5 ms·

>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

>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 6y 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 6y ago
  It sounds like it's more than just a few wealthy people. "What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities?" Do you have any examples? It sounds to me like the policies have made it a nice place to live, enticing people from other places to move there, and that influx is causing the shortage. Should they impose some sort of moving tax or other policy to remove that demand? In my experience, policy isn't the issue in rural areas. The people who live there and own the land don't want to sell the land to be developed on.
- Loughla 6y ago
  It's quite a number of people, not just a few wealthy people. The few wealthy investors are buying up huge tracts of land, but the people who actually move here are large in number as well as income. Again, the average income in the area for a family of 4 is around 55k. It doesn't take much money to upset that system. And it would be different if the folks moving here actually spent money in the local economy, or integrated into the community at all. They do neither of those things. Also - >What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities? Literally none. There are no housing policies regarding number or type of dwellings. There is no zoning, zoning restrictions, or any other type of restriction. It's very rural. Those things don't exist. There are no home inspections, there is no building code you must follow to get a mortgage approved or anything like that. In essence - if you can build it, you can live in it or rent it to someone. I have no idea why people keep coming back to local and state policies. They don't exist.
labcomputer 6y ago
> 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 Not meaning to pick on you, but this is almost exactly the rhetoric that got California into the situation it is in now. * Taxes going up due to newcomers -> cap property taxes until sale/transfer * Kids can't afford to inherit house -> make property tax assessment inheritable by children/grandchildren * City can't fund more schools/sewers from limited property taxes -> put limits on new housing starts and encourage retail/commercial development * Low property tax for life + high rents -> nobody ever sells a house, market goes up more * Limited housing availability + need for people to fill those offices -> house prices really skyrocket I just hope other places learn from California's mistake.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead - charge the people making money instead of forcing people out of their home through taxes? The main issues (in my opinion) with housing in the parts of CA that are always mentioned is just population density and desired living conditions. I don't see what the right fix is for that. If we're basically taking the policy that we'll raise taxes to make people want to live elsewhere, then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief.
  - labcomputer 6y ago
    > Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead Yup, California does that. That's why CA has a reputation as a high-tax state. Although total tax burden isn't that different from places like Austin, TX though (at least that's how the numbers come out when my friend or I have seriously looked into moving there). > I don't see what the right fix is for that. Ha. People have been shouting it from the rooftops. Build more houses! More specifically, just allow people to build more houses. Stop preventing people from building more houses. Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in. Be careful where you share this fact though, or you'll be labeled as part of the "growth at all costs" crowd. > then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Because the reality of the situation is that local governments need tax dollars to run services that taxpayers expect (roads, sewers, schools). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But voters hate paying higher income taxes. You've also capped property taxes on existing development. So the way local mayors and city councils fill the gap is by allowing development that requires relatively less city services: retail and commercial space. Of course, now people need to commute to those retail and commercial developments, (because you have limited the amount of housing) so you just created a traffic problem (but, hey, term limits are a great and your successor can deal with it!). > Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief. Lol. Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief, and how property taxes are going up and we need to Do Something to stop it god damn it! And the cycle begins again...

dublinben 6y 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 6y ago
It sounds like it's more than just a few wealthy people. "What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities?" Do you have any examples? It sounds to me like the policies have made it a nice place to live, enticing people from other places to move there, and that influx is causing the shortage. Should they impose some sort of moving tax or other policy to remove that demand? In my experience, policy isn't the issue in rural areas. The people who live there and own the land don't want to sell the land to be developed on.
Loughla 6y ago
It's quite a number of people, not just a few wealthy people. The few wealthy investors are buying up huge tracts of land, but the people who actually move here are large in number as well as income. Again, the average income in the area for a family of 4 is around 55k. It doesn't take much money to upset that system. And it would be different if the folks moving here actually spent money in the local economy, or integrated into the community at all. They do neither of those things. Also - >What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities? Literally none. There are no housing policies regarding number or type of dwellings. There is no zoning, zoning restrictions, or any other type of restriction. It's very rural. Those things don't exist. There are no home inspections, there is no building code you must follow to get a mortgage approved or anything like that. In essence - if you can build it, you can live in it or rent it to someone. I have no idea why people keep coming back to local and state policies. They don't exist.

labcomputer 6y ago

> 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 Not meaning to pick on you, but this is almost exactly the rhetoric that got California into the situation it is in now. * Taxes going up due to newcomers -> cap property taxes until sale/transfer * Kids can't afford to inherit house -> make property tax assessment inheritable by children/grandchildren * City can't fund more schools/sewers from limited property taxes -> put limits on new housing starts and encourage retail/commercial development * Low property tax for life + high rents -> nobody ever sells a house, market goes up more * Limited housing availability + need for people to fill those offices -> house prices really skyrocket I just hope other places learn from California's mistake.

giantg2 6y ago
Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead - charge the people making money instead of forcing people out of their home through taxes? The main issues (in my opinion) with housing in the parts of CA that are always mentioned is just population density and desired living conditions. I don't see what the right fix is for that. If we're basically taking the policy that we'll raise taxes to make people want to live elsewhere, then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief.
- labcomputer 6y ago
  > Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead Yup, California does that. That's why CA has a reputation as a high-tax state. Although total tax burden isn't that different from places like Austin, TX though (at least that's how the numbers come out when my friend or I have seriously looked into moving there). > I don't see what the right fix is for that. Ha. People have been shouting it from the rooftops. Build more houses! More specifically, just allow people to build more houses. Stop preventing people from building more houses. Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in. Be careful where you share this fact though, or you'll be labeled as part of the "growth at all costs" crowd. > then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place? Because the reality of the situation is that local governments need tax dollars to run services that taxpayers expect (roads, sewers, schools). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But voters hate paying higher income taxes. You've also capped property taxes on existing development. So the way local mayors and city councils fill the gap is by allowing development that requires relatively less city services: retail and commercial space. Of course, now people need to commute to those retail and commercial developments, (because you have limited the amount of housing) so you just created a traffic problem (but, hey, term limits are a great and your successor can deal with it!). > Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief. Lol. Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief, and how property taxes are going up and we need to Do Something to stop it god damn it! And the cycle begins again...