Small cities in America’s Mountain West are booming(economist.com)
economist.com
Small cities in America’s Mountain West are booming
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/04/10/small-cities-in-americas-mountain-west-are-booming
586 comments
You're seeing negativity because it's getting harder and harder to deny that this "dream" involves the locals getting screwed when tech monopoly money turns their local economy upside down. Sure the guy who had the foresight to start a brewery wins but everyone else loses.
You know what the end game of this looks like? It looks like Vail CO, Cape Cod MA, coastal Long Island and CT, the Hamptons, wealthy retirement areas of FL, etc. What industry is there? What opportunity is there? Well unless you want to sell your soul to the tourism industry or run some business that entertains richer people in exchange for their money (best leave your moral compass at the door if you want to succeed in those endeavors) or work in the supporting industries thereof there is exactly squat. Everyone who doesn't stand to inherit a business either gets out or gets addicted to something.
It's not unreasonably negative to not want that for ones' community or want to inflict that on some other community.
You know what the end game of this looks like? It looks like Vail CO, Cape Cod MA, coastal Long Island and CT, the Hamptons, wealthy retirement areas of FL, etc. What industry is there? What opportunity is there? Well unless you want to sell your soul to the tourism industry or run some business that entertains richer people in exchange for their money (best leave your moral compass at the door if you want to succeed in those endeavors) or work in the supporting industries thereof there is exactly squat. Everyone who doesn't stand to inherit a business either gets out or gets addicted to something.
It's not unreasonably negative to not want that for ones' community or want to inflict that on some other community.
Last year I moved from a top 3 city to a small mountain town in Colorado. In my experience, your hostility is extremely common in small towns that have big seasonal influxes. I continue to be amazed by the overt disdain long-time locals have for second home owners and relatively newer full-time residents. The one constant is: "Everything was great until shortly after I relocated here and you people moved in." A week doesn't go by here where a long-time resident doesn't write an op-ed for our tiny newspaper with this exact message, and delusional descriptions of how their once-great town is now a hellscape.
That sentiment isn't unique to small towns either.
Residents of Austin, TX have been complaining that the city changed or got too crowded shortly after they moved in, whether that was a year ago or decades ago. People who moved to SF in 2010 complained about the people moving there in 2015.
Same thing happens at a neighborhood or district level too. Everybody feels like they were the last person to move in while it was still good and everything after them is unwelcome.
Residents of Austin, TX have been complaining that the city changed or got too crowded shortly after they moved in, whether that was a year ago or decades ago. People who moved to SF in 2010 complained about the people moving there in 2015.
Same thing happens at a neighborhood or district level too. Everybody feels like they were the last person to move in while it was still good and everything after them is unwelcome.
[deleted]
"Everyone who came before me is a sucker; everyone who came after me is a cheat."
>Residents of Austin, TX have been complaining that the city changed or got too crowded shortly after they moved in
I've been told Austin's city council mulishly refused to see the growth trend and didn't annex the hills around the city when they had the chance. Austin waterways like Bull Creek went from summertime swimming holes to unsafe to enter due to septic tank runoff and high levels of coliform bacteria because city services - sewerage in particular - weren't extended to those areas.
People who lived there really hoped the usual waxing and waning of population in cadence with student university attendance would go on forever. But according to an aunt who lived there from the 1960s until property taxes priced her out a few years ago, too many people loved it and moved back after school or just never left and it sort of snowballed from there. Her anecdotal evidence was the cashiers at her Half Price Books stores she managed often had Masters degrees but chose to work there rather than move and find a better job elsewhere.
These days people running a cash register while holding an advanced degree is more of a cliche than remarkable evidence that some place is so special you'd rather be underpaid there than be paid better somewhere else.
But yeah to hear her tell it, in her forty years there every decade that passed brought some unwelcome change to Austin.
I've been told Austin's city council mulishly refused to see the growth trend and didn't annex the hills around the city when they had the chance. Austin waterways like Bull Creek went from summertime swimming holes to unsafe to enter due to septic tank runoff and high levels of coliform bacteria because city services - sewerage in particular - weren't extended to those areas.
People who lived there really hoped the usual waxing and waning of population in cadence with student university attendance would go on forever. But according to an aunt who lived there from the 1960s until property taxes priced her out a few years ago, too many people loved it and moved back after school or just never left and it sort of snowballed from there. Her anecdotal evidence was the cashiers at her Half Price Books stores she managed often had Masters degrees but chose to work there rather than move and find a better job elsewhere.
These days people running a cash register while holding an advanced degree is more of a cliche than remarkable evidence that some place is so special you'd rather be underpaid there than be paid better somewhere else.
But yeah to hear her tell it, in her forty years there every decade that passed brought some unwelcome change to Austin.
It’s almost like it’s progressively getting worse as more people crowd in.
The very, very easy way to fix that is to build enough housing. Places don't suck because a lot of people live there, they suck for lots of reasons that are orthogonal to the population.
Rapid change is disruptive. No remedy will please locals who don't welcome those changes. Folks who lived in Austin 30 years ago (before the growth in Round Rock, Georgetown, and the Hill Country, and the invasion of high tech) chose to live there because it was affordable and offered a fun weird mix of music & academics unique for hundreds of miles (perhaps similar to Santa Fe's acculturation 40 years ago). That precious mix has diminished to make their home less weird, more commercial, and damned expensive.
There's no easy fix for this, especially in a place as extremely laissez-faire as Texas, where urban planning and zoning are seen as mortal sins.
There's no easy fix for this, especially in a place as extremely laissez-faire as Texas, where urban planning and zoning are seen as mortal sins.
Canada's really getting hit. Market looks like a gaming table. Housing drastically needs protection from speculators.
Take Vancouver - even though they passed residency laws, with penalties. Average price in 1977: $90k. 2017:$1.05M. Average price dropped to $900k in Dec 2020 ... now $1.4M.
https://www.zolo.ca/vancouver-real-estate/trends
Take Vancouver - even though they passed residency laws, with penalties. Average price in 1977: $90k. 2017:$1.05M. Average price dropped to $900k in Dec 2020 ... now $1.4M.
https://www.zolo.ca/vancouver-real-estate/trends
That’s very subjective, my definition of suckiness definitely factors in population density.
I don't think it's subjective at all. There are cities that are clean and safe and well run, and you might not want to live there because they have a lot of people, but that doesn't make the city bad. I think your preference to live away from people is subjective, and that's fine, but the rule can't be that you get to live right where you want and no one else can move. Either people can move or they can't. I presume you don't live in the neighborhood you grew up in?
I’m not saying the solution is for people to not move, I’m in favour of people living where they want. I don’t have the solution to the problems caused by rapid growth, it’s probably some combination of allowing mixed zoning so that there is enough housing and supporting businesses for the new residents along with better planning of or restrictions on municipal expansion to avoid sprawl and encourage better use of the land within the existing municipality. There’s probably a bunch of other reforms necessary to prevent the bad parts of gentrification and provide more of a safety net for people who get displaced. It’sa big hairy problem for sure.
This is the correct identification of cause that people don't want to accept.
There's this song I like called "Austin, TX Blues" by Netherfriends and judging by the lyrics I'm guessing this is a common sentiment.
I mean is anybody from here?
Have you ever met anybody from here?
Have you ever seen so many condos in your whole damn life
That were built here in one year?
Everyone I know that was born here is dope as fuck
And everybody else sucks
"Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded."
- Yogi Berra
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra
- Yogi Berra
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra
Reminds me of the George Carlin joke. "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"
I recall with some relish a comment I read on the Seattle subreddit a while back. The commenter was furious at how all of the recent transplants were screwing up their previously wonderful city. Eventually, they happened to mention that they themselves had moved to Seattle from California less than a year prior.
There is a real thing going on in the US today, a sort of inchoate rage felt at all of the poorly defined "others". My hunch is that much of it stems from the rising anxieties of climate change, economic inequality, corporate political control, and even more recently the pandemic. Everyone needs to feel they have a certain level of agency and control in the world. It's hard to sleep at night if you don't even feel certain that your bed will still be there when you wake up.
The world today often feels like we are ants surrounded by lumbering billionaire and corporate giants, hoping not to get stepped on while we watch climate change slowly dissolve the ground beneath us. People naturally cling to any remaining pieces of agency they can find, and lash out when even that tiny inch is taken from them. So when I see people screaming at a waitress for insisting they put on a mask, or sneering at someone visiting their beloved hiking trail, I wonder if it's only because there is no convenient face they can yell at for all of the larger forces that have actually marginalized them.
There is a real thing going on in the US today, a sort of inchoate rage felt at all of the poorly defined "others". My hunch is that much of it stems from the rising anxieties of climate change, economic inequality, corporate political control, and even more recently the pandemic. Everyone needs to feel they have a certain level of agency and control in the world. It's hard to sleep at night if you don't even feel certain that your bed will still be there when you wake up.
The world today often feels like we are ants surrounded by lumbering billionaire and corporate giants, hoping not to get stepped on while we watch climate change slowly dissolve the ground beneath us. People naturally cling to any remaining pieces of agency they can find, and lash out when even that tiny inch is taken from them. So when I see people screaming at a waitress for insisting they put on a mask, or sneering at someone visiting their beloved hiking trail, I wonder if it's only because there is no convenient face they can yell at for all of the larger forces that have actually marginalized them.
> There is a real thing going on in the US today, a sort of inchoate rage felt at all of the poorly defined "others". My hunch is that much of it stems from the rising anxieties of climate change, economic inequality, corporate political control, and even more recently the pandemic.
I have this feeling from time to time. I find that it magically disappears when I stop consuming media. I'm not saying "it goes away when I ignore it", either. I do not get the same sense of an "angry society" when I interact with other human beings, and rarely hear anyone express any kind of urgent anxiety about climate change or economic inequality.
We face serious issues, sure, but none are the urgent societal threats they're made out to be. The real danger are the anxiety peddlers and the fear-amplifiers among us, who want to influence and then monetize your emotional state, or to transmute it into political capital.
I have this feeling from time to time. I find that it magically disappears when I stop consuming media. I'm not saying "it goes away when I ignore it", either. I do not get the same sense of an "angry society" when I interact with other human beings, and rarely hear anyone express any kind of urgent anxiety about climate change or economic inequality.
We face serious issues, sure, but none are the urgent societal threats they're made out to be. The real danger are the anxiety peddlers and the fear-amplifiers among us, who want to influence and then monetize your emotional state, or to transmute it into political capital.
And this is what frustrates me so much about recent attempts at social justice activism. It’s like we find the only thing we can see on the surface and start screaming at it while the rot in the core goes unaddressed. I resist the screaming because I want to fix problems in the core. But the screaming, while not entirely unjustified, often just serves to further obfuscate and conceal the rot within. It’s hard not to feel hopeless when you see so much human capital spent fighting the symptoms.
Part of the mismatch between your interests and the others mentioned here is that your interests are long term and flexible and theirs are short and inflexible. They need to pay this months bills, and at the same time, I suspect they see their current lifestyle and job security at risk. Long term climate change isn't where they focus.
This is why all solutions to climate change also have to address shorter term worries if the political tide has any chance of getting buy-in from those with global AND those with local concerns. Problem is, both the voters and our political leaders have ignored BOTH kinds of problems (and at least one perspective) for far too long. Now both interests have become entrenched into dissonant encampments that, stupidly, are unwilling to talk about how we could take steps to address both purposes at the same time.
This sounds a lot like the US's recent social war over unshared political priorities, and I think it is. The 1%, the middle class, and the dispossessed all have different needs and interests that can't be met if we all feel free to overlook the perspective of those who don't share our priorities. Those experiencing local displacement due to the arrival of well-heeled haves aren't wrong. Nor will today's haves be wrong one day should they find their world turned upside down and then express their unhappiness when others show them no pity, which is likely if they live long enough.
The solution, I think, is to not dismiss dispossession. It's to acknowledge it and start an earnest discussion about what can be done about it.
This is why all solutions to climate change also have to address shorter term worries if the political tide has any chance of getting buy-in from those with global AND those with local concerns. Problem is, both the voters and our political leaders have ignored BOTH kinds of problems (and at least one perspective) for far too long. Now both interests have become entrenched into dissonant encampments that, stupidly, are unwilling to talk about how we could take steps to address both purposes at the same time.
This sounds a lot like the US's recent social war over unshared political priorities, and I think it is. The 1%, the middle class, and the dispossessed all have different needs and interests that can't be met if we all feel free to overlook the perspective of those who don't share our priorities. Those experiencing local displacement due to the arrival of well-heeled haves aren't wrong. Nor will today's haves be wrong one day should they find their world turned upside down and then express their unhappiness when others show them no pity, which is likely if they live long enough.
The solution, I think, is to not dismiss dispossession. It's to acknowledge it and start an earnest discussion about what can be done about it.
I’ve lived in a small city for the past 20 years that went from being a very sleepy, homogenous, and cheap to crowded, busy, and expensive. Both conditions have their pros and cons. Restaurants and night life used to be dull and limited, office jobs were fairly scarce and there was a culture of aggressive ignorance. Those things have improved but now lower income people can’t afford to live in an apartment without sharing with multiple roommates, crime, drug abuse and homelessness are exploding where they were at practically 0 before, home ownership is out of reach for a lot of people and many of the unique local businesses and institutions have collapsed due to rent increases. As far as I can tell, most people are on average worse off than they were before, there’s less of a sense of community, people are more rushed and have less time to relax and socialize, there isn’t the same level of trust between strangers and a hundred other little things. Maybe people were a bit poorer and more intolerant of outsiders before but a lot has been lost for only a little improvement.
> The one constant is: "Everything was great until shortly after I relocated here and you people moved in." A week doesn't go by here where a long-time resident doesn't write an op-ed for our tiny newspaper with this exact message, and delusional descriptions of how their once-great town is now a hellscape.
Twist of twists: Isn't this almost exactly what people have been saying about the Bay Area?
Twist of twists: Isn't this almost exactly what people have been saying about the Bay Area?
I don’t think there’s a convincing argument to be made for complaining about new full-time residents. For second homes and Airbnb’s however, I see a lot of potential for degradation that comes from having transient community members of that aren’t fully vested in the well-being of the local social & economic landscape. I think that measures such as additional taxation on secondary homes or blocking municipal voting rights of people who don’t live their for at least half the year, would do a lot to blunt the downsides of outside interest. But afaik I haven’t seen such things being put forward.
It's a recurring theme. People spend decades taming and beautifying a place. Then people with no respect or appreciation come and love all the "nature" and turn the place into exactly what they were trying to leave behind.
It's incredibly narcissistic and selfish to believe that "the locals" are only there as a hindrance to you. Would you roll up to a random village in Thailand and just start changing things, and expect the people who live there to worship and serve you?
It's incredibly narcissistic and selfish to believe that "the locals" are only there as a hindrance to you. Would you roll up to a random village in Thailand and just start changing things, and expect the people who live there to worship and serve you?
The western united states maintained its wilderness areas through a culture of conservationism that isn't remotely respected by the new arrivals. I've spent the last two decades watching paradise be paved for a parking lot.
The wilderness areas were maintained by not having a lot of people. US added 100M people in the last 40 years, and a lot of them seem to like the Western states' scenery, terrain, and weather.
1980 census shows just over 40M in the west:
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1981-02.pdf
page 6
2019 figures show nearly 80M in the west:
https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=gr...
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
1980 census shows just over 40M in the west:
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1981-02.pdf
page 6
2019 figures show nearly 80M in the west:
https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=gr...
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
I suggest without proof that the west could accommodate more people without adverse effects on the environment if construction preferences were different.
The new construction methods, building types, and communal land management strategies that are preferred by implants have an outsized effect on the environment. Compare the new construction in Vail to the older buildings, which can still be seen in smaller towns.
I would prefer building preferences to become more harmonious with the natural environment instead of less.
The new construction methods, building types, and communal land management strategies that are preferred by implants have an outsized effect on the environment. Compare the new construction in Vail to the older buildings, which can still be seen in smaller towns.
I would prefer building preferences to become more harmonious with the natural environment instead of less.
I agree it's certainly possible. But I've seen a lot of housing developments since the 1980s in the Western cities' suburbs that are at odds with conservationism. I think it happened to not be felt until relatively recently because there was some "slack" available due to lower populations to allow those large lots to exist and not feel crowded or encroach on the environment.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a politically tenable solution since everyone likes their own personal vehicles, and for that you need a driveway or garage, and for that you need space and roads, and that does not scale well with population increase.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a politically tenable solution since everyone likes their own personal vehicles, and for that you need a driveway or garage, and for that you need space and roads, and that does not scale well with population increase.
> Taming and beautifying
What you call development in step 1...
> narcissist and selfish
What you call development in step 2. They're both development and urbanization.
> only there as a hindrance to you.
This seems like a projection. You don't seem to consider "them" as having any right to even exist. Indeed, in the next sentence you compare migrating within the US to migrating outside of it, making the xenophobia even more clear.
What you call development in step 1...
> narcissist and selfish
What you call development in step 2. They're both development and urbanization.
> only there as a hindrance to you.
This seems like a projection. You don't seem to consider "them" as having any right to even exist. Indeed, in the next sentence you compare migrating within the US to migrating outside of it, making the xenophobia even more clear.
They're both development and urbanization.
No, turning a wilderness into viable farmland is not urbanization. There's putting in the time and work to make what you want from scratch, and then there's seeing something nice that someone else made and screaming "mine!"
compare migrating within the US to migrating outside of it, making the xenophobia even more clear.
Putting a false label on something doesn't make the thing become what you label it. The US is not meant to be an open season playground for the rich and the careless.
You don't seem to consider "them" as having any right to even exist.
This sentence seems to perfectly describe the perspective of those who see a small town and want to appropriate it and make it theirs. As someone who has lived in everything from a hometown of a few thousand up to San Francisco, and a variety of suburbs and mid-tier cities in between, it's pretty tiring to see people treating the world like their own giant Disneyland, and all the people who live in it like Castmembers on display for their amusement.
Striving to minimize disruption and maximize cohesion when moving into a new town or building a new development would make for a much better world than the conquistador-style takeover that actually happens in a lot of places.
No, turning a wilderness into viable farmland is not urbanization. There's putting in the time and work to make what you want from scratch, and then there's seeing something nice that someone else made and screaming "mine!"
compare migrating within the US to migrating outside of it, making the xenophobia even more clear.
Putting a false label on something doesn't make the thing become what you label it. The US is not meant to be an open season playground for the rich and the careless.
You don't seem to consider "them" as having any right to even exist.
This sentence seems to perfectly describe the perspective of those who see a small town and want to appropriate it and make it theirs. As someone who has lived in everything from a hometown of a few thousand up to San Francisco, and a variety of suburbs and mid-tier cities in between, it's pretty tiring to see people treating the world like their own giant Disneyland, and all the people who live in it like Castmembers on display for their amusement.
Striving to minimize disruption and maximize cohesion when moving into a new town or building a new development would make for a much better world than the conquistador-style takeover that actually happens in a lot of places.
>No, turning a wilderness into viable farmland is not urbanization.
I'm 90% with you, but we need to be clear that this is not true for the way in which much of the West was settled. It was often not wilderness, but instead land watched over by Native American communities who practiced varying forms of regenerative agriculture, who had only recently been wiped out by disease or war, if they weren't still there. It was settled not by experts looking to "tame the wilderness", but largely by immigrants who were hurried, by job scarcity and discrimination, out of the East Coast and into the interior. They were extremely lucky that the land had essentially been prepared for their monocultures by generations of NA stewardship - people the government was more than happy to enable the displacement and genocide of. (And the Dust Bowl STILL happened.)
That said, after several generations of like stewardship and occupation, I favor those residents and their right to remain over new residents looking to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities. What we absolutely need is more respect for the positive aspects of long-lived communities so that we don't trample and dismantle them so casually. It may not be wholly just that the world isn't one's oyster, but as a black person who has to deal with unfortunate and continued existence of sundown towns, the reality that some places are off-limits until the locals have fixed their own issues is one that should be respected. If the lock isn't level you're just going to open the floodgates of trouble.
I'm 90% with you, but we need to be clear that this is not true for the way in which much of the West was settled. It was often not wilderness, but instead land watched over by Native American communities who practiced varying forms of regenerative agriculture, who had only recently been wiped out by disease or war, if they weren't still there. It was settled not by experts looking to "tame the wilderness", but largely by immigrants who were hurried, by job scarcity and discrimination, out of the East Coast and into the interior. They were extremely lucky that the land had essentially been prepared for their monocultures by generations of NA stewardship - people the government was more than happy to enable the displacement and genocide of. (And the Dust Bowl STILL happened.)
That said, after several generations of like stewardship and occupation, I favor those residents and their right to remain over new residents looking to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities. What we absolutely need is more respect for the positive aspects of long-lived communities so that we don't trample and dismantle them so casually. It may not be wholly just that the world isn't one's oyster, but as a black person who has to deal with unfortunate and continued existence of sundown towns, the reality that some places are off-limits until the locals have fixed their own issues is one that should be respected. If the lock isn't level you're just going to open the floodgates of trouble.
Every time I go to Hawaii I try to start a conversation with a “local” and pretend to be a Californian exploring the island looking to move and buy a house. It’s really weird to me how not self aware people are. Last example few years ago was a guy from Kentucky who had moved in 2000s and started bitching about me
relocating.
Hah. About forty-five years ago in Denver, I listened to a conversation between two women, natives of Colorado. One thought that all non-natives should be given short notice to vacate or else, the other thought that was impractical. (Hey, she'd lived in Virginia for a while.)
> I continue to be amazed by the overt disdain long-time locals have for second home owners
Housing can not be both affordable and a good investment.
Given second homes are an investment, by definition having one means you're helping make homes unaffordable.
Housing can not be both affordable and a good investment.
Given second homes are an investment, by definition having one means you're helping make homes unaffordable.
Yes, 'on the margin' (in economic terms).
This is a collective action problem. If one person decides to not move to Undiscovered Gem, Wild West then there is a large number of others that will.
This is a collective action problem. If one person decides to not move to Undiscovered Gem, Wild West then there is a large number of others that will.
I always saw second homes as a recreational expense first. Your first rental property would be an investment.
A second home isn't necessarily an investment, especially if it's a vacation home. It can be just a place you go on vacation.
By making that home unavailable for people who actually need a place to live, you're reducing the supply, thus increasing prices, and contributing to unaffordable housing.
I say that as a Software Engineer who is 39 and has never been remotely close to affording even a first home.
I say that as a Software Engineer who is 39 and has never been remotely close to affording even a first home.
f I build a vacation home somewhere where there wasn't a house, and I neither live in it nor rent it, does it diminish anyone else's supply of housing? No, it doesn't.
You may say that it could have increased someone else's stock of housing. And that's true. But if I built it as a vacation home, then if it wasn't going to be used as my vacation home, I wouldn't have built it, so it wouldn't have increased anyone else's supply of housing anyway.
You may say that it could have increased someone else's stock of housing. And that's true. But if I built it as a vacation home, then if it wasn't going to be used as my vacation home, I wouldn't have built it, so it wouldn't have increased anyone else's supply of housing anyway.
Maybe we’re too focused on the word “home” rather than “real estate”. That lot you built your vacant vacation home on could be someone else’s primary residence lot. As the saying goes, “they aren’t making any more land” so there is at least a theoretical supply constraint within city limits.
True. Many vacation homes are not within city limits, though.
That's because you prioritized spending your money gallivanting around Africa. You could be the owner of a fixed up fixer upper outside Buffalo or Cleveland if that was what your priorities were.
No, I'm not American. I take it you haven't looked at the housing market in Vancouver or Toronto lately.
The same is happening even in small town now - a friend bought a place just before Covid for $480k, now it's worth $740k. This is a town of 10k people, in the middle of nowhere. Tiny lot, house is almost 100 years old.
The same is happening even in small town now - a friend bought a place just before Covid for $480k, now it's worth $740k. This is a town of 10k people, in the middle of nowhere. Tiny lot, house is almost 100 years old.
Yeah, the common old "cottage" Up North is yielding to 2nd luxury homes which than have to be VRBOed in order to cover the mortgage. Happened to my in-laws lake. Simple cabins displaced and the crowd being far more transient.
Of course they pocketed a seven figure profit, because of the lakefront property, and the 100 year old wood cabin was bulldozed.
Of course they pocketed a seven figure profit, because of the lakefront property, and the 100 year old wood cabin was bulldozed.
>Simple cabins displaced and the crowd being far more transient.
And then the transient occupants party their asses off. And then the Karens pass local ordinances. And then nobody can have any fun.
And then the transient occupants party their asses off. And then the Karens pass local ordinances. And then nobody can have any fun.
The view that a home is an investment is poisonous to the housing supply. It makes people of all political affiliations into raging NIMBYs. Why would they want to change anything or allow any new construction in their area if it might negatively affect their housing price?
You're right that a lot of the entitled screaming is ridiculous, but I think you're missing some of the very real problems that come with an influx of new money and (especially) second homes.
I grew up in a tourist area, and though I'm one of the ones who left for the Big City I keep in touch. I'll give you a few examples that I think are illustrative.
Immediately after college, a buddy and I shared an apartment in a nice building on a nice street. We both made decent money working in touristy restaurants, as did the three girls our age who lived next door (and, I think, the inhabitants of the other two units in the building, though we didn't have much to do with them: they were older, and had kids, so not much in common with us at the time). During the two years that we lived there, the family home directly next door sold. It was kind of sad, because a nice older couple lived there -- we watered their plants for them once, and the wife baked us an ENORMOUS batch of cookies to say thanks -- but the husband died, and the old lady moved away to live with one of her daughters somewhere else. Anyway, the house was bought by someone as a second home / investment property; during the next year it was used for exactly three days (for a really loud and obnoxious party, but whatever). We snuck in through the backyard to use the Jacuzzi a few times, but even then I can remember thinking that this place turning into an effectively vacant property was a bad sign.
Fast forward twenty-something years, and even more of the "family" homes on that street have become second home / investment properties. The four-unit apartment that we lived in is now exclusively rented out on AirBnB, displacing the service-industry families and twenty-somethings that lived there before.
Just about everyone who actually works in that town now commutes from miles and miles away, and rush-hour traffic -- on rural roads -- is terrible.
The displacement goes much further up the income scale that you'd think, too. I've kept my dentist there, partly out of sentiment: the dentist who previously owned the practice had looked after my teeth since I was, like, eight years old; my regular hygienist has been cleaning my teeth since I was about fifteen. I cleaned their office for them when I was in high school, and they still give me an "employee discount" on fluoride treatments or whatever, so going there gives me all kinds of good small-town feelings. A decade or so ago someone I went to school with partnered with the original dentist, and then bought out the practice when the old dentist retired. We've talked a few times, and I don't think it's gone quite as well as she hoped. For one thing, she has to pay her hygienists and dental assistants a premium, to keep them willing to make the fifty+ mile commutes most of them have to make, since local housing is out of reach. She expected that, though. What I think she didn't quite expect is that she'd have so many fewer patients than the practice used to have. Partly that may be churn that comes with the old dentist retiring and someone new taking over, but also it's because the year-round population has declined, and second-homers and AirBnB-ers aren't looking for dentists in their vacation town. My friend had expected to pay off the loan for the practice and then buy a home in town before her kids got to school age. It's now 8-ish years since we talked about that, and she's still making a ~70 mile commute each way.
Build more homes? Yeah: that does need to happen (I vote the straight YIMBY ticket in the city I live in, so I totally get that argument), but ... rural small-town charm drives the tourist industry around there. Build too much and you kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
It's a really multi-layered problem, that I don't think has a simple solution. That said, there are a few relatively easy things that I think would help a great deal:
1) Raise property taxes (how much? I don't know: double, triple, quintuple, octuple? What's a bigger adjective than that? It should be by whatever multiple it takes) on any property that's not a primary residence for someone. At some level it becomes worth it to rent out your investment or AirBnB property to someone who'll actually live in it.
2) Restore the train line into town (and probably electrify it, too), then run regular commuter trains throughout the day. The right-of-way still exists, and is currently used for touristy sight-seeing and dining trains. Those can still run, but they're terribly inefficient as the only users of the rails. The goal should be to get workers cheaply to work, and tourists off the roads.
3) Charge a congestion fee to anyone who still chooses to drive. I'd make it $300 for a permit that's good for a year: that hits the tourists really hard (and helps subsidize the train), but should be relatively affordable for anyone who works or lives in town.
I dunno. I'm not really arguing with you, but I do want to make the point that the economics of tourist towns are weird, and at least some of the locals' resentment is driven less by entitlement than by economic forces, and enforced changes, that really are hurting them.
I grew up in a tourist area, and though I'm one of the ones who left for the Big City I keep in touch. I'll give you a few examples that I think are illustrative.
Immediately after college, a buddy and I shared an apartment in a nice building on a nice street. We both made decent money working in touristy restaurants, as did the three girls our age who lived next door (and, I think, the inhabitants of the other two units in the building, though we didn't have much to do with them: they were older, and had kids, so not much in common with us at the time). During the two years that we lived there, the family home directly next door sold. It was kind of sad, because a nice older couple lived there -- we watered their plants for them once, and the wife baked us an ENORMOUS batch of cookies to say thanks -- but the husband died, and the old lady moved away to live with one of her daughters somewhere else. Anyway, the house was bought by someone as a second home / investment property; during the next year it was used for exactly three days (for a really loud and obnoxious party, but whatever). We snuck in through the backyard to use the Jacuzzi a few times, but even then I can remember thinking that this place turning into an effectively vacant property was a bad sign.
Fast forward twenty-something years, and even more of the "family" homes on that street have become second home / investment properties. The four-unit apartment that we lived in is now exclusively rented out on AirBnB, displacing the service-industry families and twenty-somethings that lived there before.
Just about everyone who actually works in that town now commutes from miles and miles away, and rush-hour traffic -- on rural roads -- is terrible.
The displacement goes much further up the income scale that you'd think, too. I've kept my dentist there, partly out of sentiment: the dentist who previously owned the practice had looked after my teeth since I was, like, eight years old; my regular hygienist has been cleaning my teeth since I was about fifteen. I cleaned their office for them when I was in high school, and they still give me an "employee discount" on fluoride treatments or whatever, so going there gives me all kinds of good small-town feelings. A decade or so ago someone I went to school with partnered with the original dentist, and then bought out the practice when the old dentist retired. We've talked a few times, and I don't think it's gone quite as well as she hoped. For one thing, she has to pay her hygienists and dental assistants a premium, to keep them willing to make the fifty+ mile commutes most of them have to make, since local housing is out of reach. She expected that, though. What I think she didn't quite expect is that she'd have so many fewer patients than the practice used to have. Partly that may be churn that comes with the old dentist retiring and someone new taking over, but also it's because the year-round population has declined, and second-homers and AirBnB-ers aren't looking for dentists in their vacation town. My friend had expected to pay off the loan for the practice and then buy a home in town before her kids got to school age. It's now 8-ish years since we talked about that, and she's still making a ~70 mile commute each way.
