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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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!
> Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in.
But isn't it already the case? I believe that there are a bit more houses in US then there are households. So the problem is not lack of houses, it's that people don't want to live in some places where houses are abundant. They don't want to live there for the most part due to lack of good jobs. The solution then could be to even out the wage gap and job market capacity across the country.
I know that US situation is somewhat unique w.r.t. density due to suburbia and obviously this has to be addressed somehow. But it worries me a bit when people are saying "build more" as the only solution to housing prices. I live in a city which added 50% in population last 20 years, which means about 2.5 million new people. It looks like [1] and it's terrifying, the city is not suitable for living anymore, I'm now looking for somewhere to move from the place where I was born and was living for 35 years, where my friends and parent live. All this is the result of "we should build more housing". That, and corruption of course. The city which is UNESCO world heritage site is gone forever.
By the way, real estate prices still doubled last year, so even this crazy tempo doesn't help. It's akin to fighting traffic jams by building more and wider roads - it only attracts more cars.
I am aware about overly restrictive zoning rules in US and probably building more is a part of the solution, but I don't believe it's the whole solution. Be careful what you wish for.
"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."
The whole point I was getting at was distribution. Sure you have n households in the country, but nothing says that n/100 need to live in just one or two counties of that country. Even if you get the green light to build more, it will be very expensive to do so, and you will have population density/congestion issues.
"Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief"
Not exactly. They are seeing influxes in some areas, but it's not an even distribution. They aren't really complaining about spreading out but more about the problems created when going against the established customs, or bringing the same problems with them (taxes, property values, etc), although the costs in that area will still be less than in SV.
> The whole point I was getting at was distribution. Sure you have n households in the country, but nothing says that n/10 need to live in just one or two counties of that country. Even if you get the green light to build more, it will be very expensive to do so, and you will have population density/congestion issues.
Nobody is forcing everyone to all live in one place. Some combination of lifestyle, economic opportunities, and other stuff makes people want to do that. Locals complain that housing is expensive in SV, but housing is expensive because of a vicious cycle, promulgated by locals, that made it that way.
A different set of policies would have prevented the vicious cycle and made housing cheaper and more abundant. In this alternate universe, with smarter housing policy, more people could be living in SV with less traffic congestion for less total cost. The only downside is that locals wouldn't have been able to sell their houses for 20x what they paid.
You can either: accept that an area is desirable and make accommodations for housing the people who want to come; or accept that housing is going to be expensive. Or I guess you can just kill all the newcomers and eat them. Normally, though, we like to at least pretend that we live in a civilized society. As a positive side-effect, being known for cannibalism does stand a good chance of reducing your locale's desirability on the lifestyle front! So maybe try that one first and let us know how it goes.
In other words, you can learn from California's example or your can make the same mistakes. Your choice.
> They are seeing influxes in some areas, but it's not an even distribution.
Sure, but it is making the distribution within the US as a whole more uniform.
> They aren't really complaining about spreading out but more about the problems created when going against the established customs, or bringing the same problems with them (taxes, property values, etc)
That's my point. They are not bringing the problems. They are coming, and locals are creating the problems by following the same bad policies that failed for locals in California. Yes, that does mean some things will change. You can't stop the change, but you do get to choose its character.
"A different set of policies would have prevented the vicious cycle and made housing cheaper and more abundant."
I think that's highly speculative. Many people in that area want single family homes or large homes. There's only so much surface area. It's not just that they want to live there, but also expect specific attributes with their housing.
"In other words, you can learn from California's example or your can make the same mistakes. Your choice."
If the policies work in other places, how can we determine that it's the policies causing the issues? Do you have a real world example of the alternate policies that won't cause those issues?
"Sure, but it is making the distribution within the US as a whole more uniform."
Not in any meaningful way. Over 50% of the US population lives in just 58 counties. They aren't moving to many rural locations, just to suburbs or smaller cities, which helps a little, but sometimes causes the same issues in those places.
"That's my point. They are not bringing the problems. They are coming, and locals are creating the problems by following the same bad policies that failed for locals in California. Yes, that does mean some things will change. You can't stop the change, but you do get to choose its character."
They do bring some of the problems when they go against established culture and force their views on others. This is pretty common. A classic example is people buying a house near an existing highway, then complaining about road noise and advocating for million dollar sound barriers.
Again, you mention policy as the problem, yet there's no example of the alternatives. Even the high level stuff mentioned previously sounds like a zero sum game - either existing owners get screwed or the new people do. I would like to see property tax eliminated and go strictly income based.
Yes, change happens, but it doesn't mean that the existing people need to roll over and not fight for their own opinions.
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?
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.
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.
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.
