4 ms·

* people find the stability of the known more compelling than the danger of the hypothetical. Employers want to be where their clients and employees will be, re

* people find the stability of the known more compelling than the danger of the hypothetical. Employers want to be where their clients and employees will be, residents want to be in a place with decent shops and services. This kind of chicken/egg problem is usually the failure of most planned towns, and the only successful ones are usually a new capital or something because the government doesn‘t care as much. And even then that isn‘t guaranteed; Sejong is supposed to be the capital of South Korea but employees still hate it because even with cost of living issues and long commutes Seoul is more compelling. * cheap land is usually cheap for a reason. Land in the middle of the desert West probably doesn‘t have the required water rights to support habitation. Land in the middle of nowhere in general has few services and high logistics costs. Former industrial land requires environmental remediation. Foreclosed land may require paying outstanding tax bills. And those are the relatively straightforward problems, to say nothing of places with high crime, bad schools or other complex societal issues. * a lot of these places are going to turn NIMBY if a bunch of outsiders come, buy up housing and export their cost of living crisis to their community. It doesn‘t take that many people to tighten up the housing market in a town of 10,000.

giantg2 4y ago
"And those are the relatively straightforward problems, to say nothing of places with high crime, bad schools or other complex societal issues." It seems every city has areas within it with these issues. So this shouldn't affect the possibility of moving to areas that have decent schools. And there are solutions to many, like private schools can be a good option especially if the yearly cost is less than the property tax in a HCOL area. "It doesn‘t take that many people to tighten up the housing market in a town of 10,000." It doesn't have to be a huge influx, nor all at once. The point is that zoning is less restrictive and land is cheaper, so people can build. The depressed areas have relatively high vacancies anyways. "Employers want to be where their clients and employees will be, residents want to be in a place with decent shops and services." Some people want nature. Shops aren't as much of a concern today with internet delivery. I find it highly suspect that people all want exactly the same thing. It might be more likely that the people in one group are just being left behind.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  > So this shouldn't affect the possibility of moving to areas that have decent schools. It doesn't, but how much cheap land in Goldilocks-type areas really exists? The housing price problem is already becoming national in scale. > It doesn't have to be a huge influx, nor all at once. That ship sailed a long time ago. It already is. It turns out 1% of Californians leaving annually is still half a million people swarming other places. You cannot run into a town in the Mountain West or PNW where locals aren't complaining about Californians driving up prices. Encouraging more people to do this is going to exacerbate the problem. > Shops aren't as much of a concern today with internet delivery. There's still a baseline. To use your example of Appalachia in a different comment chain, consider that people in 40 counties in West Virginia today are food deserts without easy access to fresh food. Instacart is more expensive and not available everywhere. https://www.wvpublic.org/podcast/inside-appalachia/2015-10-02/whats-an-appalachian-food-desert-and-why-are-they-increasing https://www.wvpublic.org/podcast/inside-appalachia/2015-10-0...
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "It doesn't, but how much cheap land in Goldilocks-type areas really exists?" That's my point - it doesn't have to be perfect. Otherwise nothing will solve it. "Encouraging more people to do this is going to exacerbate the problem." They should be moving to places that are shrinking. That's what I'm suggesting. That food desert thing is a joke. They're talking about supermarkets, yet there are other sources like farm stands. 10 rural miles is nothing. That might be a 10-15 minute trip if you've ever driven in WV and seen the speeds people drive.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      As someone who has wanted to desperately build on "goldilocks" land for a long time, the thing that has held me up is not zoning but the uniform building code. I simply only have enough money to build a shack. There are plenty of these out in the West, but at some point someone said "nah fuck them kids" and decided great-grandaddies shack is fine for somebodies grandkid to live in but if I build new property of literally the same thing I've committed a cardinal sin of safety. This means even though a shack would still be cheap to build, their supply is artificially limited (indeed irreplaceable) to the point a shack is practically as expensive to buy "used" as a fully up to code newer construction. And thus again I am cast aside, doomed to rent some overbuilt up-to-code construction.

giantg2 4y ago

"And those are the relatively straightforward problems, to say nothing of places with high crime, bad schools or other complex societal issues." It seems every city has areas within it with these issues. So this shouldn't affect the possibility of moving to areas that have decent schools. And there are solutions to many, like private schools can be a good option especially if the yearly cost is less than the property tax in a HCOL area. "It doesn‘t take that many people to tighten up the housing market in a town of 10,000." It doesn't have to be a huge influx, nor all at once. The point is that zoning is less restrictive and land is cheaper, so people can build. The depressed areas have relatively high vacancies anyways. "Employers want to be where their clients and employees will be, residents want to be in a place with decent shops and services." Some people want nature. Shops aren't as much of a concern today with internet delivery. I find it highly suspect that people all want exactly the same thing. It might be more likely that the people in one group are just being left behind.

bobthepanda 4y ago
> So this shouldn't affect the possibility of moving to areas that have decent schools. It doesn't, but how much cheap land in Goldilocks-type areas really exists? The housing price problem is already becoming national in scale. > It doesn't have to be a huge influx, nor all at once. That ship sailed a long time ago. It already is. It turns out 1% of Californians leaving annually is still half a million people swarming other places. You cannot run into a town in the Mountain West or PNW where locals aren't complaining about Californians driving up prices. Encouraging more people to do this is going to exacerbate the problem. > Shops aren't as much of a concern today with internet delivery. There's still a baseline. To use your example of Appalachia in a different comment chain, consider that people in 40 counties in West Virginia today are food deserts without easy access to fresh food. Instacart is more expensive and not available everywhere. https://www.wvpublic.org/podcast/inside-appalachia/2015-10-02/whats-an-appalachian-food-desert-and-why-are-they-increasing https://www.wvpublic.org/podcast/inside-appalachia/2015-10-0...
- giantg2 4y ago
  "It doesn't, but how much cheap land in Goldilocks-type areas really exists?" That's my point - it doesn't have to be perfect. Otherwise nothing will solve it. "Encouraging more people to do this is going to exacerbate the problem." They should be moving to places that are shrinking. That's what I'm suggesting. That food desert thing is a joke. They're talking about supermarkets, yet there are other sources like farm stands. 10 rural miles is nothing. That might be a 10-15 minute trip if you've ever driven in WV and seen the speeds people drive.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    As someone who has wanted to desperately build on "goldilocks" land for a long time, the thing that has held me up is not zoning but the uniform building code. I simply only have enough money to build a shack. There are plenty of these out in the West, but at some point someone said "nah fuck them kids" and decided great-grandaddies shack is fine for somebodies grandkid to live in but if I build new property of literally the same thing I've committed a cardinal sin of safety. This means even though a shack would still be cheap to build, their supply is artificially limited (indeed irreplaceable) to the point a shack is practically as expensive to buy "used" as a fully up to code newer construction. And thus again I am cast aside, doomed to rent some overbuilt up-to-code construction.