Build more homes? Yeah: that does need to happen (I vote the straight YIMBY ticket in the city I live in, so I totally get that argument), but ... rural small-town charm drives the tourist industry around there. Build too much and you kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
It's a really multi-layered problem, that I don't think has a simple solution. That said, there are a few relatively easy things that I think would help a great deal:
1) Raise property taxes (how much? I don't know: double, triple, quintuple, octuple? What's a bigger adjective than that? It should be by whatever multiple it takes) on any property that's not a primary residence for someone. At some level it becomes worth it to rent out your investment or AirBnB property to someone who'll actually live in it.
2) Restore the train line into town (and probably electrify it, too), then run regular commuter trains throughout the day. The right-of-way still exists, and is currently used for touristy sight-seeing and dining trains. Those can still run, but they're terribly inefficient as the only users of the rails. The goal should be to get workers cheaply to work, and tourists off the roads.
3) Charge a congestion fee to anyone who still chooses to drive. I'd make it $300 for a permit that's good for a year: that hits the tourists really hard (and helps subsidize the train), but should be relatively affordable for anyone who works or lives in town.
I dunno. I'm not really arguing with you, but I do want to make the point that the economics of tourist towns are weird, and at least some of the locals' resentment is driven less by entitlement than by economic forces, and enforced changes, that really are hurting them.
[deleted]
There is no such thing as "locals getting screwed" in this scenario. We live in a free country, where people sometimes choose to move. In fact, when the demand for housing in an area goes up, often locals profit handsomely.
Unfortunately, "I was here first" sounds a lot like "fuck you, I got mine". And it's not gonna fly.
Unfortunately, "I was here first" sounds a lot like "fuck you, I got mine". And it's not gonna fly.
Listen, nearly everyone largely agrees that wealth inequality at the current US level is bad.
Wealthy people moving to low-cost areas (and thus raising cost of living) accelerates inequality for a few reasons.
1) Unlike you scenario, many working-class people in places like Sedona can only afford to rent their homes (25% of total, give or take in Sedona). These people incur huge monetary costs in being forced to move / switch jobs / etc.
2) Moving causes people to lose social capital. Laugh all you want, but going from a tight-knit neighborhood of peers to a new town of strangers creates costs, at least in the short term. No one to watch your kids, no one to give you a ride if your car breaks down, etc.
3) Even for those who stay, they lose power, since their new wealthy residents likely have better lobbying sway (e.g., the new bus to the airport causes service to decrease to job centers, etc.)
I don't disagree that certain locals benefit from gentrification (parent comment made the same point), but your capitalism-enabled lack of empathy for those who don't benefit is why people are warming to the ideas of socialism. So if you don't want that, I'd tread carefully & try to be a bit more empathetic.
Wealthy people moving to low-cost areas (and thus raising cost of living) accelerates inequality for a few reasons.
1) Unlike you scenario, many working-class people in places like Sedona can only afford to rent their homes (25% of total, give or take in Sedona). These people incur huge monetary costs in being forced to move / switch jobs / etc.
2) Moving causes people to lose social capital. Laugh all you want, but going from a tight-knit neighborhood of peers to a new town of strangers creates costs, at least in the short term. No one to watch your kids, no one to give you a ride if your car breaks down, etc.
3) Even for those who stay, they lose power, since their new wealthy residents likely have better lobbying sway (e.g., the new bus to the airport causes service to decrease to job centers, etc.)
I don't disagree that certain locals benefit from gentrification (parent comment made the same point), but your capitalism-enabled lack of empathy for those who don't benefit is why people are warming to the ideas of socialism. So if you don't want that, I'd tread carefully & try to be a bit more empathetic.
So if simply moving creates inequality, then what do people do? Stay in their hometown their entire life? Sounds like you need to revise the game, not hate the player.
Maybe make the choice to move to established residential areas with infrastructure and housing to support growing populations instead of water-parched small communities near natural wonders?
Alternatively, those wealthy people could use their wealth to build civic infrastructure (e.g., better roads, better school, housing for working class people) to mitigate the negative externalities of their move. But generally, those wealthy movers are moving to escape urbanism and would be loathe to do those very 'urban' things.
Again, I don't disagree with you that in the current American system, 'I've got mine, f** you' is a totally acceptable way to approach moving to a new community, but to put it in words you used, "It's not going to fly" at least not in the long term.
Alternatively, those wealthy people could use their wealth to build civic infrastructure (e.g., better roads, better school, housing for working class people) to mitigate the negative externalities of their move. But generally, those wealthy movers are moving to escape urbanism and would be loathe to do those very 'urban' things.
Again, I don't disagree with you that in the current American system, 'I've got mine, f** you' is a totally acceptable way to approach moving to a new community, but to put it in words you used, "It's not going to fly" at least not in the long term.
“Revising the game” is exactly what the GP commentator was warning about. Push the inequality far enough and the social contract will likely get changed. So you asked what can you do? I’m not saying don’t move to the area you want, but make conscious choices that help reduce the inequalities that may drive those inequalities. Maybe don’t be riled up about high density housing bringing down your property values. Maybe support local businesses even though it costs more. Maybe vote for higher taxes that provide better schools even if you don’t have kids. Love how much father your income goes in that new town? Maybe donate just a portion of it to help provide a safety net for “locals” who may otherwise be negatively impacted by the “out-of-towners”.
And maybe you do all those types of things already. But the tone of your comment comes across as, “Welp, what choice do I have but to myopically try to get the most out of this hustle??”
And maybe you do all those types of things already. But the tone of your comment comes across as, “Welp, what choice do I have but to myopically try to get the most out of this hustle??”
I’m not sure how you got that tone from my comment. Things like better funding for schools and not treating property like an investment vehicle are exactly the type of game changing tactics we need to consider collectively enforcing as local communities, hence my suggestion to revise the game not hate the players. The comment I responded too is suggesting that people [moving] are the problem and while there may be some implicit moral responsibility expected of those who relocate when their income would be higher than average in their new location, the problem, to me, seems systemic.
Sorry if I misinterpreted, maybe it’s just the loaded phrase used as a quip that threw me off.
I agree, the way forward is to revise the structure and incentives. However, I don’t want to completely absolve individuals of moral responsibility just because they’re playing within the rules of “the game”
I agree, the way forward is to revise the structure and incentives. However, I don’t want to completely absolve individuals of moral responsibility just because they’re playing within the rules of “the game”
> Wealthy people moving to low-cost areas (and thus raising cost of living) accelerates inequality for a few reasons.
Low cost _desirable_ areas.
Low cost _desirable_ areas.
I’m pretty sure there is economic research showing that movement actually decreases inequality.
Source please. I can see how increased demand for property in an area would increase inequality but not the reverse. When the cost of living rises but you're not invested in the parts of the market which gain from higher valuation, you're going to lose ground until either you can't compete or you buy in. And if you can buy in, great. But I suspect few locals have the capital or professional skills to ante up.
Geographic mobility is a key term it seems
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/labor-mob...
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/labor-mob...
Movement by whom, the poor or the rich?
waheoo(1)
I'm OK with "ideas of socialism," I think. Especially regarding UBI and universal medical care.
But, I also think that it's better to be in a growing area than a static or declining area. I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers.
As an adult human being, it is your responsiblility to adapt and decide what is best for yourself and your dependents. No one owes you an unchanging landscape.
But, I also think that it's better to be in a growing area than a static or declining area. I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers.
As an adult human being, it is your responsiblility to adapt and decide what is best for yourself and your dependents. No one owes you an unchanging landscape.
"I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers."
I think the main point is being forced out of your life-long home due to increased costs or taxes. Or the destruction of the local cultures/customs through change in local government policies. If you want an extreme example, you can look at the way that cult in Oregon took over a county/town in the 80s or 90s. Nothing legally wrong with it (the population segment with the highest numbers won; not talking the biological attack), but it did make the existing residents subject to their will and angry.
The whole situation (on both sides) was mostly out of a lack of acceptance for other people and their life choices. I think we see this same sort of paradigm with people wanting changes that benefit them but might be detrimental to others in their "communities" (we don't really act like neighbors anymore) without meaningful discussion.
I think the main point is being forced out of your life-long home due to increased costs or taxes. Or the destruction of the local cultures/customs through change in local government policies. If you want an extreme example, you can look at the way that cult in Oregon took over a county/town in the 80s or 90s. Nothing legally wrong with it (the population segment with the highest numbers won; not talking the biological attack), but it did make the existing residents subject to their will and angry.
The whole situation (on both sides) was mostly out of a lack of acceptance for other people and their life choices. I think we see this same sort of paradigm with people wanting changes that benefit them but might be detrimental to others in their "communities" (we don't really act like neighbors anymore) without meaningful discussion.
The key is assimilation. If you move into a place with the goal of becoming one of the community and understanding and blending into the local culture and economy, people will be a lot more accepting. If you expect everyone to get out of your way, expect them to fight back.
>The key is assimilation
I think assimilation is too unprecise of a word.
In the context of these discussions nobody ever complains about foreign immigrants with a small army of kids running around and they're (at least initially) as un-assimilated as one can be. Heck, they might not even speak the language.
Meanwhile everyone agrees that Karen the corporate lawyer who shows up and promptly gets to work building a fence, calling in noise complaints and narcing on everyone for ordinance violations and unpermitted work is in the wrong.
I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly what it is but there's this disdain and unwillingness to respect local norms that makes the latter example of a newcomer toxic and unwanted (and IMO it seems to correlate strongly with wealth of the newcomer).
I think assimilation is too unprecise of a word.
In the context of these discussions nobody ever complains about foreign immigrants with a small army of kids running around and they're (at least initially) as un-assimilated as one can be. Heck, they might not even speak the language.
Meanwhile everyone agrees that Karen the corporate lawyer who shows up and promptly gets to work building a fence, calling in noise complaints and narcing on everyone for ordinance violations and unpermitted work is in the wrong.
I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly what it is but there's this disdain and unwillingness to respect local norms that makes the latter example of a newcomer toxic and unwanted (and IMO it seems to correlate strongly with wealth of the newcomer).
> The key is assimilation.
Agreed, but it goes both ways. "We welcome your money, but please keep your opinions to yourself", isn't a great way to assimilate new migrants. Also, see top comment by Mark Watson.
Agreed, but it goes both ways. "We welcome your money, but please keep your opinions to yourself", isn't a great way to assimilate new migrants. Also, see top comment by Mark Watson.
True, but the ones you hear about are usually not just sharing their opinion, but trying to force that opinion on someone else, and usually rudely (think Karens).
Every place changes regardless of people trying to preserve them in amber. The 'forced out of your lifelong' home thing is tough but I haven't seen any good solutions to it. California absolutely messed up their state with their property tax changes that turned home ownership into feudalism. Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier.
If housing is actually allowed to be built, someone might be able to stay in the area in a new, nicer, place. However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded. Houston might actually be the closest. Prices in Houston are way lower than many other in-demand major cities.
If housing is actually allowed to be built, someone might be able to stay in the area in a new, nicer, place. However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded. Houston might actually be the closest. Prices in Houston are way lower than many other in-demand major cities.
There are good reasons why Houston stays cheap. (I lived there for a couple of years.)
It's a huge metro area with no zoning. That dissuades people from building a castle when a toxic waste dump (or refinery) could go in upwind without warning.
The city's large size and the ever-expanding radius to growing exurbs tends to dilute the value of existing homes which slows their appreciation. And the land in the region has no natural beauty. It's scrub. So creating a synthetic upscale suburb would be hard to sell economically. So neighborhood trendiness tends to arise organically, mostly from proximity to central neighborhoods (like University Village near Rice or Memorial in the museum district).
Low home prices in Houston wasn't the result of an engineered or government-driven initiative. Like all economic change in Texas, it happened on its own.
It's the same phenomena that have restrained home price inflation in Las Vegas. There's a lot of surrounding desert there and not much natural beauty to motivate gentrification in upscaleing the homes/suburb near a natural hot spot.
It's a huge metro area with no zoning. That dissuades people from building a castle when a toxic waste dump (or refinery) could go in upwind without warning.
The city's large size and the ever-expanding radius to growing exurbs tends to dilute the value of existing homes which slows their appreciation. And the land in the region has no natural beauty. It's scrub. So creating a synthetic upscale suburb would be hard to sell economically. So neighborhood trendiness tends to arise organically, mostly from proximity to central neighborhoods (like University Village near Rice or Memorial in the museum district).
Low home prices in Houston wasn't the result of an engineered or government-driven initiative. Like all economic change in Texas, it happened on its own.
It's the same phenomena that have restrained home price inflation in Las Vegas. There's a lot of surrounding desert there and not much natural beauty to motivate gentrification in upscaleing the homes/suburb near a natural hot spot.
"However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded."
And thus my question/comments about controlling the demand side, as the supply side changes haven't worked well.
"Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier."
Well, the system of funding the schools through property taxes on people without children is essentially the same - tax is used for "the collective good", where you have some people supporting others.
And thus my question/comments about controlling the demand side, as the supply side changes haven't worked well.
"Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier."
Well, the system of funding the schools through property taxes on people without children is essentially the same - tax is used for "the collective good", where you have some people supporting others.
Here is an image that shows you what California's property tax system has done: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192
Keep in mind that the tax break can be passed on to children when the owner passes. I fail to see the collective good in that system. But at least the owners of that $3.5M home never have to leave while they pay $800/yr in property taxes and the newcomer that moved into the identical house next door pays $25k/yr.
Keep in mind that the tax break can be passed on to children when the owner passes. I fail to see the collective good in that system. But at least the owners of that $3.5M home never have to leave while they pay $800/yr in property taxes and the newcomer that moved into the identical house next door pays $25k/yr.
> https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192
No idea where that is so can't comment on it.
However, I do know that some of these sites that report propery taxes do have incorrect information.
In my neighborhood (where I bought before it was built and have lived there ever since and know well who has lived for how long in each house) I see most houses on my street reported with their correct property tax but there are a few outliers which are completely wrong. Those show a property tax far lower than it ever was.
If someone were to take a screenshot of the property tax reported for my street, they'd think there is a 100x difference between the lowest and the highest for similar homes. But those lowest numbers are not true.
The real spread is more like 2.5x from lowest to highest. Which is not nothing, obviously, but way closer than it would seem.
No idea where that is so can't comment on it.
However, I do know that some of these sites that report propery taxes do have incorrect information.
In my neighborhood (where I bought before it was built and have lived there ever since and know well who has lived for how long in each house) I see most houses on my street reported with their correct property tax but there are a few outliers which are completely wrong. Those show a property tax far lower than it ever was.
If someone were to take a screenshot of the property tax reported for my street, they'd think there is a 100x difference between the lowest and the highest for similar homes. But those lowest numbers are not true.
The real spread is more like 2.5x from lowest to highest. Which is not nothing, obviously, but way closer than it would seem.
The greater good is that you don't force people out of their homes. If you worked at 1960s-1990s pay, there's no way you're affording $30k a year in tax, so it makes sense to lock it at the purchased value. Sure the child inheritance of the old tax rate might not be. The real question is why not use income tax? This would avoid kicking out the elderly, and only collect money from those who are actually making it.
I don't generally like the idea of taxing people on things they already have. I would rather see it on the people who are making money. If you are benefiting from the system (income) then pay part of it (tax). Under these other schemes, it could be that the system has failed you, left you behind, etc and then the tax is like the nail in the coffin. It makes the most sense to take the money from the people who are making it.
I don't generally like the idea of taxing people on things they already have. I would rather see it on the people who are making money. If you are benefiting from the system (income) then pay part of it (tax). Under these other schemes, it could be that the system has failed you, left you behind, etc and then the tax is like the nail in the coffin. It makes the most sense to take the money from the people who are making it.
The supply side changes haven't worked because people are selfish and the system is perverted. “I’ll see your family struggle with gentrification before I lose my bay views and stupidly inflated house value.”
The problem is boomers treating property as an investment vehicle the value of which must go up up up. Introduce affordable housing to cool the market off? Not over my dead body if it means people won’t be clawing tooth and nail for properties in my neighborhood anymore.
The incentives are so backwards. I’ve got mine fuck yours. I don't see how demand side regulation addresses any of this...
The problem is boomers treating property as an investment vehicle the value of which must go up up up. Introduce affordable housing to cool the market off? Not over my dead body if it means people won’t be clawing tooth and nail for properties in my neighborhood anymore.
The incentives are so backwards. I’ve got mine fuck yours. I don't see how demand side regulation addresses any of this...
The higher taxes mentioned would be a demand side tactic. We could also address the root cause and not just the symptoms. The high paying jobs are one of the biggest things bringing people in. The city could create policies that make other locations more attractive for businesses to create those jobs, thus decreasing demand in the areas with the problem.
I do understand that many of the incentives are backwards, so higher taxes, policies to move jobs, etc are all difficult to handle. But I also think that building more high density housing isn't really going to fix anything. In my view, many of the people in this sort of situation chose to be - they could take jobs in other cities but the group-think says they need to be in SV and working for FAANG to be successful. Not to mention that many want a single family home with amenities to come with that.
I do understand that many of the incentives are backwards, so higher taxes, policies to move jobs, etc are all difficult to handle. But I also think that building more high density housing isn't really going to fix anything. In my view, many of the people in this sort of situation chose to be - they could take jobs in other cities but the group-think says they need to be in SV and working for FAANG to be successful. Not to mention that many want a single family home with amenities to come with that.
I guess the counterpoint is what does someone, who is uncomfortable about this, think the urban centers they lived in prior to the moves used to be like?
Urban poor or rural poor, techies/finance/etc displace them all the same.
The missing link here is, IMO, community involvement. Don’t become a ghost resident jacking up rents. Do join a community board, PTA, etc. Become an active stakeholder and learn about and contribute to wherever you live.
Locals, urban or rural, aren’t pissed only about rising rents or home prices, but also millennial wealth moving in and not giving a f about what’s already there.
Empathy and demonstrating community interest towards the locals goes so far but that seems so low on the problem population’s radar as an easy solution.
Urban poor or rural poor, techies/finance/etc displace them all the same.
The missing link here is, IMO, community involvement. Don’t become a ghost resident jacking up rents. Do join a community board, PTA, etc. Become an active stakeholder and learn about and contribute to wherever you live.
Locals, urban or rural, aren’t pissed only about rising rents or home prices, but also millennial wealth moving in and not giving a f about what’s already there.
Empathy and demonstrating community interest towards the locals goes so far but that seems so low on the problem population’s radar as an easy solution.
Lived in South Florida for a while, this is exactly how it is. Also those "small mountain towns" are deeply conservative and intolerant, if you are white you are in luck, but I don't think they are thrilled to see an influx of non-white folks coming to their town, same with LGBTQ+ people. Those places fit a certain type of people but definitely not everybody that have the money to move there.
I couldn't agree more.
I was born in the US to Asian Indian parents. We lived in a small town in the southern US and dealt with a lot of racist crap. I went to college in a big city and while racism still exists the majority do not have racist views and are more accepting of people that do not look like them.
I've travelled to 47 states and I am most scared when I am in a small town in the mountain west. Burns, Oregon. Moscow, Idaho. Everyone was staring at me in the grocery store. I got some intimidating comments like "Are you new in town?" "No, just passing through." "Good."
Not welcoming in the slightest.
I was born in the US to Asian Indian parents. We lived in a small town in the southern US and dealt with a lot of racist crap. I went to college in a big city and while racism still exists the majority do not have racist views and are more accepting of people that do not look like them.
I've travelled to 47 states and I am most scared when I am in a small town in the mountain west. Burns, Oregon. Moscow, Idaho. Everyone was staring at me in the grocery store. I got some intimidating comments like "Are you new in town?" "No, just passing through." "Good."
Not welcoming in the slightest.
I live in a pretty backwoods part of Washington and even as a white but liberal looking person I get that to a much lesser extent. I can't imagine what you've had to deal with.
After my trip through Burns, Oregon where I got some of those comments at the grocery store I went to John Day, Oregon. I mainly went to see the fossil beds national monument but I also stopped at this small museum which was a Chinese run store and apothecary in the late 1800's and early 1900's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kam_Wah_Chung_%26_Co._Museum
The tour guide mentioned how welcoming the people were to their Chinese immigrants. She went on to say that when the Aryan Nation tried to set up their headquarters there the people organized to tell them to go away. Unfortunately they keep trying to come back. This story is from last year.
It's great that the people of John Day are fighting against racism but I got the feeling on my trip that the Aryan Nation would be welcome an hour south in Burns.
https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/john-day-to-aryans-w...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kam_Wah_Chung_%26_Co._Museum
The tour guide mentioned how welcoming the people were to their Chinese immigrants. She went on to say that when the Aryan Nation tried to set up their headquarters there the people organized to tell them to go away. Unfortunately they keep trying to come back. This story is from last year.
It's great that the people of John Day are fighting against racism but I got the feeling on my trip that the Aryan Nation would be welcome an hour south in Burns.
https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/john-day-to-aryans-w...
Boy, do I doubt "how welcoming the people were to their Chinese immigrants", given Oregon's history with non-white folks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws
Lots of supposedly liberal states had Black Laws.
European here, who has clocked up about 3.5 years of living in New England: in cosmopolitan areas, I didn't see much racism against what I might call "melting pot" ethnicities although I heard of some, but I often saw and heard of racism by middle-class Americans against American blacks, including by white fellow students of a black Yale undergraduate. I think that racism in the US is very much a two-lane thing.
Have you lived in any of these places? I grew up in Fairfield County and you seem to greatly exaggerate its dystopian qualities. What's more, industry's flight from the area has nothing to do with folks coming from NYC.
I grew up in one of those places. How else would I have developed such disdain for that economic model?
Replacement of whatever (necessarily small, otherwise the big city money wouldn't be a problem) industry there is/was with entertainment and tourism isn't the issue. The reality of an economy that is dependent on a specific image or perception (many would say facade) of quaintness is the problem.
You get all sorts of terrible "crab-bucket-esque" feedback loops that quash people's desire to do anything different, innovative or ambitious for fear of harming the golden goose. A large fraction of the people who actually want to do things (boring old normal business endavours that underpin a sustainable economy) leave because whatever their trade is doing it elsewhere and not putting up with all the extra overhead crap of doing it in a tourism/entertainment economy. The fact that a much larg(er than in a "normal economy) portion of the customers any given business sees will only ever transact with them ones creates a bunch of perverse incentives to do dishonest business.
It's like everything that's wrong with a college town combined with everything that's wrong with a wealthy retirement community.
Edit: strike CT from that list of examples, I was going for a "Cape cod but in the NYC economic region" and that part of CT is more like NYC's wealthy NJ suburbs.
Replacement of whatever (necessarily small, otherwise the big city money wouldn't be a problem) industry there is/was with entertainment and tourism isn't the issue. The reality of an economy that is dependent on a specific image or perception (many would say facade) of quaintness is the problem.
You get all sorts of terrible "crab-bucket-esque" feedback loops that quash people's desire to do anything different, innovative or ambitious for fear of harming the golden goose. A large fraction of the people who actually want to do things (boring old normal business endavours that underpin a sustainable economy) leave because whatever their trade is doing it elsewhere and not putting up with all the extra overhead crap of doing it in a tourism/entertainment economy. The fact that a much larg(er than in a "normal economy) portion of the customers any given business sees will only ever transact with them ones creates a bunch of perverse incentives to do dishonest business.
It's like everything that's wrong with a college town combined with everything that's wrong with a wealthy retirement community.
Edit: strike CT from that list of examples, I was going for a "Cape cod but in the NYC economic region" and that part of CT is more like NYC's wealthy NJ suburbs.
From second-hand experience (hearing directly from someone who was from a place like this), I would also add Hawaii to this list of places. Although the dynamic has existed there for a long time, it seems definitely to have accelerated in recent years.
It's somewhat received wisdom that those who can afford private schooling throughout their K-12 years leave the islands for labor opportunities (outside of tourism and real-estate management) in the lower 48 (the mainland). Meanwhile those who have to suffer through the Hawaii public education system are destined to do their part in entertaining wealthy mainlanders.
Extremely high land and input costs have long pushed many innovative/nascent businesses to the mainland. Consequently the jobs created by those firms are not available to people from Hawaii. I've heard of some promising new ventures that are seeking to change this, but I'm not holding my breath that this dynamic will change anytime soon.
Note: I apologize if I've casted shade upon anyone who's been through the Hawaii public education system and found a career that suits them.
It's somewhat received wisdom that those who can afford private schooling throughout their K-12 years leave the islands for labor opportunities (outside of tourism and real-estate management) in the lower 48 (the mainland). Meanwhile those who have to suffer through the Hawaii public education system are destined to do their part in entertaining wealthy mainlanders.
Extremely high land and input costs have long pushed many innovative/nascent businesses to the mainland. Consequently the jobs created by those firms are not available to people from Hawaii. I've heard of some promising new ventures that are seeking to change this, but I'm not holding my breath that this dynamic will change anytime soon.
Note: I apologize if I've casted shade upon anyone who's been through the Hawaii public education system and found a career that suits them.
Naturally Vail, Cape Cod, or whathaveyou may be a different story, but Fairfield County really isn't driven by tourism or entertainment. Finance, real estate, and industry each generate more value per year. I'm not fixated on defending the place's honor so much as providing a counterexample of how dealing with other regions is not necessarily negative.
[deleted]
Lived in Vail for 4 years. I wouldn't say that they are exaggerating...
Yeah. Even so, not sure how representative Fairfield County is of CT in general. On the one hand, it's the de facto bedroom for people who work in NYC. On the other, because it's the bedroom, you will see a different spread of economic activity. Go further north and you have manufacturing and pharmaceuticals and engineering as well as insurance. The state probably could do a lot more to promote businesses, but it will need to consider that they're basically sandwiched between Boston and NYC (which they probably have). Also, I read that Covid has actually been good for states like CT because with the exodus from large cities, people have moved or started business in the state. Companies have also canceled their plans to move to places like NYC (GE did move to Boston, but Aetna canceled its plans to move to NYC). I wouldn't be surprised if NJ also benefited similarly (and NJ is also a state sandwiched between two large cities, NYC and Philly).
COVID and the resulting remote work might actually be contributing to a better distribution of wealth in the country in general. It might depress salaries for industries that have concentrated in places like SFV and NYC, and thus create incentives to move out of those areas and create less drastic occupational concentrations in some industries. These changes will create conditions that create secondary benefits.
COVID and the resulting remote work might actually be contributing to a better distribution of wealth in the country in general. It might depress salaries for industries that have concentrated in places like SFV and NYC, and thus create incentives to move out of those areas and create less drastic occupational concentrations in some industries. These changes will create conditions that create secondary benefits.
> COVID and the resulting remote work might actually be contributing to a better distribution of wealth in the country in general.
I think this is an under-appreciated fact. Remote work has the potential to be a huge equalizer, by uncoupling people's jobs from where they live.
I think this is an under-appreciated fact. Remote work has the potential to be a huge equalizer, by uncoupling people's jobs from where they live.
Hello fellow Fairfield County native, there must be literally dozens of us on HN!
I guess the question is, is quality of life zero-sum?
I want to say no because I feel like I can improve my QoL in ways that don't harm others, but all these examples are telling me that its really that I don't (or maybe even choose not to) see the negative consequences until its compounded by a large enough group and it ends up being another one of your examples.
I want to say no because I feel like I can improve my QoL in ways that don't harm others, but all these examples are telling me that its really that I don't (or maybe even choose not to) see the negative consequences until its compounded by a large enough group and it ends up being another one of your examples.
The quality of life is not zero-sum, bot on a local level and a short timeframe, many things are indeed zero sum.
The best example is land & desirable real estate. It only takes a few people with "outside" money to drive up prices in the market or to purchase land and sit on it in perpetuity, driving up prices by taking it out of the local supply.
The best example is land & desirable real estate. It only takes a few people with "outside" money to drive up prices in the market or to purchase land and sit on it in perpetuity, driving up prices by taking it out of the local supply.
From [0]:
"Aquinas believed that it was specifically immoral to raise prices because a particular buyer had an urgent need for what was being sold [...] Aquinas would therefore condemn practices such as raising the price of building supplies in the wake of a natural disaster. Increased demand caused by the destruction of existing buildings does not add to a seller's costs, so to take advantage of buyers' increased willingness to pay constituted a species of fraud in Aquinas's view."
"Aquinas believed all gains made in trade must relate to the labour exerted by the merchant, not to the need of the buyer. Hence, he condoned moderate gain as payment even for unnecessary trade, provided the price were regulated and kept within certain bounds"
So if this is true (and I'm sure certain tacit assumptions are not mentioned in this Wiki page), then it seems that crazy market price fluctuations have to do with the divorce of market value from labor which was "replaced by the microeconomic concept of supply and demand from Locke, Steuart, Ricardo, Ibn Taymiyyah, and especially Adam Smith".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_price
"Aquinas believed that it was specifically immoral to raise prices because a particular buyer had an urgent need for what was being sold [...] Aquinas would therefore condemn practices such as raising the price of building supplies in the wake of a natural disaster. Increased demand caused by the destruction of existing buildings does not add to a seller's costs, so to take advantage of buyers' increased willingness to pay constituted a species of fraud in Aquinas's view."
"Aquinas believed all gains made in trade must relate to the labour exerted by the merchant, not to the need of the buyer. Hence, he condoned moderate gain as payment even for unnecessary trade, provided the price were regulated and kept within certain bounds"
So if this is true (and I'm sure certain tacit assumptions are not mentioned in this Wiki page), then it seems that crazy market price fluctuations have to do with the divorce of market value from labor which was "replaced by the microeconomic concept of supply and demand from Locke, Steuart, Ricardo, Ibn Taymiyyah, and especially Adam Smith".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_price
The purpose of increased prices is to incentivize more supply to come into the market. If prices do not rise with demand (and static supply), then you’re left with a market where certain buyers are lucky (or connected) and some don’t get anything.
ERCOT's dismal failure the past several months has once again shown the fallacy of this thinking.
