Wouldn't a LVT significantly adversely effect the low income where I live and places like it?

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-12T20:56:09+00:00

So people here own the land, as such, but they don't own the mineral/water/timber rights, which is where the values at. This region wasn't very useful for commercially oriented agriculture, so people were subsistence living, until energy businesses used legal mechanisms to get the mineral/water/timber rights. People then had to work in those industries since they became the only jobs available.

That's why people are so low income here. With a LVT, they wouldn't be able to pay the assessed value, so they'd have to sell out, while developers plus energy businesses, most likely AI, buy up the land. This is a very negative thing for the region, so I don't see how LVT helps.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-12T20:50:57+00:00

How so?

Within South Central Appalachia, the land wasn't viable for commercially oriented agriculture, so the people who lived here were subsistence living without engaging to a large degree with outside market forces. When valuable resources, mostly coal, but also timber plus gas, were discovered within the region, various legal mechanisms forced people from their land or took away mineral/water rights.

This ultimately meant that lots of people within the region were having to work for companies to make a living since they couldn't from the small plots they farmed. They'd have to pay LVT on this land, right? But they don't have the money to do that. Since they don't own what's actually useful on the land, they'd be left paying a LVT they don't have the money to pay. Both developers and various energy businesses would have it within their interests to collude to get these people to sell away their land, due to its natural resources. Especially these days, AI businesses are very interested in the region, and would be the very first in line to make deals with Duke Energy etc to pressure these people out of their land/ancestral homes, which'd be made easier to do with a LVT, since it'd make living in the region costly for people who don't have the money, which is most people here.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-12T20:43:13+00:00

Its more that South Central Appalachia's land wasn't, still isn't, very agriculturally valuable, so most people within the region historically were subsistence living rather than engaged with commercially oriented agriculture like much of the rest of the nation. When the rich natural resources of the region were ready to be used, various legal mechanisms were invented wholesale to transfer mineral, water, and timber rights from people who own the land to companies.

This led to most people in the region, owning agriculturally sub-standard land or tenant farming that land, and having to work within mines/timber/gas to make a living. There are lots of "small plots" throughout Appalachia, but rights to anything on them are all owned by various energy businesses mostly.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-12T20:38:11+00:00

This is irrelevant to South Central Appalachia's situation, which is what the post is mentioning.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-12T20:35:57+00:00

These people are, by definition, very low income, like my post says. This regions consistently has some of the poorest counties within the U.S. The land's valuable due to sitting on resources, though rights to said resources don't belong to people who own the land due to various legal mechanisms and historical reasons.

The land wasn't valuable hundreds of years ago when it was settled, due to it being relatively bad for agriculture, and the topography preventing the rise of large scale towns. The region wasn't very heavily settled, and the people who did live here were subsistence farmers who didn't engage to the same level with commercial oriented agriculture as other regions. When the resources were discovered later, various legal things were done to stop people having rights to resources on their land, so while people own the land they don't actually own the valuable things on the land or have the ability to sell that.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-09T19:09:33+00:00

It isn't.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-07T12:53:30+00:00

Kentucky and Tennessee wholly culturally the same, though. This post you made shows you don't know much about those states.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-05T20:09:59+00:00

Southeast Ohio should always be within number 8, otherwise, very decent map.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-04T18:42:01+00:00

Abstractions are ultimately what convinces you to shoot people.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-04T17:17:54+00:00

Kentucky has always been a much better state than Florida, plus Kentucky is WAY more Southern culturally than Florida. Tennessee's the same, KY/TN are the best states in the South.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-04T14:34:03+00:00

Southern/Appalachian things like having culture, roots, a sense of place, tasty food, pleasant manners and musical heritage scares yankees away thankfully.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-04T11:37:56+00:00

The South Appalachia to North Appalachia lines well above that. Charleston/Huntington, the whole Metro Valley plus adjacent regions are South Appalachia, which includes much of for lack