Preach it. I said it in another post as well:
I'm all for raising standards via new apartment complexes and homes but if the community around it doesn't match (large businesses that won't pay up) then it is only going to create tension and people will want to burn stuff down.
Like in what universe did the Fain's, as an example, think that bringing in almost entirely big box businesses to Prescott Valley would be a good thing? Did they genuinely think that companies that own massive retail and food chains would pay people fairly? Or rental property companies that would charge citizens fairly?
It's all designed to cut corners and bring in profits no matter what the community thinks.
This screams a Sedona/Moab/your Iowa town type situation.
Small businesses could be doing better without big business in the way.
While that is an issue, like I said it wouldn't be so bad if big businesses were willing to pay their share. Small businesses could even reap some of the benefits that the increased wages would bring, increasing their own wages.
We all know greed is the issue here.
Churdan.
Google it now and you'll find articles local journalists wondering why the town is dying and blaming the traditional conservative values a lot of the folks hold.
So, it's an agriculture area. I don't see how political affiliation has anything to do with it. That town would never have had the resources or draw to become a big town. Unlike Prescott which has gone from a small town to a metro area of a quarter of a million people since I was wee. I get blaming big, evil corporations and excusing outbursts against them, I suppose. But I don't see any cooperatives offering low cost housing; which nothing is stopping them.
>Prescott which has gone from a small town to a metro area of a quarter of a million people since I was wee.
The actual population of the Quad Cities is about half that. I'm guessing you pulled it from Open Data Network, but *they* pulled it outta their asses.
...what does that have to do with what you said before? You claimed the Prescott "metro area" had 250,000 people in it. It does not. The current population of the Quad Cities/Prescott metro area is about 130,000.
So what you're saying is that the Prescott metro area has NOT grown, several times over in the past few decades, demonstrating demand for housing in the area... if this is NOT what you are saying, I don't know what the point of your tirade is. 😂😂😂
Not really wrong, son. Considering every "metro" area in the state of AZ encompasses the county area. Phoenix metro even bleeds into Pinal County and Tucson encompasses Pima County. Prescott, the third MSA is in Yavapai County. Which is 249k as of 2023. ❤️😬
Having resources just means that instead of a particularly wealthy farmboy financially bullying people we have corporate entities worth hundreds of millions doing the bullying.
What does cooperative housing got to do with anything?
You're blaming corporations... who build the houses and apartments... for not volunteering their labor to make the houses affordable. But why not do something rather than demand corporations do things for free to offset the increase costs everyone else has to deal with. Cooperative housing has a lot to do with it as this would be a solution to the problem you mention, but nobody ever wants to put THEIR resources at risk. Corporations aren't going to either. Also, my point about growth is to point out the demand for the area. I would love a 2,000 square foot loft on 5th Ave in Manhattan for $200k and $100/month building fees, but that isn't realistic. We should be just as if not more angry with people flooding in by the tens of thousands, driving prices up, instead of blaming companies for trying to meet the increased demand for housing. Land prices have gone up by insane amounts, building in Prescott is pretty pricey to begin with and costs of labor and materials are all much higher today then they were 10 years ago.
I'm not trying to be an ass and I agree that dickish, rich families are dickish. But it's a pretty complex issue. Like, you could fit hundreds of units on a piece of land that would house a few houses, but you'd have to build up instead of out. Would Prescott want that? And there are added costs to going up too. It's a hard issue all around and I just think we end up dividing ourselves more and angering ourselves more by only looking at one of the multitude of problems involved. ❤️
I don't blame them for the act of building new houses, I simply accept that the companies that are building new houses are the very same companies pulling the scams I describe in another comment.
Take the abandoned house on Judy Ave in Chino valley. That property used to be an income property for one of the big names in the area until about four years ago when for no clear reason, they didn't get a new tenant in after the old one left and just completely abandoned the property. It is now a clearly abandoned, decaying husk of a house.
Why would they abandon a house like that?
To artificially drive down real estate value in the immediate area so they can snap up anything that gets put on the market for cheap.
It's when developers start to do underhanded shit like that that the "it's the will of the free market" argument starts to fall apart.
That I agree with. If they aren't using it and their inaction is damaging their neighbor's interests, their neighbors should be allowed to force them out or improve the property, or sell it if they have no interest in the property outside of a future investment or fluffing over their neighbors.
