Has there been a good charter city? I can't think of a single one. So, with that in mind, what has changed?
The proposed governance model is a foreigner gets control over a section of domestic soil, domestic individuals, makes the laws, and can bring in their overseers. This sounds like every other attempt at colonialism.
I'm just advocating for a government accountable to its people. A government not accountable to its people, sounds to me like an inherently poor idea.
Would you be ok with a CCP run charter city in the Nevada desert to mine for minerals? How about a CCP state-run enterprise controlled charter city in the Nevada desert? Or a Russian Gazprom controlled charter city in Alaska? How about one put up by a Russian oligarch? Each with their own immigration policy where the state and federal governments have limited oversight. Why is it distasteful here? I'm sure they would each argue the governance in rural America doesn't have the best track record.
This precise kind of charter city is a new kind of thing, but plenty of the closest existing or historical analogues have been successful, in as much as they've been more prosperous and more pleasant places to live than comparable cities that don't have such special treatment. Hong Kong. West Berlin. Danzig. Singapore. Shenzen. Shannon.
> The proposed governance model is a foreigner gets control over a section of domestic soil, domestic individuals, makes the laws, and can bring in their overseers. This sounds like every other attempt at colonialism.
If an unaccountable foreign entity really was running it as a possession, I agree that would be just as bad as you say it is. The positive version is if the city has first-class representation in that foreign governance. Compare somewhere like la Reunion, which is more prosperous and a better place to live than its comparable neighbours, because it's part of France, in a sense that I think is not usually understood as colonial (at least, one that is seen by its residents as positive, in a way that colonialism generally isn't).
> I'm just advocating for a government accountable to its people. A government not accountable to its people, sounds to me like an inherently poor idea.
I agree that accountability is important. I don't think central governments in developing countries are particularly good at it, to the point that I find it very plausible that a foreign-involved charter city could end up with better accountability.
> Would you be ok with a CCP run charter city in the Nevada desert to mine for minerals? How about a CCP state-run enterprise controlled charter city in the Nevada desert? Or a Russian Gazprom controlled charter city in Alaska? How about one put up by a Russian oligarch? Each with their own immigration policy where the state and federal governments have limited oversight. Why is it distasteful here? I'm sure they would each argue the governance in rural America doesn't have the best track record.
They would argue that, but they'd be wrong, wouldn't they, at least relatively speaking. The reason those examples are distasteful is, as hard as it is to make this argument without sounding naive, that the CCP and Russia have a poor track record of running governments for the benefit of their citizens, worse than rural America. Sometimes the details matter and we have to actually make a judgement about which actors are good and which are bad. I'd be perfectly OK with e.g. Norway or Switzerland sponsoring a charter city in Nevada.
Minor quibble re: Singapore, it wasn't exactly a model until it was kicked out of Malaysia (gaining sovereignty against its own will for what I believe is the first and only time ever) and was catapulted into modernity by Lee Kwan Yew.
> I'd be perfectly OK with e.g. Norway or Switzerland sponsoring a charter city in Nevada.
I think you'll find that a very unpopular opinion. America's dead set on not ceding Point Roberts after all - a tiny chunk of nothing accessible only via Canada that happens to be American due to a penmanship artifact. They get water from Canada and use the Canadian fire department. [1] Let alone carving out a portion of the contiguous states for the Norwegians.
The same system can also be used in reverse, for people who live nearby. This is especially useful for buying things from company that won't ship internationally at all, or who charge excessive fees for shipping internationally.
-Oh, Norway's already got Wisconsin, the Dakotas and Minnesota sorted - not to mention parts of Washington.
(It was surreal first time I found myself in Minnesota and a shop clerk accidentally toppled the bag she was filling with my purchase. -'Uffda!' she exclaimed, and I quizzically inquired, in Norwegian, whether she spoke Norwegian.
A second's blank stare followed, before she giggled and asked me whether I had assumed she was Scandinavian. Hence I learned of that Norwegian bit of cultural imperialism, 'Uff da!') [1]
Have you actually read Prospera's code? It's available online. Prospera is most definitely accountable.
> If it were built for the good of the locals it would just be built by the host government without an outside power, through partnerships and investment.
There are plenty of reasons a host government might want or need to credibly commit to noninterference. Areas with endemic corruption have had success appointing judges or administrators from far away who don't have local family/clan ties. Countries with weak credit that want to attract foreign investments will often issue debt in foreign currency and/or under foreign law. Countries with major divisions may invite foreign peacekeepers. Etc.
> If it genuinely is well-intentioned for the "good of the locals" then of course, well-off foreigners coming in and telling the locals what's what has a very long, and very poor track record. See: uh, basically anywhere.
Local government in these places also has a long and poor track record.
I'm sure there are good and bad charter cities, but I don't see any reason to think the concept is inherently terrible.