Raising prices to infinity cannot induce supply of a good or service for which there is simply no capacity to provision. Nor does discrimination by price for life's essentials result in fair or equitable distribution when there is a tremendous inequality in purchasing power among the population, much if that itself the result of random chance, inheritence, or nonproductive gains.
There's another market mechanism for addressing probabalistic risks, which is to prepare in advance, to assess penalties for failure to provision, to maintain stockpiles and emergency response plans, and to move stochastic future costs to present expense through mechanisms such as risk premiums. These create present incentives for managing such risks, and are based on data and modeling which ground those costs in the likely long-run and widespread average experience. Moving expenses to the present also creates opportunity and incentive to manage, mitigate, and avoid risks.
Raising prices to infinity cannot induce supply of a good or service for which there is simply no capacity to provision. Nor does discrimination by price for life's essentials result in fair or equitable distribution when there is a tremendous inequality in purchasing power among the population, much if that itself the result of random chance, inheritence, or nonproductive gains.
There's another market mechanism for addressing probabalistic risks, which is to prepare in advance, to assess penalties for failure to provision, to maintain stockpiles and emergency response plans, and to move stochastic future costs to present expense through mechanisms such as risk premiums. These create present incentives for managing such risks, and are based on data and modeling which ground those costs in the likely long-run and widespread average experience. Moving expenses to the present also creates opportunity and incentive to manage, mitigate, and avoid risks.
> There's another market mechanism for addressing probabalistic risks, which is to prepare in advance
And that means that someone has to pay the costs of doing that. In a free market economy, the people who do the preparing in advance are called "speculators", and they are rewarded or penalized by standard market mechanisms according to how well they prepare. Those standard market mechanisms include being able to charge a higher price during periods of scarcity according to the natural laws of supply and demand.
The alternative is to have some central planning organization that sets requirements and doles out rewards and penalties. And that alternative has all of the same flaws as every other central planning solution--as the very example you give, ERCOT, shows.
And that means that someone has to pay the costs of doing that. In a free market economy, the people who do the preparing in advance are called "speculators", and they are rewarded or penalized by standard market mechanisms according to how well they prepare. Those standard market mechanisms include being able to charge a higher price during periods of scarcity according to the natural laws of supply and demand.
The alternative is to have some central planning organization that sets requirements and doles out rewards and penalties. And that alternative has all of the same flaws as every other central planning solution--as the very example you give, ERCOT, shows.
Speculation is one mechanism.
Risk assessment (actuarial, engineering, policy, financial) is another. The insurance industry generally is a vehicle for manifesting dispersed or time-variant risks in a predictable fashion, enabling both proper accounting and (as discussed in my earlier comment) management.
Speculation alone cannot do that, though it is also a component of the risk sector.
(My somewhat unorthodox view is that the FIRE sectore, finance, insurance, and real estate, are all fundamentally about risk, in ways other economic activity is not.)
Risk assessment (actuarial, engineering, policy, financial) is another. The insurance industry generally is a vehicle for manifesting dispersed or time-variant risks in a predictable fashion, enabling both proper accounting and (as discussed in my earlier comment) management.
Speculation alone cannot do that, though it is also a component of the risk sector.
(My somewhat unorthodox view is that the FIRE sectore, finance, insurance, and real estate, are all fundamentally about risk, in ways other economic activity is not.)
> The insurance industry...
Yes, good point, this needs to be included as well as speculation.
Yes, good point, this needs to be included as well as speculation.
>Raising prices to infinity cannot induce supply of a good or service for which there is simply no capacity to provision.
If I understand the situation correctly, Texas regulators opted for lower electricity prices by not connecting to the national grid. In a sense, they opted to forgo paying for insurance for an event like what happened this year. Is this correct?
Also, there is no fallacy, because higher prices do not mean supply will increase. But rising prices are a signal that there is demand if more supply were to come in. Sometimes, it's not practical for that to happen, but it is, over a sufficiently large timeframe, a good signal that alerts others that it might be worth it to jump in participate in that market.
If I understand the situation correctly, Texas regulators opted for lower electricity prices by not connecting to the national grid. In a sense, they opted to forgo paying for insurance for an event like what happened this year. Is this correct?
Also, there is no fallacy, because higher prices do not mean supply will increase. But rising prices are a signal that there is demand if more supply were to come in. Sometimes, it's not practical for that to happen, but it is, over a sufficiently large timeframe, a good signal that alerts others that it might be worth it to jump in participate in that market.
“fallacy”? Or just an edge case? Are you really claiming that increased electricity prices wouldn’t increase supply of electricity in the long-run?
Electricity must be on 24/7/365.
Brief periodic outages may be acceptable.
Portions of Texas were without power for weeks. Because of predictable cold well within historical experience.
The market as designed per "prices will induce supply" failed. And no price incentive will create gigawatts of generating capacity in minutes to hours.
Just as nine women cannot make a baby in one month.
Some processes require time and/or advanced planning.
Brief periodic outages may be acceptable.
Portions of Texas were without power for weeks. Because of predictable cold well within historical experience.
The market as designed per "prices will induce supply" failed. And no price incentive will create gigawatts of generating capacity in minutes to hours.
Just as nine women cannot make a baby in one month.
Some processes require time and/or advanced planning.
I think they are claiming that instantaneously and drastically increasing prices during an emergency effectively does nothing to incentivize supplies, because there are no additional supplies to be had, and that the right way to handle that is to heavily penalize failure to provide those supplies, and manage the risk proactively and in advance. So their solution would be more like raising the long term electricity supplies slightly, with incentives in place to make sure that failures like that don't occur in the first place.
Correct.
> The purpose of increased prices is to incentivize more supply to come into the market.
It is true, though, that this only helps if more supply can come into the market quickly enough to help. If "more supply" means "more electrical power generation plants that will take five years to build", that's not something that increased prices in the short term can fix.
Another way of dealing with cases like that, however, is innovation: finding an alternative way to meet the same need that doesn't have the same supply problem. For example, if people know that their state's power grid is unreliable, they have more of an incentive to find ways to decrease their reliance on the grid--solar panels, individual homes with their own generators, etc. But that requires transparency--people have to know, well in advance of a problem happening, that their state's power grid is unreliable, so they can take action. Which means the government has to be honest in telling them what the state of the grid is. That, I think, is where the actual root problem often lies.
It is true, though, that this only helps if more supply can come into the market quickly enough to help. If "more supply" means "more electrical power generation plants that will take five years to build", that's not something that increased prices in the short term can fix.
Another way of dealing with cases like that, however, is innovation: finding an alternative way to meet the same need that doesn't have the same supply problem. For example, if people know that their state's power grid is unreliable, they have more of an incentive to find ways to decrease their reliance on the grid--solar panels, individual homes with their own generators, etc. But that requires transparency--people have to know, well in advance of a problem happening, that their state's power grid is unreliable, so they can take action. Which means the government has to be honest in telling them what the state of the grid is. That, I think, is where the actual root problem often lies.
Which sounds arguably (although I’ not sure I agree) more “equitable” in the sense that access to goods is a big social lottery rather than a true market.
> Aquinas believed all gains made in trade must relate to the labour exerted by the merchant, not to the need of the buyer.
So if I need my house painted, I should pay you a lot more if you do it with a toothbrush instead of normal painting equipment?
> the divorce of market value from labor
Which is simply a fact of life--often an unpleasant one, but a fact nevertheless. Market value--what someone else will trade for something you have--has nothing to do with how much labor you put in to whatever it is you have.
So if I need my house painted, I should pay you a lot more if you do it with a toothbrush instead of normal painting equipment?
> the divorce of market value from labor
Which is simply a fact of life--often an unpleasant one, but a fact nevertheless. Market value--what someone else will trade for something you have--has nothing to do with how much labor you put in to whatever it is you have.
Governments should definitely think this through. A good example of the tragedy of the commons and QOL is driving/private automobiles. Once you get enough of them around, QOL goes way down. Who wants to live next to a 5 lane road with speeding cars? They are noisy, polluting, and dangerous, but also so exceptionally convenient for the one that is driving.
Locals wouldn't get screwed if they advocated for better zoning policy and allowed more housing to be built.
This doesn't happen because those same locals that are homeowners love the value of their house exploding upwards
This doesn't happen because those same locals that are homeowners love the value of their house exploding upwards
This is a more complex problem than it is in many other regions of the country.
For the most obvious - Once you're off a municipal water supply (which of course, has to have an adequate source of water in the region), available water resources/aquifers are often very limited and minimum lot sizes have to be large because the land can't support higher density housing.
--------
If you build anything even approaching "normal" suburban SFH housing, you're just going to have all the wells you'll have to sink run dry in a few months and the properties will be uninhabitable. Seeing a 2 acre minimum lot size isn't necessarily a "keep the poor people out" thing.
To be clear, I am mostly not referring to the cities mentioned in this article, but housing development in smaller mountain towns and the rural/semi-rural areas up in the mountains.
For the most obvious - Once you're off a municipal water supply (which of course, has to have an adequate source of water in the region), available water resources/aquifers are often very limited and minimum lot sizes have to be large because the land can't support higher density housing.
--------
If you build anything even approaching "normal" suburban SFH housing, you're just going to have all the wells you'll have to sink run dry in a few months and the properties will be uninhabitable. Seeing a 2 acre minimum lot size isn't necessarily a "keep the poor people out" thing.
To be clear, I am mostly not referring to the cities mentioned in this article, but housing development in smaller mountain towns and the rural/semi-rural areas up in the mountains.
The Western US population / urban centre geographical distribution far more resembles an archipeligo than a continental population distribution. Part of this is due to transportation and historical settlement and development. Much though is due to water, or its lack.
This becomes especially clear when you realise that Los Angeles's watershed extends 1,500 miles eastward (about 2,400 km), to the Colorado River and the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains. Los Angeles has (under western-US water law) senior rights to water, over those of users far upstream of it.
Water supplies, and the rights to them, are based in large part on the economic (and hence legal and legislative/political power) of metropolitan areas. Since a large city with large rights effectively sucks dry land from 100s or 1,000s of miles away, population concentrates into a few centres, rather than being distributed across the land.
This contrast shows up most especially in the "Earthlights" images of the US mainland at night, where east of the Mississippi river settlements are dotted evenly through the landscape, but thin rapidly as one heads further west, dissolving into a few mega-concentrations: the Colorado front, Salt Lake - Provo, Albequerque, Phoenix, Las Vegas, LA-San Dieto, the Bay Area, Portland, Seattle. A few more-populated regions exist (the Sacramento-San Joaquine valley, the Willammette valley), but these are sparse compared with the Eastern US.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Earthlights_d...
This becomes especially clear when you realise that Los Angeles's watershed extends 1,500 miles eastward (about 2,400 km), to the Colorado River and the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains. Los Angeles has (under western-US water law) senior rights to water, over those of users far upstream of it.
Water supplies, and the rights to them, are based in large part on the economic (and hence legal and legislative/political power) of metropolitan areas. Since a large city with large rights effectively sucks dry land from 100s or 1,000s of miles away, population concentrates into a few centres, rather than being distributed across the land.
This contrast shows up most especially in the "Earthlights" images of the US mainland at night, where east of the Mississippi river settlements are dotted evenly through the landscape, but thin rapidly as one heads further west, dissolving into a few mega-concentrations: the Colorado front, Salt Lake - Provo, Albequerque, Phoenix, Las Vegas, LA-San Dieto, the Bay Area, Portland, Seattle. A few more-populated regions exist (the Sacramento-San Joaquine valley, the Willammette valley), but these are sparse compared with the Eastern US.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Earthlights_d...
This kind of thing is solvable. When I built my house in Park City, Utah, I discovered that the growth in the area is projected to overwhelm the municipal sewer system in the coming decade. So I had to pay an impact fee of $3,000 per bathroom in order to get my building permit. I happily paid $15K, knowing that the money will go to the budget of a new treatment plant. There are very few places where there's actually no water. It's mostly a question of the infrastructure being available (enough storage, for example).
[deleted]
This is a great point.
It only takes a handful of non locals to move in and start showing up at council meetings. Don’t of this blame solely on locals.
That's a fair point
So the answer to beautiful mountain towns, is to destroy the beauty so we can build on it and remove the reason people come to visit/escape?
mmmkay
mmmkay
This argument has always bothered me too. I'd rather a place be relatively inaccessible but great, rather than accessible but shitty.
after i wrote it, it occurred to me that the problem is we should build more cities/towns that allow people to live HAPPY lives - so that traveling isn't an escape from reality - but a recognition of the charm/character as something to experience for what it is. I hope we don't lose those mountain town charms to sky scrapers and apartment complexes...
I think if we can address what makes cities livable for EVERYONE who lives in them, then travel is for experiencing foreign ideas, concepts and cultures and not "escaping the reality of cities and using my wealth to get what i want" kinda thing
I think if we can address what makes cities livable for EVERYONE who lives in them, then travel is for experiencing foreign ideas, concepts and cultures and not "escaping the reality of cities and using my wealth to get what i want" kinda thing
How do you decide who gets to live in the great places?
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer, but no matter the answer I believe strongly that if it's good for some but not for others, it's still better than "bad for all." This extends beyond housing.
Honestly, no. Just because you have a hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.
Complete zoning and policy failure is a uniquely California problem. Nobody has a structural, and likely unconstitutional inequity in taxation that California does. Some rando Bay Area suburb being more expensive than Manhattan is not the same problem.
Complete zoning and policy failure is a uniquely California problem. Nobody has a structural, and likely unconstitutional inequity in taxation that California does. Some rando Bay Area suburb being more expensive than Manhattan is not the same problem.
Zoning failures are widespread throughout the country. If more people want to live somewhere, those regions should make it as easy as possible to develop housing and incentivize it
And then what happens when the reason to live there is now gone?
You seem to frame it as an exclusivity problem - they're trying to exclude people from affordable housing...
while the people who live there look at it as preserving what makes it livable
neither are right or wrong on their own, but surely build at all cost isn't a solution to mountain town charm
You seem to frame it as an exclusivity problem - they're trying to exclude people from affordable housing...
while the people who live there look at it as preserving what makes it livable
neither are right or wrong on their own, but surely build at all cost isn't a solution to mountain town charm
It will reach an equilibrium
>while the people who live there look at it as preserving what makes it livable
And they're free to buy up all the land and choose what they want to do with it
>while the people who live there look at it as preserving what makes it livable
And they're free to buy up all the land and choose what they want to do with it
Or, as a democratic form of government allows, they petition for laws that protect their interests from their representatives.
Single family homes is exclusive. You’re choosing to build a mega mansion on a big plot of land vs letting 100 people enjoy that land. The latter will be more affordable.
There is way more than enough land for everyone to live the lifestyle they want. This isn't about land, this is about people with money and an obsession with density falling in love with the decades of hard work that locals put into making a place a home, and then destroying what they fell in love with.
>There is way more than enough land for everyone to live the lifestyle they want.
This is objectively not true in urban areas like San Francisco or New York City
This is objectively not true in urban areas like San Francisco or New York City
The issue is that red states don't tax enough.
Zoning in most of the US is pretty much the same. California just got bad before other places did.
It’s a United States problem.
Not really. I live in a nice 4BR urban house that’s about $100-150/sqft, that isn’t in the Montana wildnerness or something.
I used to commute to Manhattan a few times a month.
Even in a modern sprawl shitshow like the DC or Boston Metro area, it’s way cheaper and easier to get housing than many California locales.
End of the day, there’s just a shit ton of money combined with insane policy decisions in California. It’s a inspiring, puzzling and disturbing place, all at the same time.
I used to commute to Manhattan a few times a month.
Even in a modern sprawl shitshow like the DC or Boston Metro area, it’s way cheaper and easier to get housing than many California locales.
End of the day, there’s just a shit ton of money combined with insane policy decisions in California. It’s a inspiring, puzzling and disturbing place, all at the same time.
But what good does it do a local if the price of their house explodes? Less than none (less because their property tax goes up), until they sell. But once they sell, if they keep the gains, then they can't buy another house locally. So the only way the increase in price helps locals is when they quit being a local.
If this is happening to your town, the town has a choice: The newcomers are coming. Are they going to live alongside the long term locals, or are they going to replace them? Are the locals going to get rich and leave, or are they going to remain poor and stay? "Get rich and stay" is not an option.
If this is happening to your town, the town has a choice: The newcomers are coming. Are they going to live alongside the long term locals, or are they going to replace them? Are the locals going to get rich and leave, or are they going to remain poor and stay? "Get rich and stay" is not an option.
Most people who are trying to live somewhere don't want their house price exploding, because then they get forced out by rising taxes and insurance.
The opinions here are probably influenced by Prop 13 in California and by the fact that many younger people in the tech field capable of buying property probably assume that they'll be selling and moving somewhere else sooner rather than later.
But, as you say, someone who plans to remain in their house indefinitely would probably just as soon not have their property taxes double (and may not even be able to afford them in they're retired on a fixed income).
But, as you say, someone who plans to remain in their house indefinitely would probably just as soon not have their property taxes double (and may not even be able to afford them in they're retired on a fixed income).
This is absurd. You could just as easily refinance or take out a heloc to take advantage of the rise in price that would greatly offset the rise in tax/insurance
If your income hasn't increased, that HELOC is just another mechanism that will force you out of your property if you spend it and can't repay it.
Or because they don't want to live in a giant anthill?
They are not obliged give any piece of their land to the people who want to live there. It's in their interest to fight to preserve local communities and local businesses, putting obstacles to the "nomads" and corporations.
They are not obliged give any piece of their land to the people who want to live there. It's in their interest to fight to preserve local communities and local businesses, putting obstacles to the "nomads" and corporations.
I agree if they own the land. Telling other people they can't build duplexes/apartments on their own land is illiberal and authoritarian
I think the whole point is that the locals don't want their town to turn into another urban hellhole.
It has little to do with zoning and everything to do with economic incentives that drive out anyone high achieving or with a conscience and retain/reward swindlers and those who can't escape.
I agree with this sentiment in cities, however, I believe that this approach in the mountains would result in skyscrapers being built in areas of natural beauty, and be harmful to all of the wildlife that live there. The Eagle (Vail) Valley is relatively small to begin with.
No, it might look something like Innsbruck, Austria, which is a beautiful city.
It may come as a shock to Americans raised in suburbia, but there are housing types between single family units and skyscrapers that are very human-scale and attractive. Look at pretty much any mountain town in Europe.
It may come as a shock to Americans raised in suburbia, but there are housing types between single family units and skyscrapers that are very human-scale and attractive. Look at pretty much any mountain town in Europe.
As an American with an EU passport, thanks for the idea. I had been leaning towards moving/retiring to Grenoble, France for the engineering university nestled in the Alps, but I will look further afield.
Trento and Bolzano in Italy are nice too. Probably depends on what languages you speak and what mix of amenities you care most about.
Vail, and most Colorado ski resorts, are already full of 10+ story hotels. I’m not sure how building a residential or office tower would be any more impactful.
Sorry but that is false. Please name even 1 hotel in Vail that is 10+ stories. The tallest that I can think of is 5, maybe 6 stories.
edit: having been a ski bum in Vail, I can't say that I've visited every resort in CO. But across Vail, Breck, Keystone, A Basin, Loveland, Monarch, Cooper, Copper, Beaver Creek, Steamboat, Wolf Creek, Crested Butte, all 5 mountains of Aspen, there are no 10+ story towers. I'm trying to take back some of the pedantic tone of my original comment.
edit: having been a ski bum in Vail, I can't say that I've visited every resort in CO. But across Vail, Breck, Keystone, A Basin, Loveland, Monarch, Cooper, Copper, Beaver Creek, Steamboat, Wolf Creek, Crested Butte, all 5 mountains of Aspen, there are no 10+ story towers. I'm trying to take back some of the pedantic tone of my original comment.
Fine. 10+ was my memory failing me. But the Four Seasons and whatever houses Matsuihisa sushi are 9 (when viewed from the mountain, not the highway).
Overall point here is that Vail and other ski resort towns happily build very large buildings for vacationers and second home owners. I just don’t buy that having very large office and residential buildings would have that much greater of an environmental, or even quality of life, impact.
Overall point here is that Vail and other ski resort towns happily build very large buildings for vacationers and second home owners. I just don’t buy that having very large office and residential buildings would have that much greater of an environmental, or even quality of life, impact.
It's weird with mountain towns and these ski resorts because the bulk of the land in these areas is federal lands with long term leases...
we're trying to preserve these national treasures, but at the same time, choose winners as to who gets to build there...
I'd hate to see towers pop up in Vail and Breck to be honest.. the charm is what it is - the log cabins and resorts that disappear in the mountains.
we're trying to preserve these national treasures, but at the same time, choose winners as to who gets to build there...
I'd hate to see towers pop up in Vail and Breck to be honest.. the charm is what it is - the log cabins and resorts that disappear in the mountains.
How are skyscrapers harmful to wildlife? Density is much better for wildlife than sprawl.
Good point. I guess you could say that its the contents of skyscrapers that are harmful to wildlife: humans. Lots of traffic (whether car, bicycle, foot, alpine touring skiing, etc) causes the wildlife herds to be pushed further away from where they originally may have inhabited.
With density you can afford transit which would reduce traffic. See Japan for an example. Most people take the train or bus to the ski area. There’s barely anyone in the parking lot.
Interesting. Meanwhile, some ski areas in the US have transit to take people across the parking lots to the resort entrance.
Based.
Not sure what you mean.
Skyscrapers in the mountains are fantastic. Density is beautiful
Add "gentrification" to the list of things that are visiting the American mainstream after decades incubating in America's marginalized communities, alongside things like addiction and broken social service processes (hello, unemployment and insurance exchange websites).
If we'd been better about crack/cocaine, opioids wouldn't have hit so hard. If UI benefits weren't designed to be difficult to acquire, the ongoing problems states are having distributing them in this crisis wouldn't have happened. Right now, people living in small towns that are being effected by an influx of monied transplants have a roadmap of how this process works. If they so wish, they can disrupt it, and insist that, as new wealth pours into their area, a substantial portion of it is put towards improving the area for current residents, and towards securing their socioeconomic right to remain there. Sometimes that means telling rich people no and foregoing a short-term pretty penny, and being ready when they come after you for denying them. But that's much easier than watching your community disperse to parts unknown while yuppies live it up in your childhood home-cum-gutted minimalist smart bohemabode.
Will they heed the warning?
If we'd been better about crack/cocaine, opioids wouldn't have hit so hard. If UI benefits weren't designed to be difficult to acquire, the ongoing problems states are having distributing them in this crisis wouldn't have happened. Right now, people living in small towns that are being effected by an influx of monied transplants have a roadmap of how this process works. If they so wish, they can disrupt it, and insist that, as new wealth pours into their area, a substantial portion of it is put towards improving the area for current residents, and towards securing their socioeconomic right to remain there. Sometimes that means telling rich people no and foregoing a short-term pretty penny, and being ready when they come after you for denying them. But that's much easier than watching your community disperse to parts unknown while yuppies live it up in your childhood home-cum-gutted minimalist smart bohemabode.
Will they heed the warning?
> Cape Cod MA
I used to vacation there.
As one of those clueless people who can't buy marijuana in a legal state, I am equally clueless on the signs of terrible addiction if I drove through Cape Cod, MA today.
I'm not sure what makes me more sad -- the existence, or my incapability to notice the existence.
I used to vacation there.
As one of those clueless people who can't buy marijuana in a legal state, I am equally clueless on the signs of terrible addiction if I drove through Cape Cod, MA today.
I'm not sure what makes me more sad -- the existence, or my incapability to notice the existence.
My late paternal grandmother (1 of 9 from a rare single mother) was from there. Cranberry bogs.
You can increase your "street-smarts" by getting out of your comfort zone, by choice or circumstances, and with life experiences. I locale and talk to the saner homeless people, especially the older who are just there by personal circumstances: I met a former teacher and elevator repairman who makes money today as a tutor; a former hippie, Navy radar and aircraft electronics technician, and Apple II rework technician; and a law school dropout, former hippie, merchant marine, and writer for the Village Voice and the NY Daily News.
You can increase your "street-smarts" by getting out of your comfort zone, by choice or circumstances, and with life experiences. I locale and talk to the saner homeless people, especially the older who are just there by personal circumstances: I met a former teacher and elevator repairman who makes money today as a tutor; a former hippie, Navy radar and aircraft electronics technician, and Apple II rework technician; and a law school dropout, former hippie, merchant marine, and writer for the Village Voice and the NY Daily News.
Check out this excellent HBO documentary on the topic.
https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/heroin-cape-cod-usa
cant upvote this true and tragic comment due to sadness
Any small town has two problems:
* influx of tourism and remote owners -> rising prices
* lack of tourism or property interest -> slow death
I am not sure what would be the right public policy to balance the two extremes.
Maybe Hawaii has the right idea with tiered property taxation - the longer you reside there, the lower your property tax becomes?
* influx of tourism and remote owners -> rising prices
* lack of tourism or property interest -> slow death
I am not sure what would be the right public policy to balance the two extremes.
Maybe Hawaii has the right idea with tiered property taxation - the longer you reside there, the lower your property tax becomes?
Tiered property taxation hasn't solved the the problems OP has described for Oahu; or Hawaii as a whole for that matter.
For example, Local NIMBYist restrictions, mostly those individuals that have resided there for a long time (and have the lower property tax rate you describe), have resulted in areas immediately adjacent to 40-story downtown developments being zoned exclusively for single-family homes; see Kaimuki, Upper Tantalus, Manoa, Punchbowl (to an extent), etc. Consequently, even homes built over 80 yrs ago with only ~1,300 sqft sell for about $1.1 million; https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1001-Belser-St-Honolulu-H....
The majority of people employed in hospitality and trades that support the local tourist economy (electricians, masons, carpenters, etc.) are increasingly driven to the west side; where commutes to the city can easily be 1-2 hours normally (pre-COVID). This eventually becomes such a stressor that many of the people working these skilled trades leave for the mainland.
For example, Local NIMBYist restrictions, mostly those individuals that have resided there for a long time (and have the lower property tax rate you describe), have resulted in areas immediately adjacent to 40-story downtown developments being zoned exclusively for single-family homes; see Kaimuki, Upper Tantalus, Manoa, Punchbowl (to an extent), etc. Consequently, even homes built over 80 yrs ago with only ~1,300 sqft sell for about $1.1 million; https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1001-Belser-St-Honolulu-H....
The majority of people employed in hospitality and trades that support the local tourist economy (electricians, masons, carpenters, etc.) are increasingly driven to the west side; where commutes to the city can easily be 1-2 hours normally (pre-COVID). This eventually becomes such a stressor that many of the people working these skilled trades leave for the mainland.
Prices shouldn't rise if you are allowed to build enough supply to meet demand. A lack of property interest isn't necessarily a bad thing for a place. Land isn't for speculation, it's for use.
> Sure the guy who had the foresight to start a brewery wins but everyone else loses.
This is HN, the owner of the brewery probably cashed his stocks a few years earlier and saw the opportunity.
A lot of folks on this website are entrepreneurs and are completely detached from the folks that don't want an influx of money in their town.
This is HN, the owner of the brewery probably cashed his stocks a few years earlier and saw the opportunity.
A lot of folks on this website are entrepreneurs and are completely detached from the folks that don't want an influx of money in their town.
Does your intervention have a control group? Did the residents of Vail, CO circa 1950 wish they could trade their fate for that of nearby Minturn, with similar geography and no ski resort?
Regardless, the geographical narrative is not quite the same. Silver City or Prescott Valley aren't going to run out of space like an alpine creek junction or barrier island/moraine. Water is a different story.
The question is ultimately whether newcomers will participate in the town's development or in its decline, via interactions with the local community, politics, schools et cetera. Just because we built segregated communities over the last century doesn't mean we have to do it for the next one.
Regardless, the geographical narrative is not quite the same. Silver City or Prescott Valley aren't going to run out of space like an alpine creek junction or barrier island/moraine. Water is a different story.
The question is ultimately whether newcomers will participate in the town's development or in its decline, via interactions with the local community, politics, schools et cetera. Just because we built segregated communities over the last century doesn't mean we have to do it for the next one.
It's understandable that locals see no upside to this trend. These remote-work or second-home urban expats don't add new jobs locally except perhaps wait staff at restaurants or boutique shops. Real estate costs rise. Rents go up. Property taxes climb as do the costs of basic services. People like them exit (as do the budget-based businesses that served them) as the cost of living rises. For locals who aren't well-heeled, gentrification of this kind is strictly a lose-lose deal.
You're not accounting for the benefit (from your view) due to the reduction in real estate prices in the cities losing population.
[deleted]
so, why can't they simply build more housing in those areas? And the locals who already bought houses/land aren't getting screwed. they're beneficiaries of all that appreciation. just think of the couple who bought a house for 150K in boise, ID and it's now worth 500k+.
To be fair, it's not just the monopoly money that changes things but also long term changes in economics.
I'm old enough that I remember my home town (which has been inundated by California retirees) as having 100% family-owned grocery stores, drug/general/hardware stores, distributorships, all of which started shifting heavily to chain and corporate dominance by sometime in the late 1970's. Since the modern concept of retiree and tourism based economies hadn't taken hold, towns of that type had to be mostly independent in terms of income for money inflow....small factories, mining, farming and ranching, etc.
I'd say that this movement of people who can afford it just another side effect of something bigger. The irony that a lifestyle of living in a nicer small town with a Powerwall and a Model 3 is both less sustainable and less diverse is not lost on me.
I'm old enough that I remember my home town (which has been inundated by California retirees) as having 100% family-owned grocery stores, drug/general/hardware stores, distributorships, all of which started shifting heavily to chain and corporate dominance by sometime in the late 1970's. Since the modern concept of retiree and tourism based economies hadn't taken hold, towns of that type had to be mostly independent in terms of income for money inflow....small factories, mining, farming and ranching, etc.
I'd say that this movement of people who can afford it just another side effect of something bigger. The irony that a lifestyle of living in a nicer small town with a Powerwall and a Model 3 is both less sustainable and less diverse is not lost on me.
Do you believe the alternative is the town dying? I come from a place that is the furthest from a tourist destination you can imagine, and it was booming with local businesses in the 70's and 80's and they died all the same, they just weren't replaced by anything.
> towns of that type had to be mostly independent in terms of income for money inflow....small factories, mining, farming and ranching, etc.
> I'd say that this movement of people who can afford it just another side effect of something bigger.
