4 ms·

Same with rural communities here in the Midwest. We would love to have FAANG refugees move here.

Loughla 5y ago
YMMV on this one. In my part of the midwest, home and land prices have almost doubled in the last year, and went up about 6x since we built our house (about 8 years ago). Two reasons: (What used to be called) Yuppies moving out here and working remotely to 'get more in touch with nature' (read: start a blog or something about sustainable living that is really only possible if one of you has a 100k+ salary) and investors from out of the area are purchasing land as an investment. Both of these things drive the cost WAY out of the range of what is (a) reasonable, or (b) attainable. I'm over the whole thing. In an area where the median family income is around 55k/year, anyone that makes double that as a single individual can live like a king. Consequence: none of us that live here can afford the increase in taxes, home values, or property values anymore.
- ramphastidae 5y ago
  This is the pure definition of NIMBYism. You built a house there eight years ago that has increased 6x in value. Now others are trying to do the same thing and you demonize them for it. You should be complaining about state policy, not the people seeking a better life for themselves.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    What state policy would address these issues? It's possible he's a local. That could also mean he didn't move there with a 2x salary. So it's not really the same thing. While there's nothing wrong with people moving for a better life, there's also nothing wrong with someone lamenting fundamental changes in their community that they see as detrimental.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    >You built a house there eight years ago Sorry, I should've been more clear. I grew up here as well. I've lived here for my entire life (outside of the 6 years I was at college/grad school, and even then I was back to work on the farm on the weekends). It's not NIMBY. I don't care who lives here. That's actually what I like the most about rural living - for the most part if you leave people alone, they'll leave you alone. What I do care about is that the people I grew up with literally cannot afford their taxes anymore. Their kids can't stay here because they can't afford to buy a house. The community is dying. My point about my home price is that, that increase in value/cost is not realistic. It's neither realistic in actual value or in attainability should I choose to sell it. Very few locals can afford housing around us now, and they're leaving. That's actually led to an increase in young people leaving the area. New young people move in, but for every one of them, it seems like three of us have to move somewhere else! >You should be complaining about state policy What possible state policy could there be to help in this situation? >not the people seeking a better life for themselves. That's the thing. They're not (I guess by my definition). They're either using the property solely as an investment with zero intent to ever live on/use the land, or as a pad for their homestead/van life/other nature centered blog and influencing scheme. I wouldn't have a problem if these folks tried at all to integrate into the community. But they do not. For the investors - they don't even know what the property is or where it is. They just know they can pay cheap labor to put up extremely tall fences and security systems (for what reason I don't understand). The Yuppies mostly live here Monday through Thursday, to take nice shots of themselves 'working on the farm' and then spend all weekend in the closest urban area. They do not shop in our local shops. They do not work with our local businesses. They're like tourists in their own lives. It's weird to me.
    - dublinben 5y ago
      If a few wealthy people moving in has driven up housing prices so much, then the supply of housing is insufficient. The appropriate reaction to increased demand for housing is to meet it with increased supply. What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities?
      - giantg2 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- giantg2 5y ago
  It sounds like your area had a major influx. I think it's partially a group-think issue. Once you get a few bloggers/influencers in your area, then it seems more follow because your area is now "on the map". Yet, they could spread out and choose to move to other areas, but I think al ot of it is just that they don't know of, or as much about, those other places. I know of places where houses sit empty or are even demolished because they are no longer needed with the shrinking population.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    But that's the thing. The individual property gets fixed. New houses get built. But the community doesn't benefit. The 'new' folks do not integrate into the area. They don't shop local. They don't send their kids to the local schools (and in many cases use their money to legally fight with the district about funding because their kids go to private school). They don't really 'live' out here. They just happen to stay here. >It sounds like your area had a major influx. And that was my point - the OP I was responding to said that s/he would welcome tech refugees. I was trying to point out that it's genuinely not all roses and gold. There are specific problems with that influx of people and money.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I know a lot of people who had to move away from rural areas to get tech jobs. I would guess that it wouldn't be so bad if it were those people moving back. Or just people who had a genuine interest in living there. Instead it sounds like it's mostly people who have always lived in the cities that have some idealized view of the country that doesn't actually match the local customs/culture, sort of like gentrification in the cities. "and in many cases use their money to legally fight with the district about funding because their kids go to private school" I'd be interested to learn more about this. I grew up in some rural areas and went to private schools but never heard of anything happen like that.