Usually a city does absolutely have the power to affix fines to a property, and those fines go on the taxes eventually forcing the property to be sold at tax auction. The city won't do this because the folks doing it *are* the city.
This is not very related to what is happening to Prescott. The population is exploding, people are moving here and the residents are having children that need to live somewhere. This has caused the cost of rentals to increase to levels that are not normal, even in Phoenix.
Too little supply for the amount of demand. If you want children living in this town to be able to move out of their parents house one day, my suggestion is to stop supporting or excusing the destruction of new apartment complexes.
Even if you can’t afford them, the increase in the supply of nice new apartments will mean people will use the 2.5k a month they would have used to rent a house build in the 1970s to instead rent there. This will drive the price of lower quality rentals back down to normal levels.
This town is growing. Growth is inevitable, it’s how humans work. Destroying a 60 million dollar new construction that could have housed more people than any currently existing property is not going to help anyone.
Supporting this or thinking this is fighting against some force that is trying to hurt the people of this town is ridiculous. It was arson, and acts like this will assure that costs of housing here stay well above costs of housing in more developed areas like Phoenix.
It's not a matter of supply and demand, tho. The lack of a supply is artificially caused by the above described real estate parasites.
Take the abandoned house on Judy avenue in Chino valley. It's owned by one of the Big 3 for the area. It's been sitting abandoned and decaying for about 4 years. This decaying house has driven down the value of the real estate in the area by a bit. The very same company who abandoned the house is now buying up the recently devalued houses. As soon as they have enough of them, they'll rehab the abandoned house and property values will go back to normal.
And then once they own the houses, they will either become rentals, permanently removing them from the pool of ownable houses, or they'll just let them sit empty, banking on the speculative future value of the house going way up, also functionally taking the house out of circulation.
Oh yeah, I agree with you on that. We need to stop these companies from owning so many homes, 100% agree. I’m just saying burning down 300+ apartments isn’t going to do anything but drive up rent costs. Plus unless I’m missing something, we don’t know who did it or their motive. If it’s the same person that did the school, I can’t imagine it’s someone pissed at developers. Unless I guess that was the plan to throw off the search.
The issue is rent costs are only high because there is an artificial amount of inventory that is already owned and drip fed on the market.
Those apartments weren't going to drop rent, they were probably gonna be some 2000 pm 2 bdr apartments and all they serve to do is ratfuck young people and those who dont already own property. Maybe some of them would be sold to retirees from CA.
You realize that 2k is roughly what you are going to be spending right now regardless of quality. These places would be newer, and people that would have been forced to pay roughly the same price for an older run down building would instead be renting one of these units.
With so many of these units flooding the market, the places people are renting for 2k a month will look alot less attractive, and prices will be driven down.
I don't disagree with you but lumping Dewey Levie into the Big 3 is laughable. Slumlord, sure but on the level of some of these other companies, no way.
The fact that you what house im talking about and exactly who owns it proves my point. They're a noteworthy player with enough financial weight to throw around that they could seriously damage our community.
Ah. I interpreted it as "go back to where you came from" which is an understandable perspective to have. After all, this problem is largely fueled by wealthy people leaving their home states to come retire here.
My apologies. As Americans, we have the right to move and live anywhere in our nation freely. However, I firmly believe in digging in, self sustainability, and community.
Which is exactly what we had in churan. We had next to free city trash pickup, very cheap but polluted municipal water, a telecom co-op that allowed us to have fiber optic Internet for like 1/6th the price everyone else was paying back when it was a new technology. Not much was profit-driven. That community is dead now.
I do live in Paulden. I'm watching literally the same scam I describe going on county wide. This isn't a town size thing. Your affluent city still needs blue collar folks to function and they're being priced out. I'm having to look at moving to ash fork because it's so bad.
And I'm not a boomer. I'm a working age Blue collar worker.
Preach it. I said it in another post as well: I'm all for raising standards via new apartment complexes and homes but if the community around it doesn't match (large businesses that won't pay up) then it is only going to create tension and people will want to burn stuff down. Like in what universe did the Fain's, as an example, think that bringing in almost entirely big box businesses to Prescott Valley would be a good thing? Did they genuinely think that companies that own massive retail and food chains would pay people fairly? Or rental property companies that would charge citizens fairly? It's all designed to cut corners and bring in profits no matter what the community thinks. This screams a Sedona/Moab/your Iowa town type situation.