It sort of sounds like you answer your own question (/hypothesis): consolidation of industry. Which also seems to be a pretty big driver in wealth inequality. I've no idea what the correct response is here -- greater regulation to increase competition, so that there are more smaller players across any given industry? Who knows.
> I'd say that this movement of people who can afford it just another side effect of something bigger.
It sort of sounds like you answer your own question (/hypothesis): consolidation of industry. Which also seems to be a pretty big driver in wealth inequality. I've no idea what the correct response is here -- greater regulation to increase competition, so that there are more smaller players across any given industry? Who knows.
It was definitely more hypothesis than question.
There's always the chance that the past is viewed with the optimism of youth of course. There's certainly a difference in social glue in a world where everyone is either self-employed or has a single layer of management above them. Plus, truly local companies are better local citizens (sports teams sponsors, money for charities, build decent and long-lasting buildings).
Dunno what the answer is besides accumulate a financial warchest, live where you like, watch the battle at a distance.
There's always the chance that the past is viewed with the optimism of youth of course. There's certainly a difference in social glue in a world where everyone is either self-employed or has a single layer of management above them. Plus, truly local companies are better local citizens (sports teams sponsors, money for charities, build decent and long-lasting buildings).
Dunno what the answer is besides accumulate a financial warchest, live where you like, watch the battle at a distance.
> I understand this is not for everyone and I understand the negative perception of 'outsiders' pushing the price up for locals, but at the end of the day I'm optimizing for my own quality of life.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an excuse? I mean, on the whole, some displacement of locals isn't that big a tragedy, but "it was good for me, so fuck you" isn't exactly the best moral reasoning I've ever heard.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an excuse? I mean, on the whole, some displacement of locals isn't that big a tragedy, but "it was good for me, so fuck you" isn't exactly the best moral reasoning I've ever heard.
For decades people from all over the country, many of these small towns moved to places like NY, Chicago, SF etc. and the respective suburbs in search for better jobs, opportunity etc. It didn't seem like it was a big concern then to anyone that the locals in these cities could be negatively affected by higher rents, home prices etc. Why is it different when the reverse happens?
If its ok for a young person to leave their hometown, move to a city and call it home to make a better life without thinking about the locals, then it must be ok for a person with a small family living in a city to move to a smaller town and call it home to make a better life for his/her family.
If its ok for a young person to leave their hometown, move to a city and call it home to make a better life without thinking about the locals, then it must be ok for a person with a small family living in a city to move to a smaller town and call it home to make a better life for his/her family.
>If its ok for a young person to leave their hometown, move to a city and call it home to make a better life without thinking about the locals, then it must be ok for a person with a small family living in a city to move to a smaller town and call it home to make a better life for his/her family.
The reason that theses two scenarios are not equivalent is so obvious I'm wondering whether or not I'm misinterpreting it.
The reason that theses two scenarios are not equivalent is so obvious I'm wondering whether or not I'm misinterpreting it.
What is different? Seems pretty comparable to me
Confused here as well. I don't see how these aren't equivalent.
For those of us to whom it is not obvious, would you explain?
Think of it like this. You can throw a lot of different juices and alcohols into the punch bowl before it becomes apparent that something is different. Pour a half shot of vodka into a glass of wine and the difference is immediate and off putting. There is very little tolerance for change in a glass of wine.
The cultures of small towns really don't have much elasticity nor are they expected to have it. People don't like change and normally no one except other small town people come in.
Cities are generally something that people rotate through in huge numbers. Cities are always changing while still keeping some on the side as a homage to their identity. For the most part though they are always in flux by nature. NYC is not the same as it was 10 years ago. ________ NY, largely the same for the past 200 years is suddenly changing radically in the tech WFA renaissance. There is no doubt in my mind the council will be hi-jacked if it hasn't already - some of those ordinances are "a little out of touch for modern living".
Anyway, before I rant too much, my point is that comparing the elasticity of a city's culture to the rigid and fragile cultures of small towns is ridiculous.
The cultures of small towns really don't have much elasticity nor are they expected to have it. People don't like change and normally no one except other small town people come in.
Cities are generally something that people rotate through in huge numbers. Cities are always changing while still keeping some on the side as a homage to their identity. For the most part though they are always in flux by nature. NYC is not the same as it was 10 years ago. ________ NY, largely the same for the past 200 years is suddenly changing radically in the tech WFA renaissance. There is no doubt in my mind the council will be hi-jacked if it hasn't already - some of those ordinances are "a little out of touch for modern living".
Anyway, before I rant too much, my point is that comparing the elasticity of a city's culture to the rigid and fragile cultures of small towns is ridiculous.
What's a city/small town culture go to do with it? Whether its a city or a small town, if a local lived their entire life (perhaps generations even) in a place and due to high demand was priced out, its the same. Saying its unfair if it happened to me in mountain ski town but its OK if it happened to someone from the Bronx is just hypocritical. Sounds more like I care about this now because its happening to me.
Whether you like it or not, the pandemic happened, technology has advanced, there was high demand in the cities for decades and now its subsided a little and the smaller towns have some higher demand too. Only difference the culture of the city/small town makes is how welcoming/indifferent they are or how much harder they will make it for the new comers.
Whether you like it or not, the pandemic happened, technology has advanced, there was high demand in the cities for decades and now its subsided a little and the smaller towns have some higher demand too. Only difference the culture of the city/small town makes is how welcoming/indifferent they are or how much harder they will make it for the new comers.
It’s a reason, and the same reason that everything happens in nature when there is inadequate supply of something compared to demand. Might makes right.
You need to understand that it's the 'locals' that are fighting (and losing) against the 'outsiders' that are actually saying "fuck you"
Why is it a fight? Why can't the locals be growing and changing and improving with the outsiders? The outsiders are changing themselves.
Its completely standard SV stuff, "I'm doing you a favor because I'm (getting) wealthy".
Grew up in a village. It's nice if you are a 10 year old boy. When you're a grown man you want to be surrounded by degenerates and atheists.
I grew up in a very pretty village in Scotland - from 0 to 11 or so it was awesome, from 12 to 14 it was mind numbingly awful, from 15 or so I could travel to the nearest town more easily and meet up with friends there and it went back to being awesome.
[Edit: Having parented teenagers I suspect the awfulness of the 12 to 14 age was probably more about me than anything else!]
[Edit: Having parented teenagers I suspect the awfulness of the 12 to 14 age was probably more about me than anything else!]
Most teenager everywhere across the globe think their hometown sucks, even those living in the biggest cities.
Such is the mind of a teenager.
Such is the mind of a teenager.
A lot of people grow up in an Urban environment, I don't really see any disadvantage to it. We get to meet a lot of people and there is always stuff to do. During COVID I am seeing a lot of talk about moving into the countryside with their children, as if their children are sheep which need a lot of open spaces in which to graze. But the will probably get bored and miss their friends, and probably force them to pack up and move back.
I agree that kids in an urban environment can be very rewarding. I disagree that the urban environment found in the Bay Area is conducive to kids. Visiting the local park is great. Visiting the local park when the walk is littered with human excrement and discarded needles, not so much. No parent in their right mind would ever go on the BART with a child.
I've taken my children on BART a few times, even dropped one of them (fell out of a stroller) down the stairs at Montgomery Station once.
It's fun for the kids - why not? - but I have no fond memories. I commuted via BART every day 2006-2012 (albeit just one stop - W Oakland to Embarcadero, and back), and the stuff I witnessed on a regular basis had me thinking "I'm so glad my children aren't here to see this."
It's fun for the kids - why not? - but I have no fond memories. I commuted via BART every day 2006-2012 (albeit just one stop - W Oakland to Embarcadero, and back), and the stuff I witnessed on a regular basis had me thinking "I'm so glad my children aren't here to see this."
Why wouldn't you take your child on BART?
I'm not looking for an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I live in the UK but I've never visited the SF area.
I'm not looking for an argument, I'm genuinely curious. I live in the UK but I've never visited the SF area.
One of many, many, many reasons: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...
Even 5 years ago I would. But the level of mayhem, filth, and danger on San Francisco public transit is out of control. The BART makes the Tube look like Tokyo Metro.
You can thank Californian and SF officials.
I’m not the poster, but personally I would.
I go to London quite regularly and usually stop by San Fran once a year (not 2020). I personally find the BART similar to the MARTA (Atlanta) and DART (Dallas).
I don’t know if you live in London, but I would say they compare to the Northern Line it terms of quality. But at the end of the day the real difference is about riders. I would say you do notice more issues like littering (including dangerous litter like needles) and robbery in the US train lines though.
However, just like most public train lines, you have to learn to mind your business, be aware and don’t lallygag. Also, stick to using it during the day.
I don’t know if you live in London, but I would say they compare to the Northern Line it terms of quality. But at the end of the day the real difference is about riders. I would say you do notice more issues like littering (including dangerous litter like needles) and robbery in the US train lines though.
However, just like most public train lines, you have to learn to mind your business, be aware and don’t lallygag. Also, stick to using it during the day.
> lallygag.
Thanks for this, a new word for me.
Lallygag/lollygag: to loll about; idling lazily. There is an interesting article on it’s etymology in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/magazine/25wwln_safire.ht...
Thanks for this, a new word for me.
Lallygag/lollygag: to loll about; idling lazily. There is an interesting article on it’s etymology in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/magazine/25wwln_safire.ht...
I raised a child in the middle of a city from age 0-8 and it was great. So much to do! Parks, botanical gardens, playgrounds, museums, swimming pools, fun fares, concerts and so on, all within walking distance or at worst a short bus ride.
The things you can do in a city are different from the things you can do in the suburbs, are different from the things you can do in rural areas. There are pros and cons of each.
Sadly in the US many dense cities have abandoned the things that kids like to do, leaving those who like city things to the suburbs as the best compromise.
I know someone who started a children's museum, when she started the city tried to get her downtown with some nice incentives. She didn't though because there are zero kids who live downtown, and the next ring (in city limits) is either rich no kids, or too poor to afford a to visit. That means everyone who might go is going to drive from the suburbs and so a location with free parking in the suburbs was better able to attract visitors, even though it means half the potential customers will find it too far to drive, the other half will find it more convenient and thus come more often.
I don't know how cities can solve that, but it is a problem repeated in most cities. It didn't used to be that way, cities used to have a lot of people with kids. In general cities have abandoned families as families moved out (you can find lots of people pointing blame as to causes here - I'm not going to speculate), and it will be hard to bring them back. Not all cities have done this as much as others.
Sadly in the US many dense cities have abandoned the things that kids like to do, leaving those who like city things to the suburbs as the best compromise.
I know someone who started a children's museum, when she started the city tried to get her downtown with some nice incentives. She didn't though because there are zero kids who live downtown, and the next ring (in city limits) is either rich no kids, or too poor to afford a to visit. That means everyone who might go is going to drive from the suburbs and so a location with free parking in the suburbs was better able to attract visitors, even though it means half the potential customers will find it too far to drive, the other half will find it more convenient and thus come more often.
I don't know how cities can solve that, but it is a problem repeated in most cities. It didn't used to be that way, cities used to have a lot of people with kids. In general cities have abandoned families as families moved out (you can find lots of people pointing blame as to causes here - I'm not going to speculate), and it will be hard to bring them back. Not all cities have done this as much as others.
Yeah, American cities are actively hostile to young families. It doesn’t have to be this way. I lived in Japan for several years and it seems like a much healthier urban environment for children and their parents. But in the US, it’s hard to justify in most cases the cons of living in dense urban area with young kids, even if you as an adult would enjoy it more.
in my social circle, the number one reason why families leave the city is the abysmal public school system. it's not a big deal to the wealthier families, since they can just send their children to private schools. middle income families usually can't afford that, but they can afford to hop over the county line and send their children to the very good public schools out there.
at least in my area, I wouldn't say the city has "abandoned" families. rather, it has focused mainly on improving public education for children from poor families. this is a noble goal, but it imposes tradeoffs that the middle class families are mostly unwilling to accept. since they have the ability to leave, they do.
at least in my area, I wouldn't say the city has "abandoned" families. rather, it has focused mainly on improving public education for children from poor families. this is a noble goal, but it imposes tradeoffs that the middle class families are mostly unwilling to accept. since they have the ability to leave, they do.
in my social circle, the number one reason why families leave the city is the abysmal public school system.
That is true. If my daughter hadn't gotten into a good charter school in the city, I wonder if we hadn't looked a lot harder at moving. However after we did eventually hop over the county line my daughter still 'commutes' back into the city because she doesn't want to change schools.
That is true. If my daughter hadn't gotten into a good charter school in the city, I wonder if we hadn't looked a lot harder at moving. However after we did eventually hop over the county line my daughter still 'commutes' back into the city because she doesn't want to change schools.
It’s not the school system that is abysmal, it’s people not wanting their kids to mingle with kids from lower income/less wealthy families. Cities might have various socioeconomic classes living near each other, and so the schools have a more mixed population.
Suburbs can restrict their schools to those that can afford to live there, so those public schools can have very few kids from lower socioeconomic classes, and a greater proportion of kids from people who are in higher earning professions.
Suburbs can restrict their schools to those that can afford to live there, so those public schools can have very few kids from lower socioeconomic classes, and a greater proportion of kids from people who are in higher earning professions.
I am a parent of a kid who starts kindergarten in 6 months. Moved to a smaller mountain town in the same state six months ago, primarily because of the schools. Our old local school (4 block walk) has a 1/10 rating. The city just put in a homeless camp literally across the street from the school. I would do a needle sweep before letting my kid play on the playground there, and would regularly find needles on the playground (school grounds aren’t aloud to lock up outside of school hours due to federal laws).
I grew up middle class in a upper middle class school district, with attentive and loving parents. My mom stayed at home and raised us. I was still exposed to skipping class, drugs, and alcohol in middle and high school. I almost didn’t graduate myself, due to poor choices. This is in a school with a 92% graduation rate. I understand from intimate personal experience that the more opportunities your kids have to interact with peers making poor life choices, there is a higher chance your kid gets caught up in it despite what you do as a parent. This isn’t sheltering (I certainly wasn’t sheltered), it’s just repeat exposure to exciting but bad choices leads some kids to temptation.
I could have moved to a more expensive neighborhood in the city but the same fundamental problem exists. I don’t care about how much money people have, I care whether in aggregate, the parents in my community try to raise their kids with intention. There’s a shocking lack of that in 40% of the families in the schools in the city we moved from.
I grew up middle class in a upper middle class school district, with attentive and loving parents. My mom stayed at home and raised us. I was still exposed to skipping class, drugs, and alcohol in middle and high school. I almost didn’t graduate myself, due to poor choices. This is in a school with a 92% graduation rate. I understand from intimate personal experience that the more opportunities your kids have to interact with peers making poor life choices, there is a higher chance your kid gets caught up in it despite what you do as a parent. This isn’t sheltering (I certainly wasn’t sheltered), it’s just repeat exposure to exciting but bad choices leads some kids to temptation.
I could have moved to a more expensive neighborhood in the city but the same fundamental problem exists. I don’t care about how much money people have, I care whether in aggregate, the parents in my community try to raise their kids with intention. There’s a shocking lack of that in 40% of the families in the schools in the city we moved from.
[deleted]
the city school system is indeed abysmal by pretty much any metric you could choose to evaluate (test scores, high school graduation rate, violent incidents, odds of imprisonment, etc).
I'm familiar with the argument that the cohort of students matters more than the quality of instruction. in fact, that is what I'm getting at here. the city has an explicit policy of mixing students from different backgrounds across the school system, the goal being to break the cycle of poor students going to poor schools and staying poor. it's a good goal, but it seems kinda pointless when all the students they are trying to mix them with are fleeing to the county.
I'm familiar with the argument that the cohort of students matters more than the quality of instruction. in fact, that is what I'm getting at here. the city has an explicit policy of mixing students from different backgrounds across the school system, the goal being to break the cycle of poor students going to poor schools and staying poor. it's a good goal, but it seems kinda pointless when all the students they are trying to mix them with are fleeing to the county.
Wrong. It's the school system that is abysmal. Compare test scores any urban public school district to a middle class suburb.
We lived in a middle- to upper-middle-class suburb, served by a middle- to upper-middle-class school district. Our elementary school tested in the bottom third of the state.
Sometimes it's the school, not the school system.
Sometimes it's the school, not the school system.
Or they make friends in the new place.
It's nice to grow up and retire.
For work ( before covid), it wasn't interesting, definitely not tech related stuff. I'll return when I'm older and have the time to maintain a garden.
I think the bound between people in smaller villages of better too. You're limited to what you have, so you accept persons more to do they are.
In cities, you tend to like up people similar to your interests. And there's more possibility that an interest changes or you don't meet at the same event anymore.
For work ( before covid), it wasn't interesting, definitely not tech related stuff. I'll return when I'm older and have the time to maintain a garden.
I think the bound between people in smaller villages of better too. You're limited to what you have, so you accept persons more to do they are.
In cities, you tend to like up people similar to your interests. And there's more possibility that an interest changes or you don't meet at the same event anymore.
I honestly don't get a lot of the comments on this thread. So, say I can work remote or retire and live basically anywhere I want. Is the suggestion that I have some moral obligation to live somewhere that's already expensive?
I think the sentiment is about how it can create perverse incentives that may be good for a small subset but bad for the population in the aggregate. I think it’s about a host of different systemic issues beyond just where one person decides to live. I.e., income inequality, housing policy, class disparities etc. It just manifests itself in the problems raised in the article.
Edit: The Indicator recently had an interesting podcast that demonstrates this effect.[1]
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/15/977533022/please-sell-me-a-ho...
Edit: The Indicator recently had an interesting podcast that demonstrates this effect.[1]
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/15/977533022/please-sell-me-a-ho...
I think the sentiment is clear. Their question was what would those people holding this sentiment suggest be done? That outsiders go back to where they came from? That because someone makes money they are obligated to stay in a high cost of living area?
I don’t know; there may be the case that it’s not the most ethical choice to move to an area where they are improving their personal QoL while contributing to the lowering QoL of the current residents. I think the ideal solution would be to attack those root problems until that moral dilemma subsides somewhat. What I don’t think is probably the best choice is to blindly do what’s best for oneself while being oblivious to the systemic effects. I imagine there is a reasonable middle, like moving but consciously deciding to only support local businesses rather than buying from the cheaper MegaCorp, supporting policies like high density housing that may not be in your personal best interest, or dedicating a portion of your relatively high income to causes that specifically lessen those systemic effects.
Edit: as an example, I used to live in an area that was relatively poor by US standards. There was a large cohort of retirees who would move in because if the pleasant weather, low cost of living etc. Rather than mingle with the locals, they tended to create little walled enclaves. Additionally, they gradually took over the local government (in part, because the full time political positions were unpaid, meaning only those retired or wealthy enough to not work could afford to fill them). This created an environment where business investment was often stifled because the retirees didn’t want to lose the feel of their retirement settlement by allowing more homes to be built or certain businesses to open. It was difficult to raise any taxes related to investing in schools or infrastructure because retirees tend to be more price sensitive in those areas, particularly if they don’t have children or grandchildren who will benefit. Ultimately, this made it harder for locals to find work (outside of service jobs) or to keep younger locals from fleeing for better prospects. To many locals, it was viewed as almost a hostile takeover of their town by outsiders with money. It tended to exacerbate rather than alleviate those class divisions alluded to in my original comment.
Edit: as an example, I used to live in an area that was relatively poor by US standards. There was a large cohort of retirees who would move in because if the pleasant weather, low cost of living etc. Rather than mingle with the locals, they tended to create little walled enclaves. Additionally, they gradually took over the local government (in part, because the full time political positions were unpaid, meaning only those retired or wealthy enough to not work could afford to fill them). This created an environment where business investment was often stifled because the retirees didn’t want to lose the feel of their retirement settlement by allowing more homes to be built or certain businesses to open. It was difficult to raise any taxes related to investing in schools or infrastructure because retirees tend to be more price sensitive in those areas, particularly if they don’t have children or grandchildren who will benefit. Ultimately, this made it harder for locals to find work (outside of service jobs) or to keep younger locals from fleeing for better prospects. To many locals, it was viewed as almost a hostile takeover of their town by outsiders with money. It tended to exacerbate rather than alleviate those class divisions alluded to in my original comment.
And destroys many aspects that made moving appealing in the first place.
Largely what made moving appealing in the first place was romanticizing the hell out of it while browsing lifestyle instagram feeds all day.
You never thought about your addiction to 2nd day shipping and international cuisine rotation via uber eats.
You never thought about your addiction to 2nd day shipping and international cuisine rotation via uber eats.
I was thinking more along the lines of "small and quiet town living" with no traffic or crime but still has Costco. Hiking trails that are never packed and with no trash abandoned.
Quite suddenly, you lose the quietness while gaining the traffic and crime. Trails become packed and not well respected. All that remains the same is Costco except busier.
Quite suddenly, you lose the quietness while gaining the traffic and crime. Trails become packed and not well respected. All that remains the same is Costco except busier.
[deleted]
You have a moral obligation to do what you can to minimize negative impact to others. You don't have to live somewhere that's "already expensive", but you should at least consider trying to live somewhere that won't suffer negative consequences by you living there.
I think the point is to not be surprised by the disdain from people you're pushing out who want to live simple lives near their friends and family in their communities, and aren't choosing location based on how "cheap" it is compared to the big city.
> but at the end of the day I'm optimizing for my own quality of life.
All well and good, but the economic and environmental effects of everyone "optimizing for their own quality of life" without regard for others means everyone loses out, don't they?
All well and good, but the economic and environmental effects of everyone "optimizing for their own quality of life" without regard for others means everyone loses out, don't they?
Only if it is indeed a zero sum game. I think most agree that on a sufficiently long timescale life is not a zero sum game, so everyone optimizing for their own quality of life increases the size of the pie for all.
It's not just the locals being impacted. This was my parents' plan, too. My dad retired a few years back after 40 years of working for LA County and seeing the house I lived in as a child tremendously appreciate in value. Unfortunately, they found out in retirement that any small town worth actually moving to has also seen prices tremendously go up, they're on a permanent fixed income, and now instead of living the dream, they live with my sister.
> any small town worth actually moving to
This is the crux of the matter. There is a lot of demand for less humid, mountainous regions with lots of outdoor recreation nearby. And it’s easier than ever to scope (due to internet) out the nice locations from wherever you are in the world.
So people are taking advantage (or already have) of an arbitrage opportunity to go where they want to that they previously may not have known about, or been able to go. The population of the world also exploded in the last few decades.
This is the crux of the matter. There is a lot of demand for less humid, mountainous regions with lots of outdoor recreation nearby. And it’s easier than ever to scope (due to internet) out the nice locations from wherever you are in the world.
So people are taking advantage (or already have) of an arbitrage opportunity to go where they want to that they previously may not have known about, or been able to go. The population of the world also exploded in the last few decades.
Yep.
There's no shortage of small towns in the US. If I threw a dart at a map of the US, I'd probably hit near one. (OK, a lot of the West is federal land but there are a lot of them.) There are a lot fewer that:
- Are in a climate you prefer
- Have recreational options you like
- Are perhaps gentrified to the degree they have food/cultural options you want
- Are perhaps at least reasonably accessible to major city/airport
- Aren't too susceptible to natural disasters
- etc.
There's no shortage of small towns in the US. If I threw a dart at a map of the US, I'd probably hit near one. (OK, a lot of the West is federal land but there are a lot of them.) There are a lot fewer that:
- Are in a climate you prefer
- Have recreational options you like
- Are perhaps gentrified to the degree they have food/cultural options you want
- Are perhaps at least reasonably accessible to major city/airport
- Aren't too susceptible to natural disasters
- etc.
Yup. I moved to SF because that's where the good jobs were. Now I can leave and keep my good job. Huzzah!
This seems like a good deal, but isn't your salary going to be adjusted for the area where you currently reside?
Yes, it was. I took a 15% cut. It's still a financial win, given the lower cost of living, lower taxes, and cheaper real estate. I'm finally able to buy a house.
15% to leave SF and go somewhere rural in the US? That is quite the deal.
> Is this not the dream that is often touted on hacker news? Work at a FAANG and "retire" somewhere more affordable?
Practically, probably not. Few people talk about that, most dont.
Most will move for affordable, but wont necessary like abrupt change from FAANG and big city to small city and not much to do. They will need to adjust to different culture, new hobbies, find new friends, everything.
And that is not even speaking about those whose partners dont want to move, whose partners have jobs, friends and social networks they like/need. And that is not even speaking about the "what with kids does this makes sense to them" topic.
Practically, probably not. Few people talk about that, most dont.
Most will move for affordable, but wont necessary like abrupt change from FAANG and big city to small city and not much to do. They will need to adjust to different culture, new hobbies, find new friends, everything.
And that is not even speaking about those whose partners dont want to move, whose partners have jobs, friends and social networks they like/need. And that is not even speaking about the "what with kids does this makes sense to them" topic.
Hasn’t exactly been “much to do” in San Francisco over the past year...
I don't think that the experience in the middle of a global pandemic generalizes.
I live in what SF calls "flyover country". My life has not changes that much since the pandemic onset. The main impact was that I had to drive instead of fly to visit friends. Yet despite this dangerous activity allowed to occur, daily covid cases and vaccine distribution have been towards the top of the nation. Sometimes the best times to comapre is when things get tough
What would a small city not have to do that big city would? Or do you mean a small town. Also, what hobbies would have to be given up?
I would say a lack of buffer capacity from fewer options for a given thing is huge. I've lived in small cities and currently live in a huge one. In a small city, yes, you might have one of most of your hobbies represented. But maybe there is literally only one Indian restaurant, only one golf course, only one movie theater, only one bar, only one car dealership, only one grocery store, etc. If that one thing sucks, you have literally no alternative. You have to deal with it.
Versus in the city I live in now, there are almost a dozen public courses in a reasonable drive. Dozens of car dealerships. Dozens of hiking trails. Dozens of beaches. Dozens and dozens of everything. I can vet options. I can do the same activity in different settings easily. If I am in one area of town, I have flexibility to find options in that area rather than going with my usual option close to me. I have choice. I have agency. I can take my business elsewhere if I need to, and come out better from it thanks to this huge population being able to support a variety of choices for any niche interest I might have.
And of course in the old days the argument was you could just make do with online shopping. But these days the signal to noise ratio on the internet is so pathetically low, I really value actually holding an object I buy in my hand before I get fleeced buying something online once again. Reviews can't be trusted. Images can't be trusted. I trust my eyes and my hands and if the price is fair, taking it home with me is the best deal on shipping there is. Being in a huge city means there are a lot of brick and mortar businesses. Businesses that probably closed years ago with the death of main streets in smaller cities and towns, but thrive here thanks to a huge population being able to sustain more businesses in a given area, even if many people opt to online shop.
Versus in the city I live in now, there are almost a dozen public courses in a reasonable drive. Dozens of car dealerships. Dozens of hiking trails. Dozens of beaches. Dozens and dozens of everything. I can vet options. I can do the same activity in different settings easily. If I am in one area of town, I have flexibility to find options in that area rather than going with my usual option close to me. I have choice. I have agency. I can take my business elsewhere if I need to, and come out better from it thanks to this huge population being able to support a variety of choices for any niche interest I might have.
And of course in the old days the argument was you could just make do with online shopping. But these days the signal to noise ratio on the internet is so pathetically low, I really value actually holding an object I buy in my hand before I get fleeced buying something online once again. Reviews can't be trusted. Images can't be trusted. I trust my eyes and my hands and if the price is fair, taking it home with me is the best deal on shipping there is. Being in a huge city means there are a lot of brick and mortar businesses. Businesses that probably closed years ago with the death of main streets in smaller cities and towns, but thrive here thanks to a huge population being able to sustain more businesses in a given area, even if many people opt to online shop.
It sounds like you are talking about small towns not small cities? All the small cities I know of have multiple options for the amenities you described.
I live just outside a small town and there are zero of many of those amenities. No Indian restaurant, movie theater, new car dealership, etc.
It is not fundamental difference between small vs big city. Options, people and culture are different in this city versus different city - no matter which one is larger.
Say you liked boardgames with friends. The new city have different people, the play different games, you dont like either new games or new people. Say you liked swimming and the swimming pools in new city are too full or otherwise dont suit you. You liked going to local beginner art/dance club, but new place dont have equivalent.
Moving to different place, especially when the environment changes comes with changes in lifestyle you may or may not welcome.
Say you liked boardgames with friends. The new city have different people, the play different games, you dont like either new games or new people. Say you liked swimming and the swimming pools in new city are too full or otherwise dont suit you. You liked going to local beginner art/dance club, but new place dont have equivalent.
Moving to different place, especially when the environment changes comes with changes in lifestyle you may or may not welcome.
You also have the issue of the wealth divide. Its gonna be very difficult to hang out with locals when your annual income is more than they have made in a decade. Jealously alone will tear things apart, nevermind the near complete lack of overlapping life experience.
So you end up with the wealthy newcomers only interacting with other wealthy newcomers. Essentially a new culture in a place that had an established culture for years before hand.
So you end up with the wealthy newcomers only interacting with other wealthy newcomers. Essentially a new culture in a place that had an established culture for years before hand.
I think that can happen, but doesn't have to. It depends if the person integrates into the local system. There are usually some wealthy people in the area to begin with, like doctors, lawyers, etc. If the community feels you are a part of it, then the wealth shouldn't be an real issue.
>depends if the person integrates into the local system.
That's just not going to happen though. The newcomers have nothing in common. Life experience, wealth, religion, ideology, none of if. And then the top it off by showing up and changing the place both intentionally and unintentionally. No wonder the locals don't want them around.
That's just not going to happen though. The newcomers have nothing in common. Life experience, wealth, religion, ideology, none of if. And then the top it off by showing up and changing the place both intentionally and unintentionally. No wonder the locals don't want them around.
I can see that somewhat. Maybe you like surfing or salt water fishing and move from the coast to the middle of the country where it just isn't geographically possible, or laws in one area prohibit it (homebrew, guns, etc), etc.
But I don't really see location as a major factor in most hobbies. I grew up as a military dependent and can't remember giving up hobbies just because we moved. You can almost always find ways to continue them.
But I don't really see location as a major factor in most hobbies. I grew up as a military dependent and can't remember giving up hobbies just because we moved. You can almost always find ways to continue them.
> I understand this is not for everyone and I understand the negative perception of 'outsiders' pushing the price up for locals, but at the end of the day I'm optimizing for my own quality of life.
It's unfortunate that you phrase that as egoistic because I think that apart from real estate price (which is highly location dependent because it depends on zoning laws) locals are better with the influx of money. In my experience in France, some rural places with low real estate tension are very happy to see urban people coming, but in other (like small coastal cities) there is a huge resentment because real estate skyrocket in a relatively short time.