      - Loughla 5y ago
        There is a huge push for school vouchers, with about half of our local school board being occupied by folks who have kids who attend the private schools in the closest urban area. These individuals want their property taxes to be given to them as a voucher to use where they please instead of straight to the schools from the state. There are others who have taken a more direct approach and sue the local districts for 'access' complaints. They claim they should be able to benefit from extracurricular activities in their district (sports, test preparation, science clubs, that sort of thing), like home-school kids can; even though their kids go to private schools. The districts don't have the money to fight lawsuits.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > I'm over the whole thing. In an area where the median family income is around 55k/year, anyone that makes double that as a single individual can live like a king. Consequence: none of us that live here can afford the increase in taxes, home values, or property values anymore. This is a consequence of growing income/wealth gap, and governments having bet the farm on economic growth that is not materializing (partly assuming growth in population which is no longer there). Government has to keep devaluing dollar to keep making debt payments, and this devaluation exacerbated the income/wealth gap. The only winning move is to be pulling in more money and plowing it back into asset inflation.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Some of it is also local costs of living and remote work. Look at the recurring talk of SV salaries vs the rest of the country and how companies should value their remote workers. I've seen people on here claim that $200k-250k isn't enough to raise a family on, yet it's multiples of my salary. People come to expect that high salary even when they move to lower cost areas for remote work. Even if they take a 50% pay cut (almost unheard of) they are still in the top 10% of earners in many rural places. Just. a couple people like that won't move the dial much. But if you have an influx of people to a specific area, then I can certainly see that driving up the cost of living in that area regardless of the typical monetary or fiscal policies of the government.
- JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
  If property values go up 5x, shouldn't the mill rate go down 5x, leaving property taxes the same? It's not like these towns have 5x more libraries, 5x more police officers, 5x more roads, etc. The level and number of services in the town isn't changing. It has the same number of street lights, and they all consume the same amount of electricity, and so forth.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    In my state they leave the mills the same, then apply a common leveling ratio at the county level to try to equalize the property value and cost of living compared to other parts of the state. It's better than nothing.

YMMV on this one. In my part of the midwest, home and land prices have almost doubled in the last year, and went up about 6x since we built our house (about 8 years ago). Two reasons: (What used to be called) Yuppies moving out here and working remotely to 'get more in touch with nature' (read: start a blog or something about sustainable living that is really only possible if one of you has a 100k+ salary) and investors from out of the area are purchasing land as an investment. Both of these things drive the cost WAY out of the range of what is (a) reasonable, or (b) attainable. I'm over the whole thing. In an area where the median family income is around 55k/year, anyone that makes double that as a single individual can live like a king. Consequence: none of us that live here can afford the increase in taxes, home values, or property values anymore.

ramphastidae 5y ago
This is the pure definition of NIMBYism. You built a house there eight years ago that has increased 6x in value. Now others are trying to do the same thing and you demonize them for it. You should be complaining about state policy, not the people seeking a better life for themselves.
- giantg2 5y ago
  What state policy would address these issues? It's possible he's a local. That could also mean he didn't move there with a 2x salary. So it's not really the same thing. While there's nothing wrong with people moving for a better life, there's also nothing wrong with someone lamenting fundamental changes in their community that they see as detrimental.
- Loughla 5y ago
  >You built a house there eight years ago Sorry, I should've been more clear. I grew up here as well. I've lived here for my entire life (outside of the 6 years I was at college/grad school, and even then I was back to work on the farm on the weekends). It's not NIMBY. I don't care who lives here. That's actually what I like the most about rural living - for the most part if you leave people alone, they'll leave you alone. What I do care about is that the people I grew up with literally cannot afford their taxes anymore. Their kids can't stay here because they can't afford to buy a house. The community is dying. My point about my home price is that, that increase in value/cost is not realistic. It's neither realistic in actual value or in attainability should I choose to sell it. Very few locals can afford housing around us now, and they're leaving. That's actually led to an increase in young people leaving the area. New young people move in, but for every one of them, it seems like three of us have to move somewhere else! >You should be complaining about state policy What possible state policy could there be to help in this situation? >not the people seeking a better life for themselves. That's the thing. They're not (I guess by my definition). They're either using the property solely as an investment with zero intent to ever live on/use the land, or as a pad for their homestead/van life/other nature centered blog and influencing scheme. I wouldn't have a problem if these folks tried at all to integrate into the community. But they do not. For the investors - they don't even know what the property is or where it is. They just know they can pay cheap labor to put up extremely tall fences and security systems (for what reason I don't understand). The Yuppies mostly live here Monday through Thursday, to take nice shots of themselves 'working on the farm' and then spend all weekend in the closest urban area. They do not shop in our local shops. They do not work with our local businesses. They're like tourists in their own lives. It's weird to me.
