Founder here. Just now seeing this made it to HN yesterday.
Yes, you're right: it's political. The whole thing is deeply political. I worked in tech in SF from 2010–2020 and one of the big mistakes of the era, IMO, was pretending that certain topics weren't political. Or that they were no longer political because of "progress."
In 2020 my wife and I moved to rural Appalachia, where her parents live, because they were excited to help with childcare. Without getting into the pros and cons of city vs. rural living, or blue vs. red culture, I can confidently report that many (most?) topics tech people consider non-political are all people here want to talk about——because here those topics are considered THE MOST IMPORTANT political questions of our times.
I don't think I'm saying anything you don't know. I guess I'll just reiterate: you're right, it's political. And I'll add: As it's always been.
FWIW, my hope with New Athens is to strike a new balance that's wild enough to cause hard-core partisans to pause and think, get everyone thinking from first principals again about big issues that got stuck in the culture war trap, and, at the very least, be transparent about what we're doing so that people can self-select in or out in good faith.
I'm glad you're overt about this. And, my opposition here is not because of any issues with delivery of welfare by faith based organisations, the days of juice church to get the bums lunch is long gone. My concern is the ability of the state welfare budget to be cut because statutory rights to aide are replaced by voluntarism and discretionary spend which can be withdrawn at will.
The fight for the welfare state was a long battle in the UK, across the depression and war. Thatcher would have unwound it even more if it hadn't been electoral suicide and the same is true in the US, albeit diluted.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, really I'm just pleased this is overt and conscious.
Honestly, I'm a huge supporter of large-scale immigration. It just has to be legal. And I'd prioritize 2-parent families above everyone else. I can tell you're being snarky and maybe think I'm some Ultra MAGA character (I'd characterize the project as slightly center-right), but personally I think immigration is a fascinating topic and a powerful tool for social good (if done above board).
Also, I know some people on the right really are racist, but in my personal experience that's primarily a left-wing narrative. Most right-leaning people I know are not against immigration, nor immigrants themselves, and are not racist. They just want people to follow the rules.
And you may be reluctant to believe this, but from my experience living in a very poor, very white region of America for the last five years, right-leaning people actually do care about rules for rules' sake. Occasionally "law and order" is a dog whistle for racism or another -ism...but usually it's just an echo of a strict upbringing and a high value placed on respecting authority figures. Which might not be your cup of tea, but that's usually what's going through peoples heads.
I'm quite capable of snark and I wouldn't say that I was being particularly so, but maybe something adjacent to it. Mostly I think this is amusingly naive. America has a history of attempts to create utopian communities, but I'm unaware of any that have persisted for terribly long. I think the one I'm most fond of are the Shakers, whose biggest legacy is their carpentry skills which is a hobby of mine.
I didn't really get an explicit yes or no out of the above, but I take it to mean no? That's the interesting question to me - who would be allowed to join such a community, and if someone was discovered to be undesirable for one reason or another, what would be done with them?
Yea, the history is honestly pretty ugly. Lots of religious cults. And also billionaires with visions for a tech utopia of one flavor or another and, why, look at that—rich people won't have to pay taxes any more! I agree the Shakers are an exception though!
I think there are two ways to answer your second question.
Regarding people who entered the U.S. illegally, we won't be a sanctuary city.
Regarding who's allowed to join and what to do with "undesirable" people, the short answer is that anyone may move to the New Athens. Nobody is "undesirable" until they've been convicted of a crime. Then our justice system will determine the consequences, just like local justice systems do every day everywhere else in America.
I think the fact you asked the question is revealing though. Not of you, but of the kind of people who try to start cities. To be very blunt and just cut to the chase, a lot city startups, at least in American, are thinly veiled attempts by white people to get away from black people. And this isn't distant history: an article in the New York Times from less than a year ago covered a new housing development that's using clever legal tricks to only accept white residents—openly and brazenly. I know that some of my ideas sound right wing—marriage and children are themselves coded right-wing here in 2026—but it's not lost on me that many, many gated communities, and even non-gated suburban developments, if not the entire growth of suburban America in the mid-20th century, is just whites fleeing blacks.
At risk of leaping into 400 years of race relations in a comment to a comment in a small corner of the internet, my solution to "undesirable" people is the legal system. I'm sure there are billions of people on the planet who will roll their eyes and call me naive, including tens of millions of cynical white Americans, but count me a fan of the American tradition of assuming people are innocent until proven guilty. Due process, equal treatment under the law, the entire bill of rights—this is the way.
Insofar as groups of people in the U.S. are still trying to get away from other groups of people, I see that as a failure of the law and law enforcement. The obvious alternative to racial segregation is to make bad behavior illegal and put criminals in jail. Perhaps that means more people belong in jail? Perhaps. This is the path New Athens will take, not just because I personally like it and I'm kickstarting the city, but because the American legal tradition broadly warrants our gratitude, we should fight to keep it, and the best way to keep it is to invest in doing it well
I mean this in all sincerarity, if you're having that reaction, I invite you to join the waitlist to move to the city.
I've come to believe that people are mean and dismissive online (as you just were) not because they, and you, are mean and dismissive people, but because at a fundamental level there's nothing to do on the internet. The few things we manage to do, or build, or change online are a whiff of shit on the breeze compared to the adventure, meaning, and risk of interacting with real people in physical reality.
You will benefit from moving to the city because building something in the real world with people you depend on, and who depend on you, will make you a better, happier human. Please consider it.
Thats political.