It's unfortunate that you phrase that as egoistic because I think that apart from real estate price (which is highly location dependent because it depends on zoning laws) locals are better with the influx of money. In my experience in France, some rural places with low real estate tension are very happy to see urban people coming, but in other (like small coastal cities) there is a huge resentment because real estate skyrocket in a relatively short time.
>but at the end of the day I'm optimizing for my own quality of life.
Have you considered that this is the mentality that people take issue with? It's the root of many of today's ills.
Have you considered that this is the mentality that people take issue with? It's the root of many of today's ills.
I don’t know anyone who doesn’t optimize for their quality of life. Should people living in high demand areas get to be there because they were there first and others relegated to less desirable areas? I don’t see any better way of allocating resources in short supply.
The problem is that you overpay for real estate driving prices through the roof and leaving legacy locals homeless.
I'm honestly appalled that a comment that unironically says "fuck you, I got mine" is so upvoted.
You have a responsibility to society (the same society that put you in the position you are in, able to move/work remotely and pay you these exorbitant sums) to not ruin your community. If you moving to a place would cause the community in that place to suffer, it is your responsibility to not move there.
The fact that SV/tech has forgotten any sense of personal responsibility and apparently thinks it is perfectly okay to trample on the lives of others is exactly why non-tech people have such disdain for FAANG workers.
You have a responsibility to society (the same society that put you in the position you are in, able to move/work remotely and pay you these exorbitant sums) to not ruin your community. If you moving to a place would cause the community in that place to suffer, it is your responsibility to not move there.
The fact that SV/tech has forgotten any sense of personal responsibility and apparently thinks it is perfectly okay to trample on the lives of others is exactly why non-tech people have such disdain for FAANG workers.
Probably because they resent liberals for ruining their own cities, running away from them to smaller towns, and then having a condescending attitude towards the more conservative locals who have been there longer, while proceeding to push liberal politics, turning their new home into a liberal hellhole like the one they just left.
> at the end of the day I'm optimizing for my own quality of life
This kind of self-centered thinking, at scale, is what lowers the baseline quality of life for everyone.
This kind of self-centered thinking, at scale, is what lowers the baseline quality of life for everyone.
Your kids all else equal will be outsprinted by kids who live in more competitive cities. You can decide you don't care about any of that, but understand that type of that decision will ripple through to future generations, e.g. your grandkids will be less educated.
The irony is that most educated people living in small towns want to get out, and a generation or two after they do they want to go back. Will the cycle repeat itself?
The irony is that most educated people living in small towns want to get out, and a generation or two after they do they want to go back. Will the cycle repeat itself?
>Your kids all else equal will be outsprinted by kids who live in more competitive cities
But it won't "all else equal", there are so many variables at play here that it's meaningless to talk about a hypothetical "all else equal" scenario. Also there have been so many successful people who were born and raised in what you'd call "less competitive" areas.
>The irony is that most educated people living in small towns want to get out, and a generation or two after they do they want to go back.
What's ironic about people going to places chasing things they desire? Big cities and small towns offer different things, and those things value differently to different people. The people who are leaving small towns chasing after opportunities and the people who want to move back to small towns from big cities are obviously at different stages in their lives and value different things.
>Will the cycle repeat itself?
Probably? But why is that an issue?
But it won't "all else equal", there are so many variables at play here that it's meaningless to talk about a hypothetical "all else equal" scenario. Also there have been so many successful people who were born and raised in what you'd call "less competitive" areas.
>The irony is that most educated people living in small towns want to get out, and a generation or two after they do they want to go back.
What's ironic about people going to places chasing things they desire? Big cities and small towns offer different things, and those things value differently to different people. The people who are leaving small towns chasing after opportunities and the people who want to move back to small towns from big cities are obviously at different stages in their lives and value different things.
>Will the cycle repeat itself?
Probably? But why is that an issue?
> Your kids all else equal will be outsprinted by kids who live in more competitive cities
That’s absolute horse shit.
And whilst I don’t have any evidence to sprout, I think that those from more diverse and unusual backgrounds are better adapted for modern life. Growing up in a ‘competitive’ city is a licence for blandness (opinions mine)
That’s absolute horse shit.
And whilst I don’t have any evidence to sprout, I think that those from more diverse and unusual backgrounds are better adapted for modern life. Growing up in a ‘competitive’ city is a licence for blandness (opinions mine)
Agreed, being from a city is a replacement for a personality for some. If you've ever met someone from NYC you know it because they tell you about it within 2 minutes of meeting them.
There are pros and cons to growing up in a smaller metro. While having access to top tier culture and internships are great, there’s also a grueling competition to stand out.
In SV, the pressure on kids and parents seems extreme even at the median. While there are less opportunities and resources overall in a small metro, it’s all available to an ambitious child.
In the end, at least some small town kids are out-sprinting the “competitive city” kids and taking their loot back home. Otherwise we wouldn’t have all these articles about it.
In SV, the pressure on kids and parents seems extreme even at the median. While there are less opportunities and resources overall in a small metro, it’s all available to an ambitious child.
In the end, at least some small town kids are out-sprinting the “competitive city” kids and taking their loot back home. Otherwise we wouldn’t have all these articles about it.
Maybe true of typical residents of said locations, on average.
But tech transplants by and large should not be considered typical residents.
What you say definitely does have elements of truth to it, but I’d wager the effects of parenting and income are, on average, much larger than your direct setting when it comes to succeeding beyond the median of their peer group.
But tech transplants by and large should not be considered typical residents.
What you say definitely does have elements of truth to it, but I’d wager the effects of parenting and income are, on average, much larger than your direct setting when it comes to succeeding beyond the median of their peer group.
The irony is that most educated people living in small towns want to get out
Doesn't seem like you know much about small towns. I grew up in one. The educated people are there because they want to be. That's sort of by definition, and follows from the fact that they're educated -- they have been somewhere else (you don't get "educated" in a small town, not in the way you mean), and they chose to go there.
The ones who want to leave are the uneducated ones, who would love to have an opportunity to get "educated" in that sense.
Your kids all else equal will be outsprinted by kids who live in more competitive cities
Not everyone wants to be part of this rat race you're talking about, nor do they want their children to be. Having ended up at FAANG (despite my small town upbringing), I talk with a lot of young people (interns, new hires) who are products of this rat race. By and large my impression is that:
1. They haven't lived much. They haven't done many things. They've been too busy in their competitive classes in competitive schools trying to get into competitive schools.
2. They don't seem very happy. They tend to be high strung. Nervous seeming. Scared of failure.
that decision will ripple through to future generations, e.g. your grandkids will be less educated.
How would you even know this? How do you know parental education status isn't the real factor?
Doesn't seem like you know much about small towns. I grew up in one. The educated people are there because they want to be. That's sort of by definition, and follows from the fact that they're educated -- they have been somewhere else (you don't get "educated" in a small town, not in the way you mean), and they chose to go there.
The ones who want to leave are the uneducated ones, who would love to have an opportunity to get "educated" in that sense.
Your kids all else equal will be outsprinted by kids who live in more competitive cities
Not everyone wants to be part of this rat race you're talking about, nor do they want their children to be. Having ended up at FAANG (despite my small town upbringing), I talk with a lot of young people (interns, new hires) who are products of this rat race. By and large my impression is that:
1. They haven't lived much. They haven't done many things. They've been too busy in their competitive classes in competitive schools trying to get into competitive schools.
2. They don't seem very happy. They tend to be high strung. Nervous seeming. Scared of failure.
that decision will ripple through to future generations, e.g. your grandkids will be less educated.
How would you even know this? How do you know parental education status isn't the real factor?
You and I share some similar observations but come away with very different interpretations.
"The educated people are there because they want to be" the parents, sure, but their children are there because the parents chose for them.
"1. [children from big cities] haven't lived much. They haven't done many things." Are you seriously suggesting that there are more things to do in Boise than Manhattan?
"2. They don't seem very happy." That certainly described everyone I knew who wasn't a cultist in Salt Lake City.
In my experience, the ones who want to leave are the smart kids who find their surroundings culturally stifling and intellectually decrepit.
"The educated people are there because they want to be" the parents, sure, but their children are there because the parents chose for them.
"1. [children from big cities] haven't lived much. They haven't done many things." Are you seriously suggesting that there are more things to do in Boise than Manhattan?
"2. They don't seem very happy." That certainly described everyone I knew who wasn't a cultist in Salt Lake City.
In my experience, the ones who want to leave are the smart kids who find their surroundings culturally stifling and intellectually decrepit.
Are you seriously suggesting that there are more things to do in Boise than Manhattan?
It's not about how many things there are to do. It's about what life experiences you've had.
I'm not talking museums here. I'm talking working tough jobs, dealing with addiction or death (in family or acquaintances, having a job, living on your own, etc etc. The kids I'm talking about have had very sheltered lives.
That certainly described everyone I knew who wasn't a cultist in Salt Lake City.
We may have different definitions of "small town". Salt Lake City is unique in many ways and not representative of rural or rust belt small towns.
It's not about how many things there are to do. It's about what life experiences you've had.
I'm not talking museums here. I'm talking working tough jobs, dealing with addiction or death (in family or acquaintances, having a job, living on your own, etc etc. The kids I'm talking about have had very sheltered lives.
That certainly described everyone I knew who wasn't a cultist in Salt Lake City.
We may have different definitions of "small town". Salt Lake City is unique in many ways and not representative of rural or rust belt small towns.
All small towns are not created equal, imagining they are is going to lead you to invalid conclusions.
Desirable towns popular with outdoor recreation enthusiasts are generally not suffering any sort of widespread brain drain issue (if anything, they have the opposite issue - too many highly educated people, not enough of the people to do the jobs lower on the ladder).
They have about nothing in common with some rural town in the Great Plains that's been slowly depopulating for a century.
Desirable towns popular with outdoor recreation enthusiasts are generally not suffering any sort of widespread brain drain issue (if anything, they have the opposite issue - too many highly educated people, not enough of the people to do the jobs lower on the ladder).
They have about nothing in common with some rural town in the Great Plains that's been slowly depopulating for a century.
Shared family environment (which by definition includes where your parents choose to live) has near zero impact on long term adult outcomes. This has been confirmed again and again by countless twin studies.
Do you mean twin studies where the twins are separated at birth and raised by different parents? This is a rare thing for parents to do so I think you are exaggerating when you say there are "countless" twin studies saying family environments don't matter? I would be surprised if there were more than a few such studies?
Or are you claiming something else?
Or are you claiming something else?
And yet, we know anecdotally that certain places produce far more than their share of "talented" people, so I don't think those twin studies are complete or conclusive.
That's just the genetic heritability of intelligence and other personality factors. High IQ, high achieving people are disproportionately attracted to certain job markets. Those people tend to have high IQ kids. Those high IQ kids tend to grow up and become high achieving adults. The outcomes would largely be the same whether those same kids grew up in Palo Alto or Peoria. Don't confuse correlation for causation.
Similarly, I'd be virtually certain that children who grew up with a Tesla as their family car are much more likely to attend elite universities. That doesn't mean that Elon Musk has solved the problem of getting your kids into Harvard. It's just that Teslas are expensive, and therefore rich, high-achieving families are more likely to own them.
Similarly, I'd be virtually certain that children who grew up with a Tesla as their family car are much more likely to attend elite universities. That doesn't mean that Elon Musk has solved the problem of getting your kids into Harvard. It's just that Teslas are expensive, and therefore rich, high-achieving families are more likely to own them.
You're not addressing the thing I was talking about.
Take for instance the bevy of amazing mathematicians produced by early 20th century Budapest. That wasn't just genetics, it was the culture of the city and the teachers those people had. Likewise you could look at the rise of soccer greatness in Rio; that wasn't genetic, it was due to features of life in Rio and a culture of passion for soccer.
IQ is less important and more malleable than you think. It should be called nutrition and nurturing quotient instead.
Take for instance the bevy of amazing mathematicians produced by early 20th century Budapest. That wasn't just genetics, it was the culture of the city and the teachers those people had. Likewise you could look at the rise of soccer greatness in Rio; that wasn't genetic, it was due to features of life in Rio and a culture of passion for soccer.
IQ is less important and more malleable than you think. It should be called nutrition and nurturing quotient instead.
> Take for instance the bevy of amazing mathematicians produced by early 20th century Budapest. That wasn't just genetics
That's up for debate in some circles.[0]
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/26/the-atomic-bomb-consid...
That's up for debate in some circles.[0]
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/26/the-atomic-bomb-consid...
Or maybe people can take responsibility for their kids rather than forget them with an underpaid, under-motivated teachers. You can cram 12 years of public school bullshit in 4-6 years, and have 6-8 years to teach them useful things like programming and construction.
Have you heard of New
England? Lots of educated people in small towns, and want to be there.
As a kid who graduated with a class of 28 students in rural small town America, I’d say we had a disproportionately high number of kids go to the Ivies, Stanford, or the Academies. I never once felt handicapped. Resumes look pretty good when you letter in every sport, star in every play, and run student government. And today I’m raising my children in small town America.
Gross. If I have to worry about my kids and their kids kids being overtaken by other more elite kids I'm doing something wrong.
You know their kids can just move to a big city again right?
[deleted]
Your comment is indicative that you don't understand how healthy democratic societies should work. What you're describing is a third world paradigm. Where you're "lucky enough" to be born into a "good" family or go to a "good" college or live in a "desirable" neighborhood and on and on and on.
While the comment wasn’t scoped or composed empathetically towards identifying systematic socioeconomic forces, I don’t think this person deserves your assessment that they doesn’t understand the broken, upsetting world we all live in.
Not the world, the U.S. And it's a fairly accurate assesment.
As someone who lived in a small city in the American Mountain West, the boom does have consequences. Sleepy farming towns are becoming endless suburbia, hiking up prices as developers spill over from the Lehi 'Silicon Slopes' area.
Midway, for instance, a town on the Wasatch back situated in a location that feels similar to Switzerland, has gone from about 150 diaries to 2, as expanding housing developments buy out the high-valued farmland.
You'd think with the influx of money, and reduction in competition, it'd be easier for the remaining diaries to compete. Not so: the price of milk has remained basically unchanged since the 70s, but the cost required to run a farm has kept increasing.
So why not cash out? (A few farmers in the area have actually cashed out and moved to Idaho, and they're pretty much set for life.) Long story short, Midway is a beautiful place to live, and the remaining diaries form a pillar of the community - it's just not something the remaining diary owners, who have been farming the land for generations, want to do.
To stay in business, the remaining diaries have pivoted to artisan cheese production, with plans to produce other high-valued products, like ice-cream. Tours and locally-sourced farm stores are an additional source of income.
Of course, these are just my own two cents. I don't mean to come off overly negative about the situation. 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.
Source: I'm a software engineer who lived/worked as a cheese-maker for a dairy there.
Midway, for instance, a town on the Wasatch back situated in a location that feels similar to Switzerland, has gone from about 150 diaries to 2, as expanding housing developments buy out the high-valued farmland.
You'd think with the influx of money, and reduction in competition, it'd be easier for the remaining diaries to compete. Not so: the price of milk has remained basically unchanged since the 70s, but the cost required to run a farm has kept increasing.
So why not cash out? (A few farmers in the area have actually cashed out and moved to Idaho, and they're pretty much set for life.) Long story short, Midway is a beautiful place to live, and the remaining diaries form a pillar of the community - it's just not something the remaining diary owners, who have been farming the land for generations, want to do.
To stay in business, the remaining diaries have pivoted to artisan cheese production, with plans to produce other high-valued products, like ice-cream. Tours and locally-sourced farm stores are an additional source of income.
Of course, these are just my own two cents. I don't mean to come off overly negative about the situation. 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.
Source: I'm a software engineer who lived/worked as a cheese-maker for a dairy there.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm confused, how is owning a bar or cafe in a hot spot an immoral activity?
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.
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.
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-f...
E: forgot the link https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/the-last-of-his-kind-f...
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.
And the orchards of Orange County, California.
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.
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.
The way I look at it is that every popular community does have to make decisions about what is / isn't going to be part of its yard (front or back), but that optimizing for either economic accessibility or quality of life can be hard, and going for both is considerably harder. Good policy is difficult (and rarely aligns with either simple economic ideology or social aesthetics).
That said, I can't help but wonder if it is possible to shape how people buy. For example, with the existing very limited housing stock being exacerbated with large capital chasing it, I'm inclined to think that there should be property taxes that are a function of housing one already owns in a given market and supply on the market. So... want to buy a new house and keep your old one to rent out? Want to buy a third in a market where there isn't two weeks of supply on the market? Maybe you'll pay a bit more, both on the transactions and yearly. Want to buy your twelfth or twentieth unit as part of a fund or trust in a market where there isn't a week of supply on the market? Maybe you're going to get hit hard, and you should try to find some other productive use for your capital.
That said, I can't help but wonder if it is possible to shape how people buy. For example, with the existing very limited housing stock being exacerbated with large capital chasing it, I'm inclined to think that there should be property taxes that are a function of housing one already owns in a given market and supply on the market. So... want to buy a new house and keep your old one to rent out? Want to buy a third in a market where there isn't two weeks of supply on the market? Maybe you'll pay a bit more, both on the transactions and yearly. Want to buy your twelfth or twentieth unit as part of a fund or trust in a market where there isn't a week of supply on the market? Maybe you're going to get hit hard, and you should try to find some other productive use for your capital.
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.
Metro California problems follow metro California popularity/growth.
Policies you're calling "NIMBY" are rarely the underlying cause. They're reactions. Some of them exacerbate certain problems, some of them attenuate others, but not the underlying cause.
Policies you're calling "NIMBY" are rarely the underlying cause. They're reactions. Some of them exacerbate certain problems, some of them attenuate others, but not the underlying cause.
I.e. using money to skip out of the part where you reap what you sow.
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?
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?
There have always been people who wanted to live in remote mountain/beach towns. Ski/surf bums are not new. What is new is being able to work remotely through the Internet for a company located in some place where there is more economic activity or being able to pile up enough wealth in places like coastal California to move to a remote area and semi-retire at a youngish age.
If you're retired on a fixed income in Austin and own a house you can defer paying property taxes until you die so there's no reason this person should have to move.
If you're retired on a fixed income in Austin and own a house you can defer paying property taxes until you die so there's no reason this person should have to move.
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?
> 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.
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.
It's not unusual for businesses to move up the value chain when their segment commoditizes. Dairies are actually a couple steps up the chain from the farmers who grow feed or hay. Cheese, ice cream, etc. are next up.
In some places it's grass to baskets to warehousing to shipping. In others it's grass to sheep to wool to textiles to fashion. Still others it's trees to lumber to paper to stationary.
Other industries have their own moves.
In areas that can't manage this move up tend to see the local industries consolidate until some final monster exists and either also eventually fails too (to external competition) or rent seeks its way to a zombified existence.
There's other alternatives to when vertical value growth isn't possible -- like in developing countries, the businesses all coexist together, but tend to price each other into nearly unsupportable levels. Strong regulations tend to kill this alternative off leaving an up or out path one of the few viable ones available.
In some places it's grass to baskets to warehousing to shipping. In others it's grass to sheep to wool to textiles to fashion. Still others it's trees to lumber to paper to stationary.
Other industries have their own moves.
In areas that can't manage this move up tend to see the local industries consolidate until some final monster exists and either also eventually fails too (to external competition) or rent seeks its way to a zombified existence.
There's other alternatives to when vertical value growth isn't possible -- like in developing countries, the businesses all coexist together, but tend to price each other into nearly unsupportable levels. Strong regulations tend to kill this alternative off leaving an up or out path one of the few viable ones available.
You can always move to mountain towns in Appalachia. The population has been stagnate or shrinking over the past decades with the mills and mines shutting down.
Ssssshhhh, don't spill the beans. I need those towns to remain affordable for ~15-20 years, until I'm ready to cash-out my suburban home.
They aren't unknown now, they're less expensive because they are less desirable than less humid places with bigger mountains in the west.
Until water scarcity becomes more of a problem. Then some humidity will be looking good. (Even so, it's not nearly as humid in most of Appalachia as much of the deep south)
Same with rural communities here in the Midwest. We would love to have FAANG refugees move here.
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.
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.
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.
I know of places where houses sit empty or are even demolished because they are no longer needed with the shrinking population.
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.
>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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Oh, vouchers in your area. We didnt have that. I guess that was before they were really a thing too.
"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."
If they are paying the money (no vouchers), then I don't see why that's a problem.
Our private school partnered with local public schools on some sports. One local school would send us their soccer players, we would send them our shooters. Another one would send us golf students and our tech students would go to their vo-tech program. You would take drivers ed in whatever district you lived in over the summer. It worked pretty well.
"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."
If they are paying the money (no vouchers), then I don't see why that's a problem.
Our private school partnered with local public schools on some sports. One local school would send us their soccer players, we would send them our shooters. Another one would send us golf students and our tech students would go to their vo-tech program. You would take drivers ed in whatever district you lived in over the summer. It worked pretty well.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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!
And the cycle begins again...
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...
> 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.
[1] https://imgur.com/X5GrRfO
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.
[1] https://imgur.com/X5GrRfO
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
This is why housing prices in the Bay are so stupid. People don’t want it to lose it’s magic and their solution is to freeze practically all building. As a result, even the people there are forced out due to growing rents, increasing housing prices force kids to leave, commercial rents replace tattoo shops with skin spas.
And you lose the magic anyways.
This is why housing prices in the Bay are so stupid. People don’t want it to lose it’s magic and their solution is to freeze practically all building. As a result, even the people there are forced out due to growing rents, increasing housing prices force kids to leave, commercial rents replace tattoo shops with skin spas.
And you lose the magic anyways.
Looks like a autocorrect problem there - "diaries" for "dairies" - took me a while to work this out and was busy researching what a diary was in this kind of context... :-)
Typed out on a phone, can't go back and edit it now ;P
Dairies are consolidating because scale factors make the big ones more competitive than small ones.
Though with modern shipping taking milk from the middle of nowhere makes sense.
Though with modern shipping taking milk from the middle of nowhere makes sense.
My family's farms were replaced by starter castles. I sort of understand the economic and social forces. It still makes me incredibly sad. (I can't even drive past my family's former lands.) Sprawl is evil. Big Ag is evil.
More recently, some local farmers worked with local government and businesses to figure how to conserve farm land. New laws and capital. Pairing immigrant farmers with land. (Here's the first hit from a quick search, not authorative, just to get the gist. https://crosscut.com/focus/2020/02/how-immigrant-farmer-kent...)
These efforts to conserve -- farms, wet lands, open spaces -- make me so proud.
At the same time, I'm pro development. Done smart. Such a huge opportunity.
I'm completely on board with Matt Yglessia's One Billion Americans (1B4USA) thesis. For so many reasons. Mostly as a way to reinvest and revitalize the entirety of our country. Back to Main Street. Back to family farms. Back to localized economies.
More recently, some local farmers worked with local government and businesses to figure how to conserve farm land. New laws and capital. Pairing immigrant farmers with land. (Here's the first hit from a quick search, not authorative, just to get the gist. https://crosscut.com/focus/2020/02/how-immigrant-farmer-kent...)
These efforts to conserve -- farms, wet lands, open spaces -- make me so proud.
At the same time, I'm pro development. Done smart. Such a huge opportunity.
I'm completely on board with Matt Yglessia's One Billion Americans (1B4USA) thesis. For so many reasons. Mostly as a way to reinvest and revitalize the entirety of our country. Back to Main Street. Back to family farms. Back to localized economies.
Great post but one point, Whole foods sells 1/2 gallons for $6! I don't drink much milk but would gladly pay a premium for high quality, local, organic milk.
Organic is a scam and Whole Foods is a rip off.
Please explain what "premium" milk is. Milk is a commodity. All milk has a code on the bottle that indicates which farm produced it. If you compare codes you'll often find the cheaper store brands are the same thing as the more expensive brands.
Please explain what "premium" milk is. Milk is a commodity. All milk has a code on the bottle that indicates which farm produced it. If you compare codes you'll often find the cheaper store brands are the same thing as the more expensive brands.
Depends on the brand, good organic milk is worth it. Bare minimum is Whole Foods 365 brand
In New England Organic Valley is as good as it gets for store milk,
https://www.cornucopia.org/scorecard/dairy/
In New England Organic Valley is as good as it gets for store milk,
https://www.cornucopia.org/scorecard/dairy/
Thanks for raising that point!
The dairy I worked at does sell high quality local raw milk; they have a pasteurizer to produce cheese, but they can't use the same one to produce pasteurized milk.
Additionally, the cows usually produce an excess volume of milk, which is sold so it doesn't go to waste: it's important to remember that even if the milk is sold for, say, $6 at Whole Foods, not all of the markup goes to the farmer.
The dairy I worked at does sell high quality local raw milk; they have a pasteurizer to produce cheese, but they can't use the same one to produce pasteurized milk.
Additionally, the cows usually produce an excess volume of milk, which is sold so it doesn't go to waste: it's important to remember that even if the milk is sold for, say, $6 at Whole Foods, not all of the markup goes to the farmer.
My wife and I traded living near a beach and lagoon in San Diego country for a small but nice house in a mountain tourist town (Sedona Arizona). That was back in 1998. Except for some time working as a contractor at Google in Mountain View and managing a deep learning team for Capital One in Urbana/Champaign IL, we have lived a quiet life in the mountains since 1998.
One reason for my success in being happy here is that I accept the 1 1/2 million tourists who flood through our town every year. I view them as good for our economy and go out of my way to offer advice on the hiking trails to people who are obviously visitors, easy to do since I like talking with people. A few of my friends are miserable because of the tourists, but they are just a fact of life.
One reason for my success in being happy here is that I accept the 1 1/2 million tourists who flood through our town every year. I view them as good for our economy and go out of my way to offer advice on the hiking trails to people who are obviously visitors, easy to do since I like talking with people. A few of my friends are miserable because of the tourists, but they are just a fact of life.
I think this concept of "acceptance of other people" is key. There seems to be a sort of cultural meme, especially in the western US, that everyone should be able to have a ton of land to themselves, but that's simply not realistic.
"Beautiful, scenic place; solitude; easy access to population centers" - pick two. There's a popular Wilderness Area about a 30 minute drive from Bend, Oregon and people act all surprised that there are lots of people there. You're not going to get solitude in a place like that. You need to accept that others want to be there too, and deal with it. And maybe do some volunteering to maintain the trails / educate people about proper wilderness etiquette.
"Beautiful, scenic place; solitude; easy access to population centers" - pick two. There's a popular Wilderness Area about a 30 minute drive from Bend, Oregon and people act all surprised that there are lots of people there. You're not going to get solitude in a place like that. You need to accept that others want to be there too, and deal with it. And maybe do some volunteering to maintain the trails / educate people about proper wilderness etiquette.
Exactly. With the slight caveat that beautiful and scenic really only enter into your triangular choice when a place is publicized (advertised?) as such. There are beautiful, restive, empty places to go within an hour Los Angeles, Seattle, ... that are kept that way only by relative obscurity and mildly inconvenient access.
All of those places are probably less likely to stay obscure or will blow up quicker due to the internet.
I don't think just acceptance of tourists is enough. It's easy to deal with people, the problem is they act horribly. No one wants to educate people, that's confrontational.
I lived in Park City for a decade, and it's the same. If you live your life being mad at the traffic during the Sundance Festival and Christmas vacation skiiers, you're just an old man yelling at clouds. That tourist money pays for so many of the amenities that make our town a nice place to live during the rest of the year. Lighten up!
There are probably exceptions but the intersection between towns with a lot of nice restaurants, cultural amenities, etc. and towns that don't have any real tourist presence for at least part of the year is pretty much the null set. The reality is that the small towns that probably most appeal to many people here are somewhat unnatural constructs.
I typically agree but there are some places where this topic is a bit more nuanced and controversial - Hawaii for instance. We love visiting the islands but learned a while back that large parts of the indigenous population see the US as an occupying entity and not their country. While heavily relying on the tourist income, this creates a challenging relationship between the locals and visitors (not to mention the disrespect some tourists show to the local land and culture). This issue was made very apparent during a Pearl Harbor tour when the bus driver described how many Hawaiians actually identified more closely with Japan than America during WW2 (and still do to this day).
First, thank you for at least taking the time to try and understand how the history of Hawaii has shaped many of the issues facing Hawaii today. Second, I will add that I was not born in Hawaii but lived there for several years and have learned a lot about it myself from my wife, who was born and raised there and did research into some of these issues as a graduate student.
> We love visiting the islands but learned a while back that large parts of the indigenous population see the US as an occupying entity and not their country. While heavily relying on the tourist income, this creates a challenging relationship between the locals and visitors (not to mention the disrespect some tourists show to the local land and culture).
Yes, there is a contingent of the Native Hawaiian population that is making the case for sovereignty. Again, I do not have skin in the game, nor am I an expert in these matters. However, it is acknowledged by the U.S. itself that the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii was undermined through force and not by any mutual treaty or agreement; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King....
However, your statement seems to be conflating "locals" with Native Hawaiians, which is incorrect (but not uncommon among many Americans). The majority of the current local population are descendants not of Native Hawaiians but of other laborers that were brought to the Hawaiian islands by U.S. persons-owned sugar plantations during the 19th century, "Few natives were willing to work on the sugar plantations and so recruiters fanned out across Asia and Europe. As a result, between 1850 and 1900 some 200,000 contract laborers from China, Japan, the Philippines, Portugal and elsewhere came to Hawaiʻi under fixed term contracts (typically for five years). Most returned home on schedule, but large numbers stayed permanently. By 1908 about 180,000 Japanese workers had arrived. No more were allowed in, but 54,000 remained permanently." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Kingdom#Economic,_soc...]. Considering that the current population of all eight populated islands is only around 1,415,872, you can do some rough math based on average population growth from those workers to get an idea of how much the influx of these laborers changed the demographics of Hawaii.
> "This issue was made very apparent during a Pearl Harbor tour when the bus driver described how many Hawaiians actually identified more closely with Japan than America during WW2 (and still do to this day)."
I will not speak for this bus driver's opinions, but I would encourage you, if you get another chance, to take a look at the memorial plaque of civilians who died during the attacks on Pearl Harbor an observe how many names were of Hawaiians (locals, not native Hawaiians) of Japanese descent; although these individuals were also Japanese-Americans, Hawaii was only a territory at this point and did not become a state until 1959.
