4 ms·

> As much as I'd love to work for a FAANG, retire early, and buy a large house in an idyllic mountain town, I'd hate for that same town to loose its historical

> As much as I'd love to work for a FAANG, retire early, and buy a large house in an idyllic mountain town, I'd hate for that same town to loose its historical roots and what makes it that special idyllic mountain town in the first place. It's already arguably happened; fruit orchards and irrigation turns were big part of the milieu in Orem/Provo a few decades back, and they're all but absent now, and in general the Wasatch Front has taken a dramatic turn away from agriculture in the last 30 years. It's easy to imagine the metro areas like the Bay and Los Angeles like they've always been that way, especially if you're younger than the internet. But if you look at early/mid-century maps or pictures you realize that there was still a great deal of open space and agriculture mixed in. It doesn't take a genius to realize similar changes are coming along regions like the I-15 corridor. California problems follow California popularity.

dendrite9 6y ago
I assume you know about the orchards of Silicon Valley? It's an interesting bit of history to me. I didn't realize the same thing was happening along the Wasatch Front, but it makes sense. E: forgot the link https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/the-last-of-his-kind-farming-fruit-in-the-silicon-valley/ https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/the-last-of-his-kind-f...
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  And the orchards of Orange County, California.
- wwweston 6y ago
  Great article! I knew that orchards were part of SV's ag history, but I didn't know about Andy's and that'd be fun to visit.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The problem is the money firehose. Getting rich steadily is fine. Getting rich quickly because of outside factors is what provides perverse incentives, room for bad things to hide and screws everything up. Using fat paychecks to lay waste to small towns is one of the few things tech yuppie and oil pipeline workers have in common. Best (i.e. least worst) case scenario you end up as a rich people playground like Tahoe or Cape Cod where everyone without a conscience runs a business skimming easy money off the wealthy (or becomes a plumber and does it with an extra abstraction), everyone with ambition leaves and everyone else winds up with a substance abuse problem. Worst case the money leaves for good and you wind up like coal country.
- ptudan 6y ago
  I'm confused, how is owning a bar or cafe in a hot spot an immoral activity?
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
    I think we've all seen a charming local dive bars with cheap, strong drinks get bought out, and turned into a soulless clean well-lit place that overcharges for gimmicky cocktails. I don't personally think it's immoral at all: things change, and I'll always respect the entrepreneurial spirit. But I do view the situation with some sadness, and I can understand why a long-time local might view it as wrong.
ghaff 6y ago
The thing is--and I'm not saying you specifically--but worrying about a place losing "its historical roots and what makes it that special idyllic mountain town in the first place" inevitably has to go hand in hand with strong NIMBY policies. Which isn't even "wrong" in any absolute sense whatever the growth at all costs crowd here may want. Though, really, not even that helps because towns can't actually (or really want to in general) arbitrarily prevent outsiders from moving in. So a desirable location just ends up with a different group of people with the money to purchase existing housing.
- khuey 6y ago
  A lot of these people are really only moving into the interior mountain towns because places like coastal California where the economic activity is that allows them to pile up this kind of wealth has become prohibitively expensive due to their own NIMBY regimes.
  - supernovae 6y ago
    NIMBY is just a symptom of the problem... The problem is development, wealth and consumption at all cost. If people lived in normal houses, had normal job and lived normal lives where they didn't have to escape to feel normal, then we wouldn't seek out mountain towns as places to live, but rather places to explore. Instead, we amass sheer amounts of wealth, property, exclusivity, we build so much of our society around celebrity and uniqueness and feeling special. We value huge houses with lots of rooms we'll probably never use and as long as "we win" - we don't care the cost. Here in Austin - we're seeing the result of people leaving other cities. They look here and go "wow its cheap" but the people who have lived here - and lived here for EONS are going "wow, its getting expensive". If you bought a house on fixed income and paid it off and worked a full life - we're getting to the point where your dream is no longer a dream. Sure, the house may have equity but its a tax liability - so you have to move.. Where do you move too that isn't being impacted? Where do you go to survive on fixed income and just live? Is it NIMBY when you just want what you worked an entire life for or is it really something else?
    - 6y ago
woah 6y ago
It's bad for people to live in skyscrapers in the city, its bad for people to live in suburbs, where is it OK for people to live?
erikpukinskis 6y ago
> California problems follow California popularity. Apologies if this sounds exasperated, it’s a genuine question: How is this a California thing? Money flows out of cities. That’s globally true. Is this not happening everywhere on the planet? California happens to have two massive cities, so it’s a major example of the phenomenon. But what is specific about California here, other than the random fact that California’s specific top industry happens to be the global top industry at the moment? As New York was in the 1980s, Detroit in the 1950s, etc.

