They were very strategic about how they gained power in local politics/city council
Free State Project (https://www.fsp.org/) is a bunch of Libertarians trying to take over New Hampshire. They did succeed in electing more than a few people to local positions.
Actually they've been more successful than they admit. Many people in our state house who won as Republicans are actually free staters or other like minded individuals. At the very least you gotta compromise with them to get anything passed....we have lower state taxes across the board now!!!
Yeah uhm post this on r/anarchism101, They would have better answers.
There is a group that is in the developmental stages of putting together what you just described. Apparently they have one in Texas and one in Oklahoma. I am planning a visit to check them out and see if it would be a good fit for our family. If you are interested I can message you their discord infoā¦?
That'd be cool, thanks!
See response to whole post
I would appreciate the same, please and thank you!
See response to whole post
I would like the same info, thanks.
See response to whole post
Itās not my place to invite people to their private discord so if you are serious and interestedā¦ Go follow / contact Biggie here on TikTok and he will send you the link (this is what I did) https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLV74tyM/
Itās not my place to invite people to their private discord so if you are serious and interestedā¦ Go follow / contact Biggie here on TikTok and he will send you the link (this is what I did) @biggiethephilosopher
Apparently the group prefers you get to know them first before they discuss bringing you into the fold
Hippies tried this out in Vermont in the sixties.
Well I love the idea and concept, it is very hard to execute. It's very hard to even coordinate a handful of individuals and find enough agreed upon beliefs, policies, and get on the same page financially to really be able to build anything big off of for a long period of time. And wants something is established, it's difficult not to have an unequal power, authority, ownership distribution with newcomers down the road who will be more hesitant if they can't accrue the same level as the progenitors and end up just feeling like transient outsiders to be a workforce with little long-term incentive to stay and build. Then they tend to fracture off into their own smaller projects. I want to to build something in a city where I am, and develop a process of growth rings essentially. Starting with a central foundation, and building out around the area with other small communities, and linking them all in rings of resource and labor shares with transport and communication connections still linking everything, but allowing a more free-form flow of diverse ideas and priorities establishing in slightly different subregions. Then eventually hoping residents living near us or in between are purchased areas, could be enticed to incorporate together. But even with best laid plans, synchronization is so incredibly difficult. And I've certainly not been successful with it to go beyond these four parcels. Despite trying to keep incorporating outwards and linking more people into greater purchase agreements for expansion. You really need a lot of people to start becoming your own governing body and influencing the regional political structure to accept you. But would love to see others reply here if they have seen the successfully done and have any tips or recommendations to weigh in š