My point here being that who the Japanese-Americans in Hawaii "actually identified more closely" with at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor is complicated. Considering that: 1. Hawaii was not a state at that time 2. Many Japanese (and Chinese/Filipino/etc.) were residents of Hawaii prior to it becoming a U.S. territory 3. The government sanctioned xenophobia/racism at the time.
Another important data point to keep in mind on this subject was the service of the 442nd regiment during WWII itself; which to this day is the most decorated unit of its size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(Unite.... Meanwhile while they were fighting on behalf of the U.S., many of their relatives and family in Hawaii faced outright discrimination based on their descent and appearance (not to mention any relatives they had in California who were straight up imprisoned simply because they were of Japanese descent).
> We love visiting the islands but learned a while back that large parts of the indigenous population see the US as an occupying entity and not their country. While heavily relying on the tourist income, this creates a challenging relationship between the locals and visitors (not to mention the disrespect some tourists show to the local land and culture).
Yes, there is a contingent of the Native Hawaiian population that is making the case for sovereignty. Again, I do not have skin in the game, nor am I an expert in these matters. However, it is acknowledged by the U.S. itself that the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii was undermined through force and not by any mutual treaty or agreement; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King....
However, your statement seems to be conflating "locals" with Native Hawaiians, which is incorrect (but not uncommon among many Americans). The majority of the current local population are descendants not of Native Hawaiians but of other laborers that were brought to the Hawaiian islands by U.S. persons-owned sugar plantations during the 19th century, "Few natives were willing to work on the sugar plantations and so recruiters fanned out across Asia and Europe. As a result, between 1850 and 1900 some 200,000 contract laborers from China, Japan, the Philippines, Portugal and elsewhere came to Hawaiʻi under fixed term contracts (typically for five years). Most returned home on schedule, but large numbers stayed permanently. By 1908 about 180,000 Japanese workers had arrived. No more were allowed in, but 54,000 remained permanently." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Kingdom#Economic,_soc...]. Considering that the current population of all eight populated islands is only around 1,415,872, you can do some rough math based on average population growth from those workers to get an idea of how much the influx of these laborers changed the demographics of Hawaii.
> "This issue was made very apparent during a Pearl Harbor tour when the bus driver described how many Hawaiians actually identified more closely with Japan than America during WW2 (and still do to this day)."
I will not speak for this bus driver's opinions, but I would encourage you, if you get another chance, to take a look at the memorial plaque of civilians who died during the attacks on Pearl Harbor an observe how many names were of Hawaiians (locals, not native Hawaiians) of Japanese descent; although these individuals were also Japanese-Americans, Hawaii was only a territory at this point and did not become a state until 1959.
My point here being that who the Japanese-Americans in Hawaii "actually identified more closely" with at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor is complicated. Considering that: 1. Hawaii was not a state at that time 2. Many Japanese (and Chinese/Filipino/etc.) were residents of Hawaii prior to it becoming a U.S. territory 3. The government sanctioned xenophobia/racism at the time.
Another important data point to keep in mind on this subject was the service of the 442nd regiment during WWII itself; which to this day is the most decorated unit of its size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(Unite.... Meanwhile while they were fighting on behalf of the U.S., many of their relatives and family in Hawaii faced outright discrimination based on their descent and appearance (not to mention any relatives they had in California who were straight up imprisoned simply because they were of Japanese descent).
Park city is particularly atrocious because most of the place is designed as this super spread out suburb around arterial roads - if they just had massive condos downtown near the ski lifts, people would only have to drive in/out of town once.
Was there just a year ago, right before the pandemic. That is one hell of a beautiful town and you should feel extremely lucky to be able to live there.
I lived in tourist heavy cities (London, Paris, Miami, NYC) and loved chatting with them. And some of them get you to be a tourist in your own city. It took me years before I finally visited the Eiffel Tower. It was always in my periphery and I blended it into the background. Then someone personally invited me to come along.
I lived in tourist heavy cities (London, Paris, Miami, NYC) and loved chatting with them. And some of them get you to be a tourist in your own city. It took me years before I finally visited the Eiffel Tower. It was always in my periphery and I blended it into the background. Then someone personally invited me to come along.
I’ve been one of those tourists — Sedona is a magical place. Also, the alpine stretch as you drive out towards the north has always stuck with me as one of the most incredible areas of the planet I’ve been to.
> deep learning team for Capital One
What!? Capital One has a deep learning team? As a long-time customer of theirs, I can't even begin to guess what that team might do for their set of products, except maybe to optimize their credit card offerings.
What!? Capital One has a deep learning team? As a long-time customer of theirs, I can't even begin to guess what that team might do for their set of products, except maybe to optimize their credit card offerings.
Fraud, bankruptcy risk prediction, product marketing, possibly phone tree / voice response / customer service, would be my general suspicions based on some previous industry contacts, though no current insights.
Fraud detection?
My thoughts too. Fraud detection seems like the first step ML for a financial institution. Consumer banking basically labels itself. The customers will come telling you X transaction = fraud, with all the features available like time, location, amount, etc.
[deleted]
capital one are experts in underwriting subprime consumer debt and seems like they know how to evaluate risk for the most profitable credit products in the market. Won't be suprised if they use suite of ML/DL, although banking regulations discourage using black-box models for anything banking, and requires models to be explainable and free of possible biases.
Looks like a very interesting field to work as an applied ML/DL researcher (explainability, white-box vs black-box, bias, etc)
Looks like a very interesting field to work as an applied ML/DL researcher (explainability, white-box vs black-box, bias, etc)
Are we still ignoring the ecological collapse that is caused by urban sprawl? We *must* increase the density of our cities.
If you believe that the climate crisis is a problem and a big one, then you could be for a rude awakening as most experts now consider the collapse in biodiversity to have far bigger impacts on human lives and living conditions than climate change[0].
The only reason why there are fewer headlines about that on on climate change is that the IPBES was founded decades after the IPCC.
I'm afraid that many will finally take a few steps to reduce their carbon footprint and use this to justify expanding their footprint on ecosystems ("clean" but larger houses, "organic" but wider lawn areas, "clean" but more frequent transportation that break natural habitats, etc).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_Report_on_Bi...
If you believe that the climate crisis is a problem and a big one, then you could be for a rude awakening as most experts now consider the collapse in biodiversity to have far bigger impacts on human lives and living conditions than climate change[0].
The only reason why there are fewer headlines about that on on climate change is that the IPBES was founded decades after the IPCC.
I'm afraid that many will finally take a few steps to reduce their carbon footprint and use this to justify expanding their footprint on ecosystems ("clean" but larger houses, "organic" but wider lawn areas, "clean" but more frequent transportation that break natural habitats, etc).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_Report_on_Bi...
I'm extremely sympathetic to this view. Habitat destruction is the #1 or #2 way we're screwing over the planet.
However, this looks like an area where environmentalists risk getting themselves into trouble. Global warming is a defined and solvable task, but the messaging keeps changing to something more like an open-ended commitment. That has huge risks for the public to tune it out, and perhaps further procrastinate on the carbon emissions problem. Average people do not have the emotional energy for a perpetual guilt machine.
> We must increase the density of our cities.
I kind of don't feel like we can afford to. The housing price increases since 2020 have an atrocious human cost. These rising costs of living are not sustainable. There are some good (tech) jobs that compensate sufficiently for this type of development to work... but no where near enough. On a macroeconomics sense, I'm inclined to think it just doesn't work at all.
I'm also skeptical that the arguments apply to THIS migration. People are not moving into the rain forest, and the American mountain west, in particular, is fairly arid. The wildlife density of some places is orders of magnitude greater than other places.
Preservation is a battle that you never win, you just delay. If we can't have our big houses, wide lawns, and transportation work with some ecosystems, maybe it's all doomed either way.
However, this looks like an area where environmentalists risk getting themselves into trouble. Global warming is a defined and solvable task, but the messaging keeps changing to something more like an open-ended commitment. That has huge risks for the public to tune it out, and perhaps further procrastinate on the carbon emissions problem. Average people do not have the emotional energy for a perpetual guilt machine.
> We must increase the density of our cities.
I kind of don't feel like we can afford to. The housing price increases since 2020 have an atrocious human cost. These rising costs of living are not sustainable. There are some good (tech) jobs that compensate sufficiently for this type of development to work... but no where near enough. On a macroeconomics sense, I'm inclined to think it just doesn't work at all.
I'm also skeptical that the arguments apply to THIS migration. People are not moving into the rain forest, and the American mountain west, in particular, is fairly arid. The wildlife density of some places is orders of magnitude greater than other places.
Preservation is a battle that you never win, you just delay. If we can't have our big houses, wide lawns, and transportation work with some ecosystems, maybe it's all doomed either way.
Housing prices are almost purely supply and demand. Cities like New York City have 90% of their existing housing stock ( the cheapest and densest buildings) labelled as illegal under their current zoning laws.Los Angeles have extremely restrictive laws that make only the most luxurious high end towers being financially viable, and most of the city zoned for only suburban sprawl. San Francisco is largely illegal to build anything at all there. Cities everywhere have zoning that requires deep pockets (and bribes to city officials) to get anything built and can still be stuck in random lawsuits for decades.
We need to build our cities like we did pre-wwII. We need cities like look like Tokyo, Vienna, Paris, Manhattan, etc. We need cities that are dense and walke-able. Whether that is through removing zoning and height limits and putting parking maximums, or through government building public housing. Something needs to be done, it is a threat to our existence.
We need to densify cities and towns, and replace highways full of SUVs with train lines. We need to replace coal and natural gas burning with solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.
We need to build our cities like we did pre-wwII. We need cities like look like Tokyo, Vienna, Paris, Manhattan, etc. We need cities that are dense and walke-able. Whether that is through removing zoning and height limits and putting parking maximums, or through government building public housing. Something needs to be done, it is a threat to our existence.
We need to densify cities and towns, and replace highways full of SUVs with train lines. We need to replace coal and natural gas burning with solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.
Trying to force density on people will fail because people don't like being told what to do and the government is terrible at telling people what to do. Just let people build whatever, wherever (hazardous commercial activity notwithstanding) and the suitable density for the area will develop naturally... like it did pre-ww2
Density won't develop at it's natural pace if we continue with policies that inhibit density, and fund projects that discourage it.
Hence the "just let people do whatever" part of my comment.
> I kind of don't feel like we can afford to. The housing price increases since 2020 have an atrocious human cost. These rising costs of living are not sustainable. There are some good (tech) jobs that compensate sufficiently for this type of development to work... but no where near enough. On a macroeconomics sense, I'm inclined to think it just doesn't work at all.
The costs are rising because there is demand to move to cities, but we aren't increasing density. In most cities zoning and arduous permit processes are making building downright impossible. The lack of real density is driving the cost problem
The costs are rising because there is demand to move to cities, but we aren't increasing density. In most cities zoning and arduous permit processes are making building downright impossible. The lack of real density is driving the cost problem
Ah yes, the old single family housing issue.
I painfully remember a moment from the 2020 election cycle where CPAC or something had someone, amid much other nonsense, framed Democratic opposition to single-family zoning as ruining our way of life. This is, of course, while 90% of zoning is single-family.
It's not just urban areas that need (at minimum) some zoning diversity. I don't know what the most cost effective density for construction is, but I know that in the US laws have prevented the market from realizing that optimum.
Maybe 6 floor buildings provide the most floor space for the construction cost. Maybe it's 4. With the cost of housing being what it is, I feel like we can't afford to build at density either lower or higher than the optimum.. at least for the median economic persona.
I painfully remember a moment from the 2020 election cycle where CPAC or something had someone, amid much other nonsense, framed Democratic opposition to single-family zoning as ruining our way of life. This is, of course, while 90% of zoning is single-family.
It's not just urban areas that need (at minimum) some zoning diversity. I don't know what the most cost effective density for construction is, but I know that in the US laws have prevented the market from realizing that optimum.
Maybe 6 floor buildings provide the most floor space for the construction cost. Maybe it's 4. With the cost of housing being what it is, I feel like we can't afford to build at density either lower or higher than the optimum.. at least for the median economic persona.
I mean, we don't need to figure out the right height of buildings or the right way to zone specific areas, we just need to remove restrictions and let the market figure it out. Just let people build stuff on the land they own, and the out-of-control rent spirals will eventually stop when there's enough housing.
> We must increase the density of our cities.
We could also try to make a few new cities, instead of ten thousand new suburbs
We could also try to make a few new cities, instead of ten thousand new suburbs
No reason to scar fresh land when we have plenty of land that is already well scarred, which could just have things like apartments over two stories tall legalized.
We already have cities, we are just refusing to build new housing in them.
And villages and towns that could become cities
One more comment on this, since I now heard the exact same point from a friend and talked more about this: we don't build cities. We build villages that grow into towns, that grow into cities. There are very few exceptions like Brazilia, which has lots of issues. Generally this to me is indicative that we are thinking wrong about cities. Cities aren't like massive buildings, but more like organisms. Three best results are achieved if we allow them to grow somewhat organically.
I recommend the book Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities or the short podcast of the same name.
I recommend the book Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities or the short podcast of the same name.
Would these cities have the density of suburbs or be real cities?
The West Coast could use a new metropolis somewhere near SW Oregon, to fill in the gap between the Bay and Portland.
There's a reason one doesn't exist and that is because of terrain. It's thick mountain passes there from Redding to Eugene. It's much more geographically feasible to expand Sacramento or Eugene north.
Meh, cities are quite small. Their expansion can lead to eg draining marshes and wetlands (especially coastal cities), but in many places in the developed world, that happened long ago.
If you care about ecological collapse, you should be worried about intensive agricultural practices and agriculture in general. I think one should always be wary with topics like climate change or ecology that issues may exist at many orders of magnitude and it is important to focus on the bigger issues. (Yes there are very small areas to which some species are endemic but general hand waving about density is not sufficient for them: a farm is not dense)
If you care about ecological collapse, you should be worried about intensive agricultural practices and agriculture in general. I think one should always be wary with topics like climate change or ecology that issues may exist at many orders of magnitude and it is important to focus on the bigger issues. (Yes there are very small areas to which some species are endemic but general hand waving about density is not sufficient for them: a farm is not dense)
> Are we still ignoring the ecological collapse that is caused by urban sprawl? We *must* increase the density of our cities.
I agree. And moving from California to somewhere that still builds new housing is one way to contribute to that.
I agree. And moving from California to somewhere that still builds new housing is one way to contribute to that.
My last home in the US was near a ski resort in Colorado, and it was a fantastic life - incredible mountain biking in the summer, and of course snow skiing in the winter. It was truly heaven. That was before remote work was as common as it is now. If I had to go back to the US, that would be the place.
Sure, you miss out on the cool things the city offers; but a couple hours drive and you're in a big city. I found the need to go only about once a month; the rest of my time was just too happy in nature to feel much need for what the city offered.
If you haven't tried mountain life - and I mean mountain life, not big city near mountains - you should. Rent a condo for the summer and temporarily relocate there. Chances are, you'll decide you don't want to leave when the summer is over.
Sure, you miss out on the cool things the city offers; but a couple hours drive and you're in a big city. I found the need to go only about once a month; the rest of my time was just too happy in nature to feel much need for what the city offered.
If you haven't tried mountain life - and I mean mountain life, not big city near mountains - you should. Rent a condo for the summer and temporarily relocate there. Chances are, you'll decide you don't want to leave when the summer is over.
Worth an upvote, but the counter is many people wouldn't do those things. If you sit on your couch watching re-runs every night, you will probably do that in the mountain condo as well.
If you get outside the house, then you can find interesting things to do anywhere. In the city that means a different experience than in the mountains, which is different from lake country, which is different from the plains; but there is always something.
If you get outside the house, then you can find interesting things to do anywhere. In the city that means a different experience than in the mountains, which is different from lake country, which is different from the plains; but there is always something.
[deleted]
I think a lot of people assume you're either 200 miles from the nearest Walmart or you're in downtown Manhattan/a dense close-in suburb. Go 1-2 hours from pretty much every large city and you can be in pretty rural areas--although not necessarily a mountain town of course. I do like going into cities now and then but I really don't need or particularly want one on a day-to-day basis.
>people assume you're either 200 miles from the nearest Walmart or you're in downtown Manhattan/a dense close-in suburb. Go 1-2 hours from pretty much every large city and you can be in pretty rural areas
This must be why "ban cars!" is so prominent on HN. Apparently people here have a hard time imagining a location where they can provide quality-of-life improving utility.
This must be why "ban cars!" is so prominent on HN. Apparently people here have a hard time imagining a location where they can provide quality-of-life improving utility.
Quality of Life is in the eye of the beholder. A fair number of people do prefer cities.
But to my own example. I live an hour drive out from a major city so, in normal times, within fairly easy range of going in for a night of theater or whatever. But between myself and a couple of neighbors where I live, while not really rural, we're on about 100 acres between us.
But to my own example. I live an hour drive out from a major city so, in normal times, within fairly easy range of going in for a night of theater or whatever. But between myself and a couple of neighbors where I live, while not really rural, we're on about 100 acres between us.
Where I live now, I'm 1-6 hours by train from Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris, and a bunch of other cool cities. Not having to drive to "go out" is awesome.
Giving up cars usually means getting good public transport. That's a trade I happily made.
Giving up cars usually means getting good public transport. That's a trade I happily made.
Moved from SF to Denver to Breckenridge in the past year. We couldn't be happier. Just got back from my morning hike in the mountains. Got into a dangerous spot when I lost the trail and got stuck in hip deep snow without snowshoes. Hearing explosions from avalanche detentions now. Next, I got my remote standup and writing code for the next couple hours. Not a bad life IMO. Also, Breckenridge has better Mexican food than anywhere in SF.
For those outside of these bubbles, it’s almost unbelievable how much the housing market has completely exploded the last two years.
My family is squarely in this situation - bought our home a few years ago in an extremely fast - growing area, and watched prices climb to levels that we didn’t believe at first. Imagine purchasing a home in 2019 for $500k and selling it today for $1.2M. That’s the reality in some of these cities.
My family is squarely in this situation - bought our home a few years ago in an extremely fast - growing area, and watched prices climb to levels that we didn’t believe at first. Imagine purchasing a home in 2019 for $500k and selling it today for $1.2M. That’s the reality in some of these cities.
The bubble is back. Look at the housing market and the valuations of do-nothing bullshit companies.
People don't learn.
People don't learn.
In my experience everyone knows it is all a bubble. Nobody knows what to do about it, though. So they just continue living.
Especially with the fear of inflation, you are 100% correct. I think this bubble has been created by interests being too low for too long. Keeping your money in the bank is barely better than putting it under the matters. So where does it go? Stock market, real estate and crypto. What else could anyone do? It seems like more and more people are becoming angel investors too, but that's not any better and certainly not an option for most people
Right. This bubble seems to have elements of both the dot-com crash (overvalued tech) and the financial crisis (overvalued housing).
80 year cycle won’t last much longer.
> “Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights. … My banker congratulates me on every new rise, but he does not dispel the secret uneasiness which my growing wealth arouses in me … it already amounts to millions.”
-- "When Money Dies"
-- "When Money Dies"
I envy the folks who are able to do this. If I had the means, I'd probably have already fled back to the country.
I can't help but think that it is unsustainable though. Supporting a large, rural population is less efficient than urbs or even suburbs.
Global warming, increasing global competition... I can't help but think the people fleeing the cities will be forced back by incentives and economics in a decade.
I can't help but think that it is unsustainable though. Supporting a large, rural population is less efficient than urbs or even suburbs.
Global warming, increasing global competition... I can't help but think the people fleeing the cities will be forced back by incentives and economics in a decade.
> Supporting a large, rural population is less efficient than urbs or even suburbs.
Whenever I see statement like this, it makes me wonder if you know where your food comes from. Because for the most part, the rural populations are supporting the cities. If the supply chains in this country were to fail, it is not the rural communities who would be scrounging for food and water. We'd be just fine.
Whenever I see statement like this, it makes me wonder if you know where your food comes from. Because for the most part, the rural populations are supporting the cities. If the supply chains in this country were to fail, it is not the rural communities who would be scrounging for food and water. We'd be just fine.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in Germany at least a quarter of the population lives in "rural" parts of the country, but only a single digit percentage actually works in agriculture.
It's roughly the same in the US.
The US Department of Agriculture estimates that 10.9% of the population is employed in agriculture, food and related industries. More than half (6.4% of pop.) of those are employed in food service (i.e., waitstaff at restaurants). Only 1.3% of the population are actually employed on farms.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
The US Department of Agriculture estimates that 10.9% of the population is employed in agriculture, food and related industries. More than half (6.4% of pop.) of those are employed in food service (i.e., waitstaff at restaurants). Only 1.3% of the population are actually employed on farms.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
Imagine the support infrastructure farmers and family need (schools, medical, stores, some entertainment maybe). And then all the infrastructure those workers need.
It’s not like every farmer is happy living in a tent alone, traveling offroad only to deliver their crops and buy seeds in the city. They like some form of community.
It may be “inefficient” but if you want to be efficient, everyone will starve.
It’s not like every farmer is happy living in a tent alone, traveling offroad only to deliver their crops and buy seeds in the city. They like some form of community.
It may be “inefficient” but if you want to be efficient, everyone will starve.
But... the comment isn't about where the food comes from or who would suffer from a supply chain collapse, it's about efficiency. I think the point was that cities are efficient because gestures vaguely towards economies of scale. It's easier to distribute goods (or services) to a highly-concentrated mass of people than to multiple disjoint locations.
I’m very confident I had a significantly smaller carbon footprint when I was in New York than compared to my time in Dallas. Even though I lived a much more vibrant life.
You'd be right. Dense cities have much lower carbon footprints than sprawling, suburban areas.[0] You can plug it into this map to compare any place you'd like.[1]
[0] https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-...
[1] https://coolclimate.org/maps
[0] https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-...
[1] https://coolclimate.org/maps
The definition of rural is not agriculture, it's non-urban, with urban being defined by population size (and linked strongly to density).
To avoid arguing semantics, supporting a large population in low-density is less efficient than in high-density.
Yet while there is climate change we're seeing urban sprawl of low-density communities continue.
Meanwhile, they're pushing out the original farmers due to price increases, more than anything, the food argument doesn't hold up.
By the way, plenty of suburbia is just as bad or much worse than similarly low-density rural areas. Living spaces should aspire to be walkable, that requires some level of density.
To avoid arguing semantics, supporting a large population in low-density is less efficient than in high-density.
Yet while there is climate change we're seeing urban sprawl of low-density communities continue.
Meanwhile, they're pushing out the original farmers due to price increases, more than anything, the food argument doesn't hold up.
By the way, plenty of suburbia is just as bad or much worse than similarly low-density rural areas. Living spaces should aspire to be walkable, that requires some level of density.
This seems like a statement about one thing (the unsustainability of cities like los angeles compared with cities like new york) being used to try and support increasing densification everywhere. Agriculture-integrated communities that close a lot of input loops will unquestionably be more efficient than cities that leave them open.
> Whenever I see statement like this, it makes me wonder if you know where your food comes from.
Mostly from machines and chemical inputs made by people who live in cities, used by people who can barely make ends meet in rural areas.
Mostly from machines and chemical inputs made by people who live in cities, used by people who can barely make ends meet in rural areas.
Being sold on the idea of using machines and chemical inputs for everything is the reason most farmers can't make ends meet. There are other paradigms of agriculture that are much more efficient; unfortunately farmers are bending over backwards to feed the folks in the city who want very specific things, and don't care about the consequences.
No, most farmers can't make ends meet because food is a commodity, because it benefits from economies of scale, and because their competition is highly optimized mega-farms with large warchests.
Without the machines and chemical inputs, roughly half of the world's population would starve in a few months. They significantly increase yields, and reduce required labour, at the cost of... Problems that future people will have to deal with.
The specific thing city people want is the same thing that all people want. Cheap food. There is zero reason to turn this into a culture war, when it's basic economics. Most people can't afford paying $7 for a gallon of milk, or $30 got a chicken.
Without the machines and chemical inputs, roughly half of the world's population would starve in a few months. They significantly increase yields, and reduce required labour, at the cost of... Problems that future people will have to deal with.
The specific thing city people want is the same thing that all people want. Cheap food. There is zero reason to turn this into a culture war, when it's basic economics. Most people can't afford paying $7 for a gallon of milk, or $30 got a chicken.
Certain cultivars of fruits and vegetables are commodities; there are others that aren't, until the market for them grows beyond a certain size. Look at the price history for Honeycrisp apples for an example. Farmers choose to grow commodity cultivars because they're easier to sell in standardized markets. Of course, you could also sell in un-standardized markets, which is how a lot of producers pay their bills without growing on thousands of acres.
If we tried to grow crops in the mainstream agricultural style, but just subtracted machines and pesticides, maybe half the world's population would starve. If the places people lived were integrated with diversified, guilded orchard silvopasture, there would be a surplus of food without machines or pesticides, those people would just have to go pick it themselves.
People obviously don't just want cheap food, given the success of Whole Foods.
The culture war comes in when people act like there's only one way of farming, and one way of integrating farming and the rest of society. Y'all are firing the first shots, don't be surprised when people shoot back.
If we tried to grow crops in the mainstream agricultural style, but just subtracted machines and pesticides, maybe half the world's population would starve. If the places people lived were integrated with diversified, guilded orchard silvopasture, there would be a surplus of food without machines or pesticides, those people would just have to go pick it themselves.
People obviously don't just want cheap food, given the success of Whole Foods.
The culture war comes in when people act like there's only one way of farming, and one way of integrating farming and the rest of society. Y'all are firing the first shots, don't be surprised when people shoot back.
I'm well aware of all this, my parents run a small profitable hobby farm selling $25 chickens and eggs for $8/dozen to wealthy patrons. A friend of mine does microgreens in her back yard for local restaurants in a small resort town. Four of my great-grandparents were kolhoz farmers.
It doesn't scale, though, and you're going to get bread riots if you tried to.
> If the places people lived were integrated with diversified, guilded orchard silvopasture, there would be a surplus of food without machines or pesticides, those people would just have to go pick it themselves.
Nobody has the time and energy to go do that and pay their bills. Farm work is really friggin' hard.
It doesn't scale, though, and you're going to get bread riots if you tried to.
> If the places people lived were integrated with diversified, guilded orchard silvopasture, there would be a surplus of food without machines or pesticides, those people would just have to go pick it themselves.
Nobody has the time and energy to go do that and pay their bills. Farm work is really friggin' hard.
It doesn't scale to New York city. It could easily scale to suburban areas and small/mid-size towns.
People "pick" their stuff at the grocery store. If you have a few acres of diversified permaculture within a mile of your house, it's not that different to walk a trail through a food forest and forage for everything you need. I guarantee it'd be cheaper and higher quality than the grocery store too. Animal products would cost more, but they're artificially cheap in a very unsustainable way now, so that's fine IMO.
Permaculture does a great job of reducing the labor involved in farming. Harvest is still a lot of work because of the sheer quantity of it you have to do if you're taking things to market, but if people are coming to you and harvesting themselves for a discount on food, I think that makes it workable for everyone.
People "pick" their stuff at the grocery store. If you have a few acres of diversified permaculture within a mile of your house, it's not that different to walk a trail through a food forest and forage for everything you need. I guarantee it'd be cheaper and higher quality than the grocery store too. Animal products would cost more, but they're artificially cheap in a very unsustainable way now, so that's fine IMO.
Permaculture does a great job of reducing the labor involved in farming. Harvest is still a lot of work because of the sheer quantity of it you have to do if you're taking things to market, but if people are coming to you and harvesting themselves for a discount on food, I think that makes it workable for everyone.
> People obviously don't just want cheap food, given the success of Whole Foods.
Whole Foods is only able to exist in a tiny portion of markets consisting of the top quintiles of income and wealth. A simple search on Maps shows it’s not available for 80%+ of people in a city.
And even then, it had to sell to Amazon because it wasn’t doing so hot. Most Americans can’t afford anything but cheap, or one level up from cheap food.
Whole Foods is only able to exist in a tiny portion of markets consisting of the top quintiles of income and wealth. A simple search on Maps shows it’s not available for 80%+ of people in a city.
And even then, it had to sell to Amazon because it wasn’t doing so hot. Most Americans can’t afford anything but cheap, or one level up from cheap food.
Farmland owned by city banks. Can we just stop with this BS? Human civilization is the tale of cities- has been for 5000 years.
>Farmland owned by city banks. Can we just stop with this BS?
The idea that the city banks are going to come operate (or, in fact, even own) the rural farmland is BS.
If the pandemic hasn't demonstrated to you how fragile the global supply chain is, I'm not sure what to tell you. People have been unsupported by cities for a lot longer than 5000 years.
The idea that the city banks are going to come operate (or, in fact, even own) the rural farmland is BS.
If the pandemic hasn't demonstrated to you how fragile the global supply chain is, I'm not sure what to tell you. People have been unsupported by cities for a lot longer than 5000 years.
The resiliency of the global supply chain this past year has actually blown my mind. The worst US consumers saw was, what, paper towel and toilet paper shortages for a couple months?
The tragedy of New York, in my opinion. Upstate has such an outsize political influence compared to New York and surrounding areas. It makes no sense. What's sad is we have bought into the romanticism of the rural. We don't even challenge our lack of political power.
Upstate exists because New York exists. New York doesn't need the people upstate to survive. "Oh yeah but upstate is the source of drinking water for New York," someone told me proudly. As if the humans upstate had any contribution to the water cycle. If anything, the people upstate are polluting New York's water supply.
To add insult to injury, all these upstate politicians get to decide how much of the taxes collected in New York and surrounding areas are spent in New York and surrounding areas. Everything from CUNY to the MTA.
Upstate exists because New York exists. New York doesn't need the people upstate to survive. "Oh yeah but upstate is the source of drinking water for New York," someone told me proudly. As if the humans upstate had any contribution to the water cycle. If anything, the people upstate are polluting New York's water supply.
To add insult to injury, all these upstate politicians get to decide how much of the taxes collected in New York and surrounding areas are spent in New York and surrounding areas. Everything from CUNY to the MTA.
Cities are owned by city banks. What’s your point?
Yes, some people do need to work on farms so that everyone can eat. Improvements in agriculture technology over the last 5000 years mean farms require much less human labor than in the past. So today, we don't need a "large, rural population".
I really hope the switch to electric transportation and to biking (whenever/wherever possible) will make big cities better to live. And that remote work in suburbs will incentive communities to re-create many smaller and more human-like down-towns.
