> 30 minutes north of san franscisco...

California won't allow building a park bench there, much less a new major city.

I think you are missing the point that there is a lot of free land. My question was why someone would bring up moving to rural montana, when most major cities are surrounded by uninhabited land.

California is a state. You might be thinking of Marin county, which surrounds only about 12 miles of the 101 freeway, so this is nonsense from multiple angles.

> My question was why someone would bring up moving to rural montana, when most major cities are surrounded by uninhabited land

I'll repeat my answer with less sarcasm: Because building new cities there is not legally allowed. It's physically, but not regulatorily possible.

You chose to ignore the actual point I was making that close ouskirts of major cities are still uninhabited and there is no need to go to 'rural montana'.

Any large construction needs to go an approval process, the article talks about the same thing. This article is about a giant project, the point isn't about any single place that would be more or less resistant. It is about the fact that large amounts of unused land with close proximity to major cities is common.

I think Lucasfilm found out how much a counterforce there is to building things. Also a community center...

You realize they have two buildings there right?

Still earthquake country