  - dublinben 5y ago
    If a few wealthy people moving in has driven up housing prices so much, then the supply of housing is insufficient. The appropriate reaction to increased demand for housing is to meet it with increased supply. What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities?
    - giantg2 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
giantg2 5y ago
It sounds like your area had a major influx. I think it's partially a group-think issue. Once you get a few bloggers/influencers in your area, then it seems more follow because your area is now "on the map". Yet, they could spread out and choose to move to other areas, but I think al ot of it is just that they don't know of, or as much about, those other places. I know of places where houses sit empty or are even demolished because they are no longer needed with the shrinking population.
- Loughla 5y ago
  But that's the thing. The individual property gets fixed. New houses get built. But the community doesn't benefit. The 'new' folks do not integrate into the area. They don't shop local. They don't send their kids to the local schools (and in many cases use their money to legally fight with the district about funding because their kids go to private school). They don't really 'live' out here. They just happen to stay here. >It sounds like your area had a major influx. And that was my point - the OP I was responding to said that s/he would welcome tech refugees. I was trying to point out that it's genuinely not all roses and gold. There are specific problems with that influx of people and money.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I know a lot of people who had to move away from rural areas to get tech jobs. I would guess that it wouldn't be so bad if it were those people moving back. Or just people who had a genuine interest in living there. Instead it sounds like it's mostly people who have always lived in the cities that have some idealized view of the country that doesn't actually match the local customs/culture, sort of like gentrification in the cities. "and in many cases use their money to legally fight with the district about funding because their kids go to private school" I'd be interested to learn more about this. I grew up in some rural areas and went to private schools but never heard of anything happen like that.
    - Loughla 5y ago
      There is a huge push for school vouchers, with about half of our local school board being occupied by folks who have kids who attend the private schools in the closest urban area. These individuals want their property taxes to be given to them as a voucher to use where they please instead of straight to the schools from the state. There are others who have taken a more direct approach and sue the local districts for 'access' complaints. They claim they should be able to benefit from extracurricular activities in their district (sports, test preparation, science clubs, that sort of thing), like home-school kids can; even though their kids go to private schools. The districts don't have the money to fight lawsuits.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> I'm over the whole thing. In an area where the median family income is around 55k/year, anyone that makes double that as a single individual can live like a king. Consequence: none of us that live here can afford the increase in taxes, home values, or property values anymore. This is a consequence of growing income/wealth gap, and governments having bet the farm on economic growth that is not materializing (partly assuming growth in population which is no longer there). Government has to keep devaluing dollar to keep making debt payments, and this devaluation exacerbated the income/wealth gap. The only winning move is to be pulling in more money and plowing it back into asset inflation.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Some of it is also local costs of living and remote work. Look at the recurring talk of SV salaries vs the rest of the country and how companies should value their remote workers. I've seen people on here claim that $200k-250k isn't enough to raise a family on, yet it's multiples of my salary. People come to expect that high salary even when they move to lower cost areas for remote work. Even if they take a 50% pay cut (almost unheard of) they are still in the top 10% of earners in many rural places. Just. a couple people like that won't move the dial much. But if you have an influx of people to a specific area, then I can certainly see that driving up the cost of living in that area regardless of the typical monetary or fiscal policies of the government.
JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
If property values go up 5x, shouldn't the mill rate go down 5x, leaving property taxes the same? It's not like these towns have 5x more libraries, 5x more police officers, 5x more roads, etc. The level and number of services in the town isn't changing. It has the same number of street lights, and they all consume the same amount of electricity, and so forth.
- giantg2 5y ago
  In my state they leave the mills the same, then apply a common leveling ratio at the county level to try to equalize the property value and cost of living compared to other parts of the state. It's better than nothing.