Leaving college a little more than 10 years ago, my ideal at the time would have been to move to one of these towns and start a small business, and I have friends who went a similar route. Having grown up with parents who relied on a small business in a seasonal town, I think I also had a reasonably good sense of what that life would look like. I instead opted to move to a major city and invest in building a career.
Looking back, personally I don’t regret my choice. The direction remote work is taking us in is one where there is more pressure coming from high earners in what used to be low cost markets.
Right now, this is painful if you live in one of these places. What could have been the first homes for a lot of folks living in these areas are second/weekend homes of folks who live in major cities within driving distance. It pains me to say this, but I think putting the time into a high-earning career up front has left me in a better position to live the life I want to live in one of those towns vs. my friends who have been there all along and are starting to struggle.
On the flip side, a shift toward remote work will hopefully open the playing field somewhat for them to find their way into higher earning roles. The unfortunate side effect is that there’s more pressure to embrace the change and get into the rat race for the highest possible income you can find.
Looking back, personally I don’t regret my choice. The direction remote work is taking us in is one where there is more pressure coming from high earners in what used to be low cost markets.
Right now, this is painful if you live in one of these places. What could have been the first homes for a lot of folks living in these areas are second/weekend homes of folks who live in major cities within driving distance. It pains me to say this, but I think putting the time into a high-earning career up front has left me in a better position to live the life I want to live in one of those towns vs. my friends who have been there all along and are starting to struggle.
On the flip side, a shift toward remote work will hopefully open the playing field somewhat for them to find their way into higher earning roles. The unfortunate side effect is that there’s more pressure to embrace the change and get into the rat race for the highest possible income you can find.
This is my reality. I've lived here since right after the real estate crash and have seen house prices triple in a decade. I don't work in tech, and I don't have the flexibility to move because of family commitments. My rent keeps going up and I've watched my dreams of home ownership evaporate before my eyes.
I can't say for sure whether this boom has been good or bad on the whole, but I can say there are lots of people like myself who are excluded and are left wondering where we went wrong or what we could have done differently.
I can't say for sure whether this boom has been good or bad on the whole, but I can say there are lots of people like myself who are excluded and are left wondering where we went wrong or what we could have done differently.
I recently returned from a mid-sized town in the Mountain West, and I can confirm that the headline is true.
It's a particular kind of boom. A lot of out-of-state money and migrants have poured in to buy houses in places with fewer COVID restrictions and lower prices.
That is fundamentally changing the character and politics of those cities.
People are buying houses after nothing more than a Zoom tour. The car dealerships have run out of four-wheel drives (even though the winter was dry). Traffic is up.
A couple of those states have turned more blue, and a couple have turned more red. It might all be a symptom of the Big Sort.
Construction materials have increased in price by several times, and building improbably continues, especially in places like Bozeman (mentioned in the piece).
In some Mountain states, a lot of people never took masks seriously. You could say that people are moving down the COVID policy gradient.
It's a particular kind of boom. A lot of out-of-state money and migrants have poured in to buy houses in places with fewer COVID restrictions and lower prices.
That is fundamentally changing the character and politics of those cities.
People are buying houses after nothing more than a Zoom tour. The car dealerships have run out of four-wheel drives (even though the winter was dry). Traffic is up.
A couple of those states have turned more blue, and a couple have turned more red. It might all be a symptom of the Big Sort.
Construction materials have increased in price by several times, and building improbably continues, especially in places like Bozeman (mentioned in the piece).
In some Mountain states, a lot of people never took masks seriously. You could say that people are moving down the COVID policy gradient.
This is also true in Boulder, which has plenty of COVID restrictions. The supply of housing is completely insufficient.
But if someone builds a 5 story apartment building anywhere, including on the eastern edge of town, it would completely ruin my view of the Flatirons!
As someone who recently spent a couple days in Kanab, UT the collision course of rural natives with Californian expats has made me accelerate my plans to buy enough land to escape the cities and further enforced my feeling about the cultural divide in America.
EDIT: I was born in a small western town and find myself missing certain aspects living in a larger city working in Tech.
EDIT: I was born in a small western town and find myself missing certain aspects living in a larger city working in Tech.
What was it like in Kanab?
Talking with the person checking me into the hotel he mentioned he had heard to food was good at a restaurant across the street but mentioned he couldn't afford to eat there.
There was a lovely older couple who were running the tourism center and provided a bunch of great information. The person in front of me repeatedly interrupted this nice old woman and talked over her, after she got the info she needed she got into a 4 runner with California plates.
The surrounding OHV and hiking trails are phenomenal but the town is going to be very boring once the locals are forced out.
There was a lovely older couple who were running the tourism center and provided a bunch of great information. The person in front of me repeatedly interrupted this nice old woman and talked over her, after she got the info she needed she got into a 4 runner with California plates.
The surrounding OHV and hiking trails are phenomenal but the town is going to be very boring once the locals are forced out.
I actually really want to move to a mountain area that is secluded and has nature with snow. The problem is, it's very hard to figure out where to go when all you've lived is in a city or one state. I've researched a lot of properties on zillow but I have no idea how to investigate the proper area. Maybe someone can give me a tip. I like snow, and I like people, I just want enough space to experiment with my own land and not have to deal with neighbors or HOA crap.
> I just want enough space to experiment with my own land and not have to deal with neighbors or HOA crap.
What kinds of experiments? Depending on that answer you may want to investigate States, Counties, and Cities by their regulatory regimes vis a vis what you want to do. Make a short list of likely places and go visit them. Get a feel for these places. Does the altitude suit you? Humidity or lack thereof cause you any issues? What is the fire danger, or risk of other natural disasters? Are there sufficient ways close by to supply your lifestyle? What are the school choices if you have kids? Are there enough pursuits in the area to sufficiently entertain you? Can you adequately practice your religion in these places or withstand those that do? Are there good places to make friends? Finally, how easy will it be to recover from a mistake moving there? Answer these kinds of questions and you’ll know better what you’re getting into and you’ll know whether you really want what you think you want and you’ll know where to go.
What kinds of experiments? Depending on that answer you may want to investigate States, Counties, and Cities by their regulatory regimes vis a vis what you want to do. Make a short list of likely places and go visit them. Get a feel for these places. Does the altitude suit you? Humidity or lack thereof cause you any issues? What is the fire danger, or risk of other natural disasters? Are there sufficient ways close by to supply your lifestyle? What are the school choices if you have kids? Are there enough pursuits in the area to sufficiently entertain you? Can you adequately practice your religion in these places or withstand those that do? Are there good places to make friends? Finally, how easy will it be to recover from a mistake moving there? Answer these kinds of questions and you’ll know better what you’re getting into and you’ll know whether you really want what you think you want and you’ll know where to go.
Those are amazing questions to consider. Thank you!
Only way to find out is take a road trip and stay in each place for a week or so. We did this years ago and you know when you found the right place. Of course do your research first and visit the top 5 locations.
What most find is ideally and if you can afford it is two homes. A secluded home and a city home (or beach, etc... whatever you like)
What most find is ideally and if you can afford it is two homes. A secluded home and a city home (or beach, etc... whatever you like)
My caveat with two homes (besides the obvious cost) is that there is some overhead associated with owning a place--although obviously less in the case of an urban condo--and just generally reduced flexibility. There's something to be said for just renting a place for a month if you want some variety.
I agree with your general advice. Also just think about what you're looking for. E.g. there are tradeoffs between more resort-y areas and places more off the beaten track.
I agree with your general advice. Also just think about what you're looking for. E.g. there are tradeoffs between more resort-y areas and places more off the beaten track.
Great advice. Start small with baby steps: car camping, Airbnb’s, or rent a small van/camper and tour around for a while. Don’t rush it - the physical environment is a huge element but you’re also gonna want to agree with the culture and politics of the area, too.
The mountains of North Carolina are almost certainly what you are looking for. You will get all four seasons and have lots of diverse beautiful nature around you. I recomend you start with Asheville (probably way too big for you to want to live in since you want to avoid neighbors and HOA) and then start moving WEST on the map from there and you will find what you are looking for.
Thank you kindly, I will investigate that region. When I was browsing Zillow I remember finding a lot of well designed properties in NC and wondered why there was so much good taste centered there. Thanks again.
The HOA part really is the hard part, and even beyond that, the local zoning regulations can be arbitrarily infuriating, especially in certain states, and the ones with larger swaths without HOA and crazy regs have many negatives making it very hard to find what you speak of. I've been looking for years.
I think a good bet is to find an heirloom house and property and bid on it.
I think a good bet is to find an heirloom house and property and bid on it.
What's your top prospects so far if you don't mind sharing since we have similar desires?
You can email me at the email in my profile. The thing I didnt say is I grew up in a mountain village, and Ive seen and been impacted firsthand by the influx of rich people from big cities. These communities are tight knit (even in the boonies, you usually have your general store town, while a real store may be an hour away.) and posting the good prospects online is sort of antithetical to the whole idea.
What region are you currently in?
California - I like Big Bear for instance but not attached to West Coast at all. Also Big Bear doesn't have _too much acreage_ but maybe something to settle in on the meantime. It seems like there's various yellow flags on this region; most concerned with water availability over time.
I lived there for a bit, fire is another thing to watch out for. While I was there a huge fire got uncomfortably close. Check out http://socalmountains.com to get a preview of the local community there.
Gets crowded on weekends and holidays. There's definitely some antagonism towards the "flatlanders" - e.g. the people who don't live in the mountains, haha.
Gets crowded on weekends and holidays. There's definitely some antagonism towards the "flatlanders" - e.g. the people who don't live in the mountains, haha.
Ridgway, CO
This is happening around Australia too. People are heading for coastal regions with their 'city' money and its creating some housing issues and generally booming prices.
I think with things like starlink and solar/batteries this will only continue to more remote areas. Before water/server were the well covered utilities. Now with internet/power we can cost effectively move further afield while staying connected and sacrificing less modern convenience better than ever.
I think with things like starlink and solar/batteries this will only continue to more remote areas. Before water/server were the well covered utilities. Now with internet/power we can cost effectively move further afield while staying connected and sacrificing less modern convenience better than ever.
As I read all the comments on this page, I notice a recurring theme. All the problems pointed out and all the complaints are all symptoms of over population. Simply put, we have too many people and not enough viable places for them to live.
[deleted]
It's not just small cities in the west. My wife and I recently returned to Cincinnati where we grew up, trading a vanilla apartment in Southern California for a very nice and much larger house. Since we came back here toward the end of summer 2020, house prices have increased considerably.
Houses in this neighborhood are now selling within 24 hours at typically 5-15% over asking, which is not typical at all for Cincinnati. This area isn't as depressed as some areas of the so-called "rust belt" but it hasn't been a "hot" real estate market for some time. The demand is being driven largely by people moving here from much higher priced areas of the country.
Lately investors have started entering the market here, plopping down cash for houses sight unseen at 10% over asking in "up and coming" neighborhoods. That's something this city has almost never seen except for maybe around downtown and the university.
It's good for local homeowners to a point, but people are already talking about how this could ruin neighborhoods and drive up rents.
My realtor joked with us that "we don't count" as carpetbaggers because we grew up here.
Houses in this neighborhood are now selling within 24 hours at typically 5-15% over asking, which is not typical at all for Cincinnati. This area isn't as depressed as some areas of the so-called "rust belt" but it hasn't been a "hot" real estate market for some time. The demand is being driven largely by people moving here from much higher priced areas of the country.
Lately investors have started entering the market here, plopping down cash for houses sight unseen at 10% over asking in "up and coming" neighborhoods. That's something this city has almost never seen except for maybe around downtown and the university.
It's good for local homeowners to a point, but people are already talking about how this could ruin neighborhoods and drive up rents.
My realtor joked with us that "we don't count" as carpetbaggers because we grew up here.
With and without kids makes a huge difference. Without kids and if your an introvert- it’s a no brained. Buy you that 15 acre ranch (just for looks, we know your a programmer)
If you have kids stay close to a larger city. Your kids will have more opportunity.
For anyone else looking. We took a two month road trip during the worst time of year (climate wise) and took a road trip to see where liked it best. We chose North Carolina and love it.
If you have kids stay close to a larger city. Your kids will have more opportunity.
For anyone else looking. We took a two month road trip during the worst time of year (climate wise) and took a road trip to see where liked it best. We chose North Carolina and love it.
Without kids and if your an introvert- it’s a no brained. Buy you that 15 acre ranch
Back when I was a childless introvert, living on a 15 acre ranch by myself would have been living hell, and would no doubt have done terrible things to my mental health. I might not like being social, but I still went out to concerts, movies, restaurants and similar (often by myself) and doing so was always mentally invigorating. Plus going to the pub with that one friend I did have was very necessary for my mental health. Being an introvert doesn't mean you don't want to be around civilization. As a childless introvert having a small apartment in the middle of town where I could walk everywhere was the obvious no brainier, and worth every penny.
Back when I was a childless introvert, living on a 15 acre ranch by myself would have been living hell, and would no doubt have done terrible things to my mental health. I might not like being social, but I still went out to concerts, movies, restaurants and similar (often by myself) and doing so was always mentally invigorating. Plus going to the pub with that one friend I did have was very necessary for my mental health. Being an introvert doesn't mean you don't want to be around civilization. As a childless introvert having a small apartment in the middle of town where I could walk everywhere was the obvious no brainier, and worth every penny.
> Being an introvert doesn't mean you don't want to be around civilization.
As someone who lived in Manhattan, I used to believe this.
Then the pandemic happened, and I watched how our so-called "civilization" handled it. I could not really imagine a worse outcome: it was mismanaged and terrible from the highest levels of authority down to the most insignificant end-user.
Now this introvert very much wants the option of being not around civilization at times. I don't trust civilization to remain civilized, in even a minor pinch.
I will likely build a house 100km from anything, and spend 25-50% of each year there.
As someone who lived in Manhattan, I used to believe this.
Then the pandemic happened, and I watched how our so-called "civilization" handled it. I could not really imagine a worse outcome: it was mismanaged and terrible from the highest levels of authority down to the most insignificant end-user.
Now this introvert very much wants the option of being not around civilization at times. I don't trust civilization to remain civilized, in even a minor pinch.
I will likely build a house 100km from anything, and spend 25-50% of each year there.
> but in doing so they may jeopardise the very things people move there for: space, quality of life and proximity to wilderness
This makes me roll me eyes a bit. The Economist is generally pretty YIMBY, but this sounds like the "character of the neighborhood" nonsense I hear from local wealthy people who are doing their damndest to pull up the drawbridge behind them.
* There is so much space in the American west.
* Quality of life depends on a lot of things. The 'quiet mountain town' where I live in Oregon has benefited greatly from having some more things going on locally. There's even a fantastic Italian restaurant run by a guy from Tuscany. You wouldn't get that in a true small town of which there are still so very many all over the west. For every 'hot' market like Bend, there are various depressed former resource towns like Burns or Lakeview.
* Proximity to wilderness basically means being near public lands like BLM and Forest Service. Those are generally pretty hard boundaries: just because your city is growing doesn't mean the Forest Service will cede land to it.
This makes me roll me eyes a bit. The Economist is generally pretty YIMBY, but this sounds like the "character of the neighborhood" nonsense I hear from local wealthy people who are doing their damndest to pull up the drawbridge behind them.
* There is so much space in the American west.
* Quality of life depends on a lot of things. The 'quiet mountain town' where I live in Oregon has benefited greatly from having some more things going on locally. There's even a fantastic Italian restaurant run by a guy from Tuscany. You wouldn't get that in a true small town of which there are still so very many all over the west. For every 'hot' market like Bend, there are various depressed former resource towns like Burns or Lakeview.
* Proximity to wilderness basically means being near public lands like BLM and Forest Service. Those are generally pretty hard boundaries: just because your city is growing doesn't mean the Forest Service will cede land to it.
I don’t want to ask you to reveal your hometown to a stranger but am curious to learn more, especially after spending a year living in the French alps (Isère). Is there a list of quiet mountain towns in Oregon/CA/etc that would include yours?
Gonna guess... Bend, OR?
Bend has 100k people, and the Bend metro area has 200k people. If it used to be considered quiet, it most certainly isn’t now.
The legitimately difficult thing that Bend has gone through is very rapid growth/change. It had like 20K people 30 years ago. That's not easy, and I do feel for people who miss the smaller size.
That said, there are tons of small towns that are not growing - indeed, they're kind of stagnant, population-wise . Lakeview, Oregon had its heyday in the 1960ies in terms of the population.
That said, there are tons of small towns that are not growing - indeed, they're kind of stagnant, population-wise . Lakeview, Oregon had its heyday in the 1960ies in terms of the population.
I moved to a small island community that is near a cosmopolitan metro area of 3 million or so people - just a short ferry ride away. Before the pandemic, commuting to work from the island would eat 3-4 hours a day of your life, so it was not a feasible option for most people. When work-from-home started last March, a steady flow of city folk started migrating, paying top dollar for the very limited stock of homes available here. Prices surged 40%. Locals who rent have been leaving just as quickly, priced right out of the market.
When the pandemic is over and WFH policies are tightened, I'm sure some people will migrate back after they discover how horrid it is to commute for hours a day. But I sense that WFH is the new normal and so this transformation is likely long term.
When the pandemic is over and WFH policies are tightened, I'm sure some people will migrate back after they discover how horrid it is to commute for hours a day. But I sense that WFH is the new normal and so this transformation is likely long term.
I want to do this. But I don't want anyone else to do this, or it'll spoil the dream.
I heard all these places, especially Denver and the area around it, are swarmed with "outdoors bros" etc from Cali and the east coast. Overcrowded. Traffic jams to go out to the mountains every weekend. Cultural homogenization.
Is that true, or overblown?
Is that true, or overblown?
So, I moved to Denver around 3 years ago. There are a lot of "Outdoor Bros" or whatever you want to call them (I would probably get labeled like that by others).
The traffic jams on weekends are real, but avoidable if you know when and where to go. There are plenty of things to do that will avoid the crowds people complain about. It's not that hard, but the popular stuff everyone knows about are always packed.
Cultural homogenization is really dependent on who you talk to and who they hang out with. I have tons of friends that complain about this here, but from what I observe they don't try to hang out with people that are much different than them. There is diversity here (could be improved for sure), but you need to make an effort to seek it out.
I think from a surface level glance those things are true, but if you want to get more out of what the area has to offer and avoid the pitfalls, it's not that hard although takes some effort.
The traffic jams on weekends are real, but avoidable if you know when and where to go. There are plenty of things to do that will avoid the crowds people complain about. It's not that hard, but the popular stuff everyone knows about are always packed.
Cultural homogenization is really dependent on who you talk to and who they hang out with. I have tons of friends that complain about this here, but from what I observe they don't try to hang out with people that are much different than them. There is diversity here (could be improved for sure), but you need to make an effort to seek it out.
I think from a surface level glance those things are true, but if you want to get more out of what the area has to offer and avoid the pitfalls, it's not that hard although takes some effort.
Pretty much true. I-70 into the mountains is a parking lot on Friday and Saturday, and basically the same leaving the mountains on Sunday. Turns what should be a three to four drive to get to the western slope into six to seven some days.
You're complaining that too many people are making a Fri-Sun trip into the mountains, and it is making your Fri-Sun trip into the mountains take too long?
He's not complaining lol just stating a fact. If the fact is that it takes 7 hours to drive into the mountains... that's important to know, if you're thinking of moving there.
All the OutdoorsBro(tm) that I know are moving to Denver, so idk if I would even like it.
All the OutdoorsBro(tm) that I know are moving to Denver, so idk if I would even like it.
Labeling people OutdoorBro just seems like gatekeeping your hobby for people who aren't "true believers".
I'm not sure how you determined I was complaining from a comment that is simply pointing out a fact. The individual I replied to asked if bad traffic was true or not, and I indicated it is.
We are already projected to have a water shortage this summer in the Rockies and it’s only going to get worse. Every state along the Colorado river is gearing up for water right battles and I dread to think what’s going to happen once the snow pack in the Rockies gets less and less every year
And that doesn’t even touch on the new year-round fire season normal we have to contend with. Last year was crazy and this year is supposed to be as bad or worse. Every 3rd or 4th pine tree in the hills is beetle kill.
A lot of people are looking to move into mountain communities that are largely water stressed already. Adding more people, with less water, and higher fire danger and it’s going to get ugly.
A lot of people are looking to move into mountain communities that are largely water stressed already. Adding more people, with less water, and higher fire danger and it’s going to get ugly.
Where can one find areas that are most water-abundant and don't run into the water scarcity issues?
Upstate New York. Plenty of water, decent farmland (with more farm shares than you can count), and it’s one of the safest places in the U.S. in terms of proximity to natural hazards.
New England generally as well as the rest of the Appalachians to the south generally don't have water issues.
I also assume any decent sized river is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future, and with some industrial grade treatment you can get potable water out of it.
Case in point I live near a river that eventually drains to the Mississippi.
Case in point I live near a river that eventually drains to the Mississippi.
Appalachia
Michigan!
San Francisco house prices rose 25% as well
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA#0
I'm unconvinced this spells the beginning of a long term trend re: remote work. It's more a sign house prices are going up everywhere. Remote workforce will grow from this no doubt but the smart money remains on work looking very similar to how it looked pre pandemic IMO.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA#0
I'm unconvinced this spells the beginning of a long term trend re: remote work. It's more a sign house prices are going up everywhere. Remote workforce will grow from this no doubt but the smart money remains on work looking very similar to how it looked pre pandemic IMO.
Is that house in the first image made of plywood?
It looks like conventional OSB sheathing, the surprising part is that it doesn't have an integrated coating to repel water. This means that housewrap will have to be applied to protect the sheathing from water damage, this is both labor intensive and the potential for misapplication increases the risk of water damage.
Colorado Springs is in a desert, if that changes things.
Yes. That's called sheeting, and it's a type of thin plywood that's used over the (solid wood) framing of the house to support the housewrap (which functions as a vapor barrier) and whatever type of exterior siding goes on it.
Between the framing studs would be insulation, and on the inside of that goes drywall.
Between the framing studs would be insulation, and on the inside of that goes drywall.
Edit: sibling comment is right, I am wrong: it is called sheathing
I think that's just how they build houses there.
Optimizing for distance from a national forest seemed like a good idea when purchasing a home 5 years ago. Still seems like a solid plan. Home price rises are great, but sorta irrelevant when you're happy with where you live already, and it's likely that you can keep working remotely as long as you like.
[deleted]
What were once “hidden gems” are now no longer hidden and you can work a remote tech job and live there.
Has nothing to do with rural towns. There are plenty of rural towns in the Midwest that are still cheap, I grew up there.
Has nothing to do with rural towns. There are plenty of rural towns in the Midwest that are still cheap, I grew up there.
Are they booming because of some underlying industry or are they just high af off the California money (which could evaporate at a moment's notice)?
For these cities, I'd say it's mostly California money, but there's a fair amount of people moving away from the East Coast as well.
Having just been to Santa Fe, I am wondering if only poor education and water shortages keep it from being a remote work magnet.
If I were to move somewhere in the Mountain West to work remotely, Santa Fe would be fairly high on my list. One downside is that, while Santa Fe (and Los Alamos) are pretty great, the nearest relatively big city of any size (Albuquerque) is less so.
[deleted]
Frustrating to see an interesting HN headline, only to be presented with a paywalled article. Such as this. I wish there was a way to avoid even seeing them. In addition to the dashed expectations, half the comments will be from people who could not read the article (like this one)
And yet it's still a very interesting conversation.
I find it very educational to read what people have to say about living in the various parts of the country.
I find it very educational to read what people have to say about living in the various parts of the country.
Turns out everybody wants to live in Galt's Gulch
This is basically us.
My wife, son and I lived in the Midwest where I worked in tech from the mid 1990s until 2009, when we moved to the SF Bay Area. While we could technically afford to buy a small place in California at the time, the difficulty we experienced selling our home and land in Missouri soured us on buying, so we rented in Mountain View until 2020.
In our early 50s, and rent for a descent 1000 ft^2 two bedroom apartment approaching $4800/month, and the pandemic raging, I transitioned to a full time remote position and we bought an enormous property about 10 miles outside of Olympia, Washington. Our total cost of living, including food, rent/mortgage, utilities went down by not quite 50%, but I was still getting paid "Silicon Valley" rates and benefits, and I still am....and I will likely continue to be.
My wife's various businesses have long been fully online, and her income has gone up tremendously during the pandemic, with no sign of that changing.
One thing that facilitated this move for us was our son attending High School from home via https://cava.k12.com/ in California, and we were able to transition to the Washington State version of k12.com for his senior year, which is finishing up shortly.
To the article at hand: while we don't have any solid data, anecdotally we understand that there's a skyrocketing housing crunch in the making in and around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia,_Washington and our property has appreciated about 17% in less than a year.
More to the point, from the perspective of our read on NextDoor (which so far has been a LOT more healthy than the NextDoor in and around Mountain View), https://old.reddit.com/r/olympia (and /r/seattle) and various personal conversations, there is a huge influx of 'money', and the long-time folks are pretty unhappy about it. My wife and I are pretty chill and we get along with people, so it hasn't been directed at us.
Yes, we definitely feel bad that we've done a small part to negatively impact the life of our new neighbors. Our plan is that this is our 'forever home'...I don't know if that 'offsets' things or not, but we're certainly not looking for a quick flip.
I don't know where/how this ends, but in my high level estimation, there's far more possibility of building new housing in Olympia + Colorado Springs + many other places than there is in just the SF Bay Area.
My wife, son and I lived in the Midwest where I worked in tech from the mid 1990s until 2009, when we moved to the SF Bay Area. While we could technically afford to buy a small place in California at the time, the difficulty we experienced selling our home and land in Missouri soured us on buying, so we rented in Mountain View until 2020.
In our early 50s, and rent for a descent 1000 ft^2 two bedroom apartment approaching $4800/month, and the pandemic raging, I transitioned to a full time remote position and we bought an enormous property about 10 miles outside of Olympia, Washington. Our total cost of living, including food, rent/mortgage, utilities went down by not quite 50%, but I was still getting paid "Silicon Valley" rates and benefits, and I still am....and I will likely continue to be.
My wife's various businesses have long been fully online, and her income has gone up tremendously during the pandemic, with no sign of that changing.
One thing that facilitated this move for us was our son attending High School from home via https://cava.k12.com/ in California, and we were able to transition to the Washington State version of k12.com for his senior year, which is finishing up shortly.
To the article at hand: while we don't have any solid data, anecdotally we understand that there's a skyrocketing housing crunch in the making in and around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia,_Washington and our property has appreciated about 17% in less than a year.
More to the point, from the perspective of our read on NextDoor (which so far has been a LOT more healthy than the NextDoor in and around Mountain View), https://old.reddit.com/r/olympia (and /r/seattle) and various personal conversations, there is a huge influx of 'money', and the long-time folks are pretty unhappy about it. My wife and I are pretty chill and we get along with people, so it hasn't been directed at us.
Yes, we definitely feel bad that we've done a small part to negatively impact the life of our new neighbors. Our plan is that this is our 'forever home'...I don't know if that 'offsets' things or not, but we're certainly not looking for a quick flip.
I don't know where/how this ends, but in my high level estimation, there's far more possibility of building new housing in Olympia + Colorado Springs + many other places than there is in just the SF Bay Area.
More urban sprawl and Starbucks for those who lack culture.
Colorado is also getting In n Out and Whataburger. Most of my favorite local restaurants have slowly closed over the last 10 years. Which I guess is ok, since all my favorite businesses are gone too because of the rising rents caused by legalization. Instead I can sit in my house and Doordash Chipotle while I order stuff on Amazon, just like those culturally sophisticated urbanites who are doing us such a favor by bringing their civilization to us.
I wouldn’t mind if people moved and visited places while expecting something local and new, but instead they just look at a town and wonder “why doesn’t this place have an X?” Well they do it’s just not called X and they don’t need X because who cares about brand recognition?
Great, you can work from. So you take your California money to middle of nowhere and buy a home for cheap. Renovate it and now it’s awesome.
However, that local, who isn’t making California money, that is working a local job and making local money and is hoping to move up in housing for their family is priced out because housing pricing has doubled or even tripled.
People that wanted to retire to rural or remote areas where pricing is traditionally cheaper are now fucked over.
Sure, the owner didn’t need to price their home higher. Sure, whatever the market will bear. It still doesn’t mean it sucks less for the couple with a baby on the way hoping to buy a home in their home town that is now double and triple the cost.
No, I haven’t been personally affected by this. I’m just worried what is happening and will happen around the US in the coming years.
However, that local, who isn’t making California money, that is working a local job and making local money and is hoping to move up in housing for their family is priced out because housing pricing has doubled or even tripled.
People that wanted to retire to rural or remote areas where pricing is traditionally cheaper are now fucked over.
Sure, the owner didn’t need to price their home higher. Sure, whatever the market will bear. It still doesn’t mean it sucks less for the couple with a baby on the way hoping to buy a home in their home town that is now double and triple the cost.
No, I haven’t been personally affected by this. I’m just worried what is happening and will happen around the US in the coming years.
I used to believe this “wealthy Californians fleeing” narrative and… I’m just not sure I buy it any more.
135,000 more people left California than moved in last year. Even if they overwhelmingly moved to only ten other states, that’s just 13,500 extra ex-Californians in each one of those unlucky states. And not all of them are going to be wealthy, surely some non-negligible portion will be less well off. Maybe they’ll be wealthier on average, but it’s not 100% tech millionaires.
Somehow this is supposed to be responsible for skyrocketing prices in Austin, Portland, Atlanta, Denver, Boulder, Seattle, Aspen, Jackson, Tahoe, and hundreds of other cities, towns, and locales across the country. All the while the price of housing in California suburbs is going up too!
At the same time, interest rates are plummeting. For a given house sale price, this can dramatically affect the affordability of monthly payments: refinancing last year from 4.325% to 3.375% cut my payment by a full 20%. Sub-3% loans aren’t too hard to find right now. In a competitive market like housing, this has the extremely well-known effect of causing sticker prices to rise. Put another way, if you can afford $1,500/mo payments and the rate drops such that you would only need to pay $1,150/mo, the market will quickly react to increase prices to keep the overall monthly payment the same.
This isn’t a novel mechanism. It’s part of the reason housing has been such a wildly successful Investment vehicle over the last few decades. Interest rates fell, prices went up accordingly.
Are emigrating Californians responsible for some of these price increases? Sure, both generally and probably in some specific markets, I totally buy it. But everywhere simultaneously? I’m skeptical it’s responsible for as much of an effect size as people appear to believe.