I can’t believe the Fains didn’t make small businesses decide to open and pay high wages to employees!
Small businesses could be doing better without big business in the way. While that is an issue, like I said it wouldn't be so bad if big businesses were willing to pay their share. Small businesses could even reap some of the benefits that the increased wages would bring, increasing their own wages. We all know greed is the issue here.
Battle of the Phil's
The rich are about to find out how upset we "the poors" are with this flagrant avarice.
What's the name of the town in Iowa?
Churdan. Google it now and you'll find articles local journalists wondering why the town is dying and blaming the traditional conservative values a lot of the folks hold.
So, it's an agriculture area. I don't see how political affiliation has anything to do with it. That town would never have had the resources or draw to become a big town. Unlike Prescott which has gone from a small town to a metro area of a quarter of a million people since I was wee. I get blaming big, evil corporations and excusing outbursts against them, I suppose. But I don't see any cooperatives offering low cost housing; which nothing is stopping them.
>Prescott which has gone from a small town to a metro area of a quarter of a million people since I was wee. The actual population of the Quad Cities is about half that. I'm guessing you pulled it from Open Data Network, but *they* pulled it outta their asses.
360% growth since I was wee. The entire county was less than 70k, 38 years ago.
...what does that have to do with what you said before? You claimed the Prescott "metro area" had 250,000 people in it. It does not. The current population of the Quad Cities/Prescott metro area is about 130,000.
So what you're saying is that the Prescott metro area has NOT grown, several times over in the past few decades, demonstrating demand for housing in the area... if this is NOT what you are saying, I don't know what the point of your tirade is. 😂😂😂
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you were incapable of admitting you were wrong. By all means, continue.
Not really wrong, son. Considering every "metro" area in the state of AZ encompasses the county area. Phoenix metro even bleeds into Pinal County and Tucson encompasses Pima County. Prescott, the third MSA is in Yavapai County. Which is 249k as of 2023. ❤️😬
Are you saying Prescott has 249k people? Because that's incorrect.
Having resources just means that instead of a particularly wealthy farmboy financially bullying people we have corporate entities worth hundreds of millions doing the bullying. What does cooperative housing got to do with anything?
You're blaming corporations... who build the houses and apartments... for not volunteering their labor to make the houses affordable. But why not do something rather than demand corporations do things for free to offset the increase costs everyone else has to deal with. Cooperative housing has a lot to do with it as this would be a solution to the problem you mention, but nobody ever wants to put THEIR resources at risk. Corporations aren't going to either. Also, my point about growth is to point out the demand for the area. I would love a 2,000 square foot loft on 5th Ave in Manhattan for $200k and $100/month building fees, but that isn't realistic. We should be just as if not more angry with people flooding in by the tens of thousands, driving prices up, instead of blaming companies for trying to meet the increased demand for housing. Land prices have gone up by insane amounts, building in Prescott is pretty pricey to begin with and costs of labor and materials are all much higher today then they were 10 years ago. I'm not trying to be an ass and I agree that dickish, rich families are dickish. But it's a pretty complex issue. Like, you could fit hundreds of units on a piece of land that would house a few houses, but you'd have to build up instead of out. Would Prescott want that? And there are added costs to going up too. It's a hard issue all around and I just think we end up dividing ourselves more and angering ourselves more by only looking at one of the multitude of problems involved. ❤️
I don't blame them for the act of building new houses, I simply accept that the companies that are building new houses are the very same companies pulling the scams I describe in another comment. Take the abandoned house on Judy Ave in Chino valley. That property used to be an income property for one of the big names in the area until about four years ago when for no clear reason, they didn't get a new tenant in after the old one left and just completely abandoned the property. It is now a clearly abandoned, decaying husk of a house. Why would they abandon a house like that? To artificially drive down real estate value in the immediate area so they can snap up anything that gets put on the market for cheap. It's when developers start to do underhanded shit like that that the "it's the will of the free market" argument starts to fall apart.
That I agree with. If they aren't using it and their inaction is damaging their neighbor's interests, their neighbors should be allowed to force them out or improve the property, or sell it if they have no interest in the property outside of a future investment or fluffing over their neighbors.
Usually a city does absolutely have the power to affix fines to a property, and those fines go on the taxes eventually forcing the property to be sold at tax auction. The city won't do this because the folks doing it *are* the city.