dendrite9 6y ago

I assume you know about the orchards of Silicon Valley? It's an interesting bit of history to me. I didn't realize the same thing was happening along the Wasatch Front, but it makes sense. E: forgot the link https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/the-last-of-his-kind-farming-fruit-in-the-silicon-valley/ https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/the-last-of-his-kind-f...

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
And the orchards of Orange County, California.
wwweston 6y ago
Great article! I knew that orchards were part of SV's ag history, but I didn't know about Andy's and that'd be fun to visit.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The problem is the money firehose. Getting rich steadily is fine. Getting rich quickly because of outside factors is what provides perverse incentives, room for bad things to hide and screws everything up. Using fat paychecks to lay waste to small towns is one of the few things tech yuppie and oil pipeline workers have in common. Best (i.e. least worst) case scenario you end up as a rich people playground like Tahoe or Cape Cod where everyone without a conscience runs a business skimming easy money off the wealthy (or becomes a plumber and does it with an extra abstraction), everyone with ambition leaves and everyone else winds up with a substance abuse problem. Worst case the money leaves for good and you wind up like coal country.

ptudan 6y ago
I'm confused, how is owning a bar or cafe in a hot spot an immoral activity?
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  I think we've all seen a charming local dive bars with cheap, strong drinks get bought out, and turned into a soulless clean well-lit place that overcharges for gimmicky cocktails. I don't personally think it's immoral at all: things change, and I'll always respect the entrepreneurial spirit. But I do view the situation with some sadness, and I can understand why a long-time local might view it as wrong.

ghaff 6y ago

The thing is--and I'm not saying you specifically--but worrying about a place losing "its historical roots and what makes it that special idyllic mountain town in the first place" inevitably has to go hand in hand with strong NIMBY policies. Which isn't even "wrong" in any absolute sense whatever the growth at all costs crowd here may want. Though, really, not even that helps because towns can't actually (or really want to in general) arbitrarily prevent outsiders from moving in. So a desirable location just ends up with a different group of people with the money to purchase existing housing.

khuey 6y ago
A lot of these people are really only moving into the interior mountain towns because places like coastal California where the economic activity is that allows them to pile up this kind of wealth has become prohibitively expensive due to their own NIMBY regimes.
- supernovae 6y ago
  NIMBY is just a symptom of the problem... The problem is development, wealth and consumption at all cost. If people lived in normal houses, had normal job and lived normal lives where they didn't have to escape to feel normal, then we wouldn't seek out mountain towns as places to live, but rather places to explore. Instead, we amass sheer amounts of wealth, property, exclusivity, we build so much of our society around celebrity and uniqueness and feeling special. We value huge houses with lots of rooms we'll probably never use and as long as "we win" - we don't care the cost. Here in Austin - we're seeing the result of people leaving other cities. They look here and go "wow its cheap" but the people who have lived here - and lived here for EONS are going "wow, its getting expensive". If you bought a house on fixed income and paid it off and worked a full life - we're getting to the point where your dream is no longer a dream. Sure, the house may have equity but its a tax liability - so you have to move.. Where do you move too that isn't being impacted? Where do you go to survive on fixed income and just live? Is it NIMBY when you just want what you worked an entire life for or is it really something else?
  - 6y ago

woah 6y ago

It's bad for people to live in skyscrapers in the city, its bad for people to live in suburbs, where is it OK for people to live?

erikpukinskis 6y ago

> California problems follow California popularity. Apologies if this sounds exasperated, it’s a genuine question: How is this a California thing? Money flows out of cities. That’s globally true. Is this not happening everywhere on the planet? California happens to have two massive cities, so it’s a major example of the phenomenon. But what is specific about California here, other than the random fact that California’s specific top industry happens to be the global top industry at the moment? As New York was in the 1980s, Detroit in the 1950s, etc.