135,000 more people left California than moved in last year. Even if they overwhelmingly moved to only ten other states, that’s just 13,500 extra ex-Californians in each one of those unlucky states. And not all of them are going to be wealthy, surely some non-negligible portion will be less well off. Maybe they’ll be wealthier on average, but it’s not 100% tech millionaires.
Somehow this is supposed to be responsible for skyrocketing prices in Austin, Portland, Atlanta, Denver, Boulder, Seattle, Aspen, Jackson, Tahoe, and hundreds of other cities, towns, and locales across the country. All the while the price of housing in California suburbs is going up too!
At the same time, interest rates are plummeting. For a given house sale price, this can dramatically affect the affordability of monthly payments: refinancing last year from 4.325% to 3.375% cut my payment by a full 20%. Sub-3% loans aren’t too hard to find right now. In a competitive market like housing, this has the extremely well-known effect of causing sticker prices to rise. Put another way, if you can afford $1,500/mo payments and the rate drops such that you would only need to pay $1,150/mo, the market will quickly react to increase prices to keep the overall monthly payment the same.
This isn’t a novel mechanism. It’s part of the reason housing has been such a wildly successful Investment vehicle over the last few decades. Interest rates fell, prices went up accordingly.
Are emigrating Californians responsible for some of these price increases? Sure, both generally and probably in some specific markets, I totally buy it. But everywhere simultaneously? I’m skeptical it’s responsible for as much of an effect size as people appear to believe.
I think you are overestimating sales in rural areas and the number of houses. Here’s an article from Vermont where housing prices have soared during the pandemic and there’s a market shortage.
https://vtdigger.org/2021/04/19/home-sales-to-out-of-state-b...
>The tax department logged 3,795 sales to out-of-state buyers in 2020, compared to 2,750 in 2019. That represents about 27 percent of all residential sales in 2020, according to Deputy Tax Commissioner Rebecca Sameroff.
>The value of that real estate increased even more: $1.43 billion in residential real estate was sold to out-of-staters in 2020, a 79% increase over the $799 million sold the year before.
135,000 Californians could consume the real estate market of Vermont many times over.
https://vtdigger.org/2021/04/19/home-sales-to-out-of-state-b...
>The tax department logged 3,795 sales to out-of-state buyers in 2020, compared to 2,750 in 2019. That represents about 27 percent of all residential sales in 2020, according to Deputy Tax Commissioner Rebecca Sameroff.
>The value of that real estate increased even more: $1.43 billion in residential real estate was sold to out-of-staters in 2020, a 79% increase over the $799 million sold the year before.
135,000 Californians could consume the real estate market of Vermont many times over.
> 135,000 more people left California than moved in last year.
If two rich Californians move out of the state and one poor starry-eyed college graduate moves in, the view that only one net-person moved out is too simplified.
If two rich Californians move out of the state and one poor starry-eyed college graduate moves in, the view that only one net-person moved out is too simplified.
> wealthy Californians fleeing
There are more than Californians and I think this story applies to all “rich states moving to lower tax states.”
There were many states [0] with net migration loss and while California alone isn’t enough, you have to lump in NY, IL, NJ, CT, MA, MD you get significant numbers and that’s year after year.
[0] https://taxfoundation.org/state-migration-trends/
There are more than Californians and I think this story applies to all “rich states moving to lower tax states.”
There were many states [0] with net migration loss and while California alone isn’t enough, you have to lump in NY, IL, NJ, CT, MA, MD you get significant numbers and that’s year after year.
[0] https://taxfoundation.org/state-migration-trends/
Once again we see narratives handily out-competing actual facts and real figures for mindshare.
Never underestimate the power of a good narrative.
Never underestimate the power of a good narrative.
1. Housing cannot be both affordable and a good investment.
2. This is how gentrification works. Many of these folks are coming because they’ve been priced out of wherever they’re coming from.
3. Housing can’t be both a right and subject to free-ish market mechanisms.
2. This is how gentrification works. Many of these folks are coming because they’ve been priced out of wherever they’re coming from.
3. Housing can’t be both a right and subject to free-ish market mechanisms.
>2. This is how gentrification works. Many of these folks are coming because they’ve been priced out of wherever they’re coming from.
Yep. If you want to blame someone, blame local governments in California and their chronic refusal to build adequate housing, citing dubious progressive buzzwords to push policies whose outcomes always curiously seem to further enrich property owners and screw over everyone else.
Yep. If you want to blame someone, blame local governments in California and their chronic refusal to build adequate housing, citing dubious progressive buzzwords to push policies whose outcomes always curiously seem to further enrich property owners and screw over everyone else.
California had a population of 10m in 1950, and 40m today. So presumably some housing was built. In that period California added the GDP of a mid sized European economy. Such a disaster.
Here's a chart showing California housing production. It's a pretty big failure over the past 15 years or so:
https://bendyimby.com/2018/11/03/california/
https://bendyimby.com/2018/11/03/california/
Plenty of houses in Detroit.
This isn’t really the root of the problem through. The government can’t get more housing through because the voters don’t want it, the voters don’t want it because the traffic is already bad enough and there is nowhere to build more roads, and they don’t consider taking the bus or funding more public transit. And even if you climb that hump you become New York City or Shanghai, both of which are plenty dense with public transit but still not affordable at all.
Seriously, without Singapore-style public housing, you just aren’t going to solve this problem in any reasonable way. But that would ruin housing as a good investment outside of a small niche market at the super high end.
Seriously, without Singapore-style public housing, you just aren’t going to solve this problem in any reasonable way. But that would ruin housing as a good investment outside of a small niche market at the super high end.
Californians did themselves no favors by shooting themselves in the foot with Prop 13. Normally localities would fund more services for growing populations by reaping the benefits of higher assessments.
> Housing cannot be both affordable and a good investment.
It certainly can be.
However, the combination of 0% Fed Interest Rate and low property tax rates kills the "affordable" side of that equation.
The 0% Fed Interest Rate means people can go way higher in mortgaging the hell out of themselves than if the rate was say 5%.
As for the property tax, raising the property tax rate limits the price of a home because even if someone could swing the down payment on a McMansion, the annual property tax payment would start biting into how good an investment it is. So, the developers would start building houses that assess at where the majority of buyers sit.
Of course, the same people who complain about getting gentrified also generally oppose raising property taxes even slightly. Oh well.
It certainly can be.
However, the combination of 0% Fed Interest Rate and low property tax rates kills the "affordable" side of that equation.
The 0% Fed Interest Rate means people can go way higher in mortgaging the hell out of themselves than if the rate was say 5%.
As for the property tax, raising the property tax rate limits the price of a home because even if someone could swing the down payment on a McMansion, the annual property tax payment would start biting into how good an investment it is. So, the developers would start building houses that assess at where the majority of buyers sit.
Of course, the same people who complain about getting gentrified also generally oppose raising property taxes even slightly. Oh well.
> 1. Housing cannot be both affordable and a good investment.
One is technically wrong. It can't be both a good investment and remain affordable. It can be both affordable and a good investment in the present, with prices rising over time generating a good return and making it increasingly unaffordable.
One is technically wrong. It can't be both a good investment and remain affordable. It can be both affordable and a good investment in the present, with prices rising over time generating a good return and making it increasingly unaffordable.
Sure. But that was 70 years ago in USA. The affordable housing ship has all but sailed for our generation.
Except apparently in tiny towns where we’re now ruining it for the locals.
Except apparently in tiny towns where we’re now ruining it for the locals.
In fairness, These aren't really tiny towns and haven't been for a generation. It's classic sunbelt boom-sprawl-puke. (Never mind Colorado isn't actually sunny at all.)
Colorado is reasonably sunny, just not in the winter when the sun sets before you've finished your first cup of coffee (I kid, it's at 4:30-5pm in the winter). At least here in Colorado Springs the sun set at 7:40pm today with our latest sunset being around 8:30pm in a couple months.
"... Over time" is usually implied in most policy proposals.
1. What's your point?
3. Sure it can. You can have a market governed by supply and demand. Lots of demand? Price increases. Price increases? Incentivises supply. More supply? That's great, it addresses the scarcity and prices will follow-suit.
Poor people priced out who have a right to housing? A rental cap is an intervention that directly impedes the free movement of the price up to a hard cap.
But a housing subsidy for low-income individuals, i.e. more money to spend on housing, does not change the fact that the market is still governed by supply and demand.
Housing prices with rent subsidies can still go up and down depending on demand. But the government taxes the rich, and redistributes money to the poor, allowing their purchasing power in the housing marketplace to be more equal than solely based on their own income.
This, combined with proper zoning laws (set more at a federal level to override local NIMBY powers) and limited red-tape, to allow construction levels to respond to increased prices and actually generate adequate supply, is a market-based system where the poor are getting their right to housing.
What's the alternative?
Besides, there's more housing than ever. The right to housing cannot be spoken about without also saying 'in particular places'. The average household size (people per house) has dropped every decade for a century, and the average home size has increased every decade for a century. The square foot per person has been growing and growing. Whatever housing crisis people talk about, they tend to completely ignore location. Yet you'll find plenty of people who speak about a right to affordable housing in NY or SV when it's a place where incomes are at the top 0.1% worldwide and there's easily 10x as many people (in the country, and 1000x worldwide) who want to live in such cities at an affordable price than there are homes to live. It's impossible to provide a right to housing to all in those locations with any policy anyone on any part of the political spectrum can think of.
3. Sure it can. You can have a market governed by supply and demand. Lots of demand? Price increases. Price increases? Incentivises supply. More supply? That's great, it addresses the scarcity and prices will follow-suit.
Poor people priced out who have a right to housing? A rental cap is an intervention that directly impedes the free movement of the price up to a hard cap.
But a housing subsidy for low-income individuals, i.e. more money to spend on housing, does not change the fact that the market is still governed by supply and demand.
Housing prices with rent subsidies can still go up and down depending on demand. But the government taxes the rich, and redistributes money to the poor, allowing their purchasing power in the housing marketplace to be more equal than solely based on their own income.
This, combined with proper zoning laws (set more at a federal level to override local NIMBY powers) and limited red-tape, to allow construction levels to respond to increased prices and actually generate adequate supply, is a market-based system where the poor are getting their right to housing.
What's the alternative?
Besides, there's more housing than ever. The right to housing cannot be spoken about without also saying 'in particular places'. The average household size (people per house) has dropped every decade for a century, and the average home size has increased every decade for a century. The square foot per person has been growing and growing. Whatever housing crisis people talk about, they tend to completely ignore location. Yet you'll find plenty of people who speak about a right to affordable housing in NY or SV when it's a place where incomes are at the top 0.1% worldwide and there's easily 10x as many people (in the country, and 1000x worldwide) who want to live in such cities at an affordable price than there are homes to live. It's impossible to provide a right to housing to all in those locations with any policy anyone on any part of the political spectrum can think of.
Thanks, can be repeated enough. Cars and single family home sububanization are perhaps America's greatest 20th century self-inflicted wound.
> However, that local, who isn’t making California money, that is working a local job and making local money and is hoping to move up in housing for their family is priced out because housing pricing has doubled or even tripled.
In your story you missed to mention the local homeowner who unexpectedly got a California price for her old house, the proceeds from which she can now use to send her grandchild to college and pay her medical bills.
In your story you missed to mention the local homeowner who unexpectedly got a California price for her old house, the proceeds from which she can now use to send her grandchild to college and pay her medical bills.
> However, that local, who isn’t making California money, that is working a local job and making local money and is hoping to move up in housing for their family is priced out because housing pricing has doubled or even tripled.
Wouldn't be remotely a problem if they just built housing to meet the demand. Go take a look at property values in Bozeman and then look at the empty land all around it. There's plenty of room, but the zoning laws destroy supply and enrich current home owners.
Wouldn't be remotely a problem if they just built housing to meet the demand. Go take a look at property values in Bozeman and then look at the empty land all around it. There's plenty of room, but the zoning laws destroy supply and enrich current home owners.
[deleted]
That local may well have a better paying job because more people are moving into the area.
Also, it's the US mountain west. There is a lot of space there to build more houses.
Housing isn't a zero sum game unless you have poor zoning.
Also, it's the US mountain west. There is a lot of space there to build more houses.
Housing isn't a zero sum game unless you have poor zoning.
Is there though? Arable land is at a premium in the mountain west, because of all those mountains. And it’s not just land, but water is lacking...build a bunch of houses and then what will they drink? And infrastructure, if you build without building roads and schools...well, they do that in China and Russia and it doesn’t always come eventually.
It is easy to say the problem is that we just aren’t building enough in those places, but it really isn’t that simple.
It is easy to say the problem is that we just aren’t building enough in those places, but it really isn’t that simple.
Water for residents is a drop in the bucket compared to farming. A single farmer selling out their plot to a suburban housing development will more than provide the water excess required to support the houses.
The problem is strictly the water rights being a political labyrinth (water rights don’t easily transfer from farm to residential).
The problem is strictly the water rights being a political labyrinth (water rights don’t easily transfer from farm to residential).
Let's check in on the Bozeman population density: 2,448.94 people per square mile
Let's check on how San Francisco is doing: 18,790.74 people per square mile.
Okay, no worries, Bozeman can keep its current foot print and 8X its population comfortably.
Let's check on how San Francisco is doing: 18,790.74 people per square mile.
Okay, no worries, Bozeman can keep its current foot print and 8X its population comfortably.
Look at Bozeman on Google Maps with the satellite view. There are mountains to the NE, E, and South.
Many of these desirable mountain locations like Vail are in mountain valleys where there is a limited amount of land to build on.
Many of these desirable mountain locations like Vail are in mountain valleys where there is a limited amount of land to build on.
It’s like my entire comment was ignored :). You need more than just density to increase the size of a community.
My mom and step dad built a house in Helena, which isn’t that far away. Pretty expensive place to live, infrastructure wasn’t great, housing was expensive (this is back in the 90s). The house turned out to be economically non viable for reasons unrelated to demand.
My mom and step dad built a house in Helena, which isn’t that far away. Pretty expensive place to live, infrastructure wasn’t great, housing was expensive (this is back in the 90s). The house turned out to be economically non viable for reasons unrelated to demand.
It's like your comment was completely void of any kind of validity and it was easy to immediately look for evidence to the contrary of one of your major points.
I'm sure it would be trivial to counter the point around water. Just consider any of the metropolises in the Middle East.
In terms of infrastructure, that can be built as well. See literally any other city larger than Bozeman.
I'm sure it would be trivial to counter the point around water. Just consider any of the metropolises in the Middle East.
In terms of infrastructure, that can be built as well. See literally any other city larger than Bozeman.
Yes. Trivial.
“ It has been estimated that between 1975 and 2000 a total of more than US$100bn has been invested in water supply and sanitation, and that a further US$130bn will be needed between 2002 and 2022, corresponding to US$6.5 billion per year or more than US$200 per capita and year.[2] This level of investment in water per capita is among the highest in the world, higher than in the US, the UK or Germany, due to the high cost of desalination and the need to transport water over long distances. It corresponds to about 1.5% of GDP.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...
“ It has been estimated that between 1975 and 2000 a total of more than US$100bn has been invested in water supply and sanitation, and that a further US$130bn will be needed between 2002 and 2022, corresponding to US$6.5 billion per year or more than US$200 per capita and year.[2] This level of investment in water per capita is among the highest in the world, higher than in the US, the UK or Germany, due to the high cost of desalination and the need to transport water over long distances. It corresponds to about 1.5% of GDP.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...
I mean, yeah clearly? Your own source for what is nearly the worst case in the world is ongoing investment of “US$200 per capita and year”. Look at how much the home values have increased! Do you really think that’s not trivially extractable from property taxes?? That’s IF it’s as bad as building megacities in the middle of literal deserts which obviously a place like Bozeman is NOT.
You’re throwing your hands up exasperated at the costs of building water infra when the peak is somewhere around 1.5% of GDP but then you have housing costs that are rising dramatically faster than wages and everyone’s like “whelp, nothing to done here.”
You’re throwing your hands up exasperated at the costs of building water infra when the peak is somewhere around 1.5% of GDP but then you have housing costs that are rising dramatically faster than wages and everyone’s like “whelp, nothing to done here.”
Over the course of 10 or 20 years, you can build out the infrastructure to support the previous boom (well, it’s harder in Montana since they are more anti-tax). But in the course of 1 or 2 years? And if that boom turns into a bust before you can get the infrastructure projects going?
Urban planning is useful for a reason. Building housing is far from effective on its own, and not all areas can support the same densities (in the Middle East, they have to be really careful about where they grow). And even if you “win”, the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people, leading to price increases nonetheless.
Urban planning is useful for a reason. Building housing is far from effective on its own, and not all areas can support the same densities (in the Middle East, they have to be really careful about where they grow). And even if you “win”, the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people, leading to price increases nonetheless.
> And even if you “win”, the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people, leading to price increases nonetheless.
Your statement boils down to "supply can never outstrip demand" which is trivially falsifiable in its own right. No matter how livable a city becomes, at some point, you can have built more than the housing demanded by people. There are a finite number of humans and the proportion of them who both CAN and WANT to live in these cities is almost certainly manageable.
But don't take my word for it, look at the actuality of Tokyo (which for multiple reasons has a far more difficult challenge than Bozeman or any of these other mountain towns): https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/tokyos-affordable-hous...
Your statement boils down to "supply can never outstrip demand" which is trivially falsifiable in its own right. No matter how livable a city becomes, at some point, you can have built more than the housing demanded by people. There are a finite number of humans and the proportion of them who both CAN and WANT to live in these cities is almost certainly manageable.
But don't take my word for it, look at the actuality of Tokyo (which for multiple reasons has a far more difficult challenge than Bozeman or any of these other mountain towns): https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/tokyos-affordable-hous...
>the result is a more livable city that attracts even more people
That doesn't sound so bad. What's the alternative?
That doesn't sound so bad. What's the alternative?
Yes, unless you are looking for low cost housing.
How do you lower the cost of housing in desirable places? Make them less desirable? Prevent people from moving there? Build more housing?
[deleted]
It's always some rich fellow from these towns or some crunchy dude from the coastal towns who has this opinion.
Dude, there are a plethora of non-descript towns in America. My friend got married in one. They don't have cell reception. They talk on walkie talkies.
If you take the California money for your house, you can just retire there by buying and building enough homes for you and your friends.
This is always some imaginary pipe dream from the coastal elites. Life in the middle isn't idyllic. You guys always put up some imaginary plinth and then build this massive statue representing The Country Life So Beautiful and put a plaque on it and worship it like it was handed down by Moses.
But seriously. Life suuuuuucks there. These people will make it better.
Dude, there are a plethora of non-descript towns in America. My friend got married in one. They don't have cell reception. They talk on walkie talkies.
If you take the California money for your house, you can just retire there by buying and building enough homes for you and your friends.
This is always some imaginary pipe dream from the coastal elites. Life in the middle isn't idyllic. You guys always put up some imaginary plinth and then build this massive statue representing The Country Life So Beautiful and put a plaque on it and worship it like it was handed down by Moses.
But seriously. Life suuuuuucks there. These people will make it better.
So you can stay in California and hear the same complaints.
Where am I allowed to live everyone? Lol
Where am I allowed to live everyone? Lol
Greg Brown sang about it in 1995: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO2EuOLGJKM
The flipside is that while you’re “taking” a house in Colorado, you’re also “freeing up” a house in California.
You’re only looking at the displaced resident being priced out. But there are many people who desperately want to move to coastal California and currently can’t because of housing costs. The migration is balanced by someone new being “priced in” to San Francisco or Los Angeles. Maybe even someone who wants to get out of their small Rocky Mountain town.
You’re only looking at the displaced resident being priced out. But there are many people who desperately want to move to coastal California and currently can’t because of housing costs. The migration is balanced by someone new being “priced in” to San Francisco or Los Angeles. Maybe even someone who wants to get out of their small Rocky Mountain town.
Coastal California prices have gone up 20-30% in the past few months. These are people who were priced out of home buying there and renting, mountain towns are cheaper.
Every IPO and stock vest causes home prices to go higher in the Bay Area, there’s been a lot lately.
Every IPO and stock vest causes home prices to go higher in the Bay Area, there’s been a lot lately.
My understanding is that rents in San Francisco are down 20%+. LA is not as large a drop, but still down.
While the cost of home ownership may be up (most likely as you identify due to the wealth effect of equity grants), the actual cost to live in coastal California is sharply down.
While the cost of home ownership may be up (most likely as you identify due to the wealth effect of equity grants), the actual cost to live in coastal California is sharply down.
Yeah this is true, it’s a good time to lock in rent control if you don’t want to own.
What is your solution? Have internal passports? Government owned housing? Price controls?
Raise interest rates and kill federal backed mortgages except for low income. Limit fed backed loans to 1 per household.
Tax housing income as normal income. Remove 1031b exchange. Remove depreciation of homes. Tax all housing sale gains.
Housing would then be affordable.
Tax housing income as normal income. Remove 1031b exchange. Remove depreciation of homes. Tax all housing sale gains.
Housing would then be affordable.
A simple option, most countries already have land tax. Just make this proportional and federal.
And by proportional I mean like income tax, so the first $1m is 0%, $1m - $3m is 1%, etc
Not sure the best numbers but should be something were most people dont pay, even can have an investment property to cover need for a rental market, but if you have significant holdings it kicks in, and people with residential empires should basically be untenable unless it is short term holding to renovate etc.
Also could apply top rates to residential property with corporate or foreign ownership so residential is for people to live in.
And by proportional I mean like income tax, so the first $1m is 0%, $1m - $3m is 1%, etc
Not sure the best numbers but should be something were most people dont pay, even can have an investment property to cover need for a rental market, but if you have significant holdings it kicks in, and people with residential empires should basically be untenable unless it is short term holding to renovate etc.
Also could apply top rates to residential property with corporate or foreign ownership so residential is for people to live in.
I upvoted you because while I might not agree with all of them, they are ideas that would certainly lower prices.
Still wouldn’t fix the housing problem in desirable places.
What do you mean!? The status quo is profitable, for the already or soon to be landlords.
Yes.
Grew up in rural nowhere Midwest. Home prices are still cheap. Desirable places are expensive and will only get more expensive.
America isn’t even 250 years old. That’s, what, five generations? Do remember that most American “settlement” of these areas was specifically designed to drive out the real locals, whose basic planning took on a seven-generation timescale.
With a lot of problems of this nature, especially social issues, the key is to “zoom out” to get a clearer, more sane picture of what’s going on. Humans were made to migrate, and these “locals” can adjust.
With a lot of problems of this nature, especially social issues, the key is to “zoom out” to get a clearer, more sane picture of what’s going on. Humans were made to migrate, and these “locals” can adjust.
A generation is "generally considered to be about 20–30 years"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
I went through many of them moving from Chico CA area in a grand US west/southwest roadtrip moving to Austin TX to escape climate change fires/power outages (ironically), increasing taxes and housing prices, and a decline in general happiness. I didn't see any obvious signs of this.
I can recommend not moving anywhere near Greely CO where cattle are slaughtered by the thousands. It smells very bad. Also, driving in Wyoming there is effectively no speed limit between the highway patrol is very sparse.. and there isn't much there.
50%+ WfH OTG homesteads in the middle of nowhere but with access to fresh water and sunlight are a very good idea long-term, especially for raising a family, growing crops, mental health, well-being, and peace-of-mind.
Big cities are (and were pre-pandemic) only useful for conducting high-level economic activity due to the density of connectedness and potential for rapid wealth accumulation, but in general, they often tend to be terrible places overall for the most part, and people should escape to more tranquil and mentally-healthy places.
I can recommend not moving anywhere near Greely CO where cattle are slaughtered by the thousands. It smells very bad. Also, driving in Wyoming there is effectively no speed limit between the highway patrol is very sparse.. and there isn't much there.
50%+ WfH OTG homesteads in the middle of nowhere but with access to fresh water and sunlight are a very good idea long-term, especially for raising a family, growing crops, mental health, well-being, and peace-of-mind.
Big cities are (and were pre-pandemic) only useful for conducting high-level economic activity due to the density of connectedness and potential for rapid wealth accumulation, but in general, they often tend to be terrible places overall for the most part, and people should escape to more tranquil and mentally-healthy places.
While I share your sentiments, I don't think it's fair to deride cities as "terrible places overall". Many of us prefer the quiet of rural life, but many others find that quiet to be stifling and want the busy hustle-bustle of a big city. To each their own.
Big cities are "terrible" long-term, especially as viewed by most average people who lack the skills, connections, and abilities to utilize them and as they get older and less able to capitalize on them. Younger, smarter people tend to gravitate towards them as they are able to make more effective use of cities with better goals, tactics, self-discipline, sociopolitical navigation, and relationships.
YMMV.
YMMV.
"Big cities are (and were pre-pandemic) only useful for conducting high-level economic activity due to the density of connectedness and potential for rapid wealth accumulation, but in general, they often tend to be terrible places overall"
yeah, seriously "citation needed" here. Cities offer a LOT of things not usually found in rural areas. Try explaining to my trans sister about how cities are bad, and that she should live in a rural area, for example.
yeah, seriously "citation needed" here. Cities offer a LOT of things not usually found in rural areas. Try explaining to my trans sister about how cities are bad, and that she should live in a rural area, for example.
Not everything ambiguous qualitative and experiential in life can be quantified with a science experiment or a research paper. Get over it, please. :)
> Cities offer ...
Yes, I don't deny this.
Sister: Anecdotal example, sorry
None of this negates my impression and opinion which is a valid expression but not a universal fact up for debate. It is not a universal fact anyone must agree with or hold. In fact, it's arrogant to criticize or tell someone what their opinions and experiences should be.
> Cities offer ...
Yes, I don't deny this.
Sister: Anecdotal example, sorry
None of this negates my impression and opinion which is a valid expression but not a universal fact up for debate. It is not a universal fact anyone must agree with or hold. In fact, it's arrogant to criticize or tell someone what their opinions and experiences should be.
> it's arrogant to criticize or tell someone what their opinions and experiences should be.
So were you not telling people what their experiences should be when you said "Big cities...tend to be terrible places overall...and people should escape to more tranquil and mentally-healthy places"?
So were you not telling people what their experiences should be when you said "Big cities...tend to be terrible places overall...and people should escape to more tranquil and mentally-healthy places"?
> Try explaining to my trans sister about how cities are bad, and that she should live in a rural area, for example.
Unless your trans sister has special medical needs only available in big cities, there is nothing special here. There are plenty of liberal small communities and there would be even more as people leave cities.
Unless your trans sister has special medical needs only available in big cities, there is nothing special here. There are plenty of liberal small communities and there would be even more as people leave cities.
LOLNO
I’m guessing you’ve never spent much time outside of a city? Are you familiar with Big Sur?
If you live in Boulder or the Northern suburbs of Denver you will STILL get the smell of Greeley on days when the wind blows strongly out of the North. It’s a harbinger of snow.
Doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone from moving here though.
Doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone from moving here though.
People like to live in pretty places, who knew..
It's pretty funny to see the economist, founded in economic liberalism and against a rural idle aristocracy, semi-chearing-on more government-subsidized shit suburbanization.
The economist has railed against suburbs before, and yes, overreaching suburbs built on massive sparse infrastructure is a huge problem, but this needs to be weighed against other huge problems that have developed in american economic geography, like how the economic gains of technology have accrued almost entirely to a handful of cities with sky high rents.
The solution is to build more city. Denser areas will always be wealthier, just denser chips will always be faster.
[deleted]
Some of those states are on a crusade to ensure cannabis and other drugs are never legalized. That’s gonna be a no from me dog. Colorado being the exception of course, but Idaho and Wyoming come to mind.
The Treasure Valley is awful close to OR which has plentiful options. WY proximity to CO mostly the same. Most probably are not swayed either way on this issue when moving to these states but when all the neighbors are offering options and are disadvantageous to live in, people will make ID or WY work to get the best of both.
See living/working in WA and shopping in OR for tax advantages as a similar analogy.
See living/working in WA and shopping in OR for tax advantages as a similar analogy.
I am thinking from the cultivation aspect. I love that here in Michigan I can grow my own cannabis 100% legally. I also love that we are starting to decriminalize active/psych mushrooms (Ann Arbor so far) for the same reason (home cultivation).
True. Growing your own is definitely location specific. Much more risky than buying and transporting small amounts to a not friendly state.
I can't wait until people are required to move back to cities for in office work. Small towns are becoming faceless neighborhoods of urban areas with a SouthWest or JetBlue commute. New residents want to ignore their neighbors and put up gates to their home. Small towns have heart because people interact with each other and work to make the community better.
This is a romantic view that ignores that many, if not most, small towns in the rural US are dying.
I'm from Missouri and I can tell you that most of the small towns are not idyllic rural paradises. They are farming towns which now have no purpose, no young people, and serious drug and suicide problems. These are not all friendly places.
They would all KILL to have an influx of young energetic people move in. They want to see the town survive.
I'm from Missouri and I can tell you that most of the small towns are not idyllic rural paradises. They are farming towns which now have no purpose, no young people, and serious drug and suicide problems. These are not all friendly places.
They would all KILL to have an influx of young energetic people move in. They want to see the town survive.
I grew up in a small town in the south. We were the first Asian family in the town and dealt with a lot of racism in the 1980's. When I went to college in a big city the weekly racist comments were basically gone. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist in larger cities but it is far better than small towns.
We had two KKK rallies through the town square in my town in the 80's. We have so many right wing racists in positions of power now that I have no interest in living in a small town again.
We had two KKK rallies through the town square in my town in the 80's. We have so many right wing racists in positions of power now that I have no interest in living in a small town again.
I can't imagine what people in America are fleeing from. The US is a paradise of tranquility. Utopia from sea to shining sea.
I'm personally doing just this. I was lucky enough to land a good job out of college, buy a house in a desired area, and see it appreciate in the last 10 years. This increase plus the birth of my kids left me wondering if there wasn't a better route than continuing to need a FAANG salary to afford a larger house and private schools.
Due to this we are taking advantage of the remote work opportunities that have opened up due to the pandemic and are moving to the place we spend all our time anyway: a small town in the mountains. We get to do the things we want to do, have more space for our kids to roam, and a better quality of life without the stress of constantly needing a good performance review.
I understand this is not for everyone and I understand the negative perception of 'outsiders' pushing the price up for locals, but at the end of the day I'm optimizing for my own quality of life. I can't think of a better use of the money I've earned doing what I love than to provide a great life for my family.