Straight answers

No. The design keeps private finances, outside jobs and businesses, and personal autonomy. Land and major infrastructure are shared and cooperatively stewarded.

No. Settlement Zero is not selling homes or lots. It is a cooperative model in formation, designed to keep memberships affordable rather than to profit from land.

No. Land and infrastructure must be financed. Work-to-own is intended to exchange approved contribution for a defined membership interest, not to create resources from nothing.

Resilient and renewable is the goal. A useful grid connection would not be rejected just to satisfy an off-grid label.

Not at first. Early food security comes from smart shared purchasing, with local production growing over time where it makes sense.

That is the objective of the work-to-own pathway, subject to legal, tax and economic design.

Where work legally counts as employment, it will be paid under applicable law. Any membership credit is tracked separately from wages.

The model avoids "all or nothing". Under the current proposal, credit vests after a 90-day probation, and someone who leaves during probation still keeps half of what they earned. Vested credit stays in your account and is paid out in instalments, or kept for up to five years in case you come back. The final rules will be written down before anyone starts work.

A cash pathway is contemplated, but final terms do not exist yet. Cash would not buy extra voting power.

Not selected. Site 001 will be chosen using water, legal, climate, land, agriculture and infrastructure criteria. Research so far includes southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico.

There is no opening date yet. The legal structure and Site 001 selection come before any construction commitment.

Current planning assumes about 20 Pioneers in the first year and a small crew of about 25 in years 2–3, growing toward about 100 memberships on 100–300+ acres, only as systems prove themselves.

The model is intended to support households, and family housing is meant to be designed in, not handled as an exception. Under the current illustrative proposal, one membership covers two people, and each additional person adds a share of about US$2,000 toward water, sanitation and kitchen capacity. A child's share can be deferred until they turn 18, so a couple with six children would pay the same US$25,000 on joining as a couple without children. Food and consumables for children under 12 are budgeted at half the adult rate. Final rules depend on the site and legal structure.

Pets are expected to be welcome within local law and site rules on vaccination, noise, waste and wildlife. Livestock is a separate agricultural decision. Service-animal law always takes precedence.

Yes. A dwelling is private space even though the cooperative owns the land. Entry needs your consent except for emergencies, legally required inspections or scheduled maintenance with notice.

No. The model does not depend on everyone sharing the same politics, religion or lifestyle.

No. Residential participation is being designed around use, occupancy and cooperative membership, not financial returns. No capital is being accepted.

Probably not under the current concept. The project is exploring cooperative membership plus durable occupancy rights; counsel will decide the final structure.

No. The model deliberately restricts speculative resale. A departing member receives value under a defined redemption formula and the membership returns to the pool.

Under the current proposal: 90 days' notice, a written statement within 30 days, then a lump sum within 6 months or monthly instalments over no more than 24 months. The value is your cash and vested work credit, indexed to inflation up to 3% a year, plus approved improvements. See Economics for the detail.

There is a plan for each stage. Today nothing is collected but sign-ups and donations. Later, any member capital would sit in escrow until land and approvals are secured. If the settlement ever wound down, workers are paid first, then lenders and suppliers, then members' cash and work credit equally, and anything left goes to another mission-aligned organisation. Early failure would still lose money, and the risks will be disclosed in full before anyone commits.

Yes. Members would pay published common charges for taxes, insurance, water, roads, shared energy, community buildings and reserves.

During formation and construction, a founding team. The draft charter then moves control to resident members, with one member one vote and no permanent founder veto.

The final legal structure has not been chosen. It will be designed with counsel before any residential contribution is accepted.

Nothing. It means we keep you informed and learn how you might contribute. It is not a membership, investment, job or promise of housing.