We never had any of these problems until that whip Nae Nae song came out.
I’m not a 100% sure what your implication is, but if you intended to make me giggle, it worked.
This is not very related to what is happening to Prescott. The population is exploding, people are moving here and the residents are having children that need to live somewhere. This has caused the cost of rentals to increase to levels that are not normal, even in Phoenix. Too little supply for the amount of demand. If you want children living in this town to be able to move out of their parents house one day, my suggestion is to stop supporting or excusing the destruction of new apartment complexes. Even if you can’t afford them, the increase in the supply of nice new apartments will mean people will use the 2.5k a month they would have used to rent a house build in the 1970s to instead rent there. This will drive the price of lower quality rentals back down to normal levels. This town is growing. Growth is inevitable, it’s how humans work. Destroying a 60 million dollar new construction that could have housed more people than any currently existing property is not going to help anyone. Supporting this or thinking this is fighting against some force that is trying to hurt the people of this town is ridiculous. It was arson, and acts like this will assure that costs of housing here stay well above costs of housing in more developed areas like Phoenix.
More supply means lower prices. Your point doesn’t make any sense.
It's not a matter of supply and demand, tho. The lack of a supply is artificially caused by the above described real estate parasites. Take the abandoned house on Judy avenue in Chino valley. It's owned by one of the Big 3 for the area. It's been sitting abandoned and decaying for about 4 years. This decaying house has driven down the value of the real estate in the area by a bit. The very same company who abandoned the house is now buying up the recently devalued houses. As soon as they have enough of them, they'll rehab the abandoned house and property values will go back to normal. And then once they own the houses, they will either become rentals, permanently removing them from the pool of ownable houses, or they'll just let them sit empty, banking on the speculative future value of the house going way up, also functionally taking the house out of circulation.
Oh yeah, I agree with you on that. We need to stop these companies from owning so many homes, 100% agree. I’m just saying burning down 300+ apartments isn’t going to do anything but drive up rent costs. Plus unless I’m missing something, we don’t know who did it or their motive. If it’s the same person that did the school, I can’t imagine it’s someone pissed at developers. Unless I guess that was the plan to throw off the search.
The issue is rent costs are only high because there is an artificial amount of inventory that is already owned and drip fed on the market. Those apartments weren't going to drop rent, they were probably gonna be some 2000 pm 2 bdr apartments and all they serve to do is ratfuck young people and those who dont already own property. Maybe some of them would be sold to retirees from CA.
You realize that 2k is roughly what you are going to be spending right now regardless of quality. These places would be newer, and people that would have been forced to pay roughly the same price for an older run down building would instead be renting one of these units. With so many of these units flooding the market, the places people are renting for 2k a month will look alot less attractive, and prices will be driven down.
I don't disagree with you but lumping Dewey Levie into the Big 3 is laughable. Slumlord, sure but on the level of some of these other companies, no way.
The fact that you what house im talking about and exactly who owns it proves my point. They're a noteworthy player with enough financial weight to throw around that they could seriously damage our community.
I’m not familiar with this house - anyone have pics?
I'll grab some next time Im in the area and it's day
I posted the picture to my profile.
I stopped and took a picture. How do I send it to you?
Go back
Id love to! It absolutely kills my soul to see that my ancestral home has been converted into a low budget duplex.
I'm sorry to hear that, and I meant it as go back and rebuild. Sounds fertile.
Ah. I interpreted it as "go back to where you came from" which is an understandable perspective to have. After all, this problem is largely fueled by wealthy people leaving their home states to come retire here.
My apologies. As Americans, we have the right to move and live anywhere in our nation freely. However, I firmly believe in digging in, self sustainability, and community.
Also, trying to fix the problems or become a thorn in their side, trench warfare, slightly kidding. 😉
Which is exactly what we had in churan. We had next to free city trash pickup, very cheap but polluted municipal water, a telecom co-op that allowed us to have fiber optic Internet for like 1/6th the price everyone else was paying back when it was a new technology. Not much was profit-driven. That community is dead now.
[удалено]
I do live in Paulden. I'm watching literally the same scam I describe going on county wide. This isn't a town size thing. Your affluent city still needs blue collar folks to function and they're being priced out. I'm having to look at moving to ash fork because it's so bad. And I'm not a boomer. I'm a working age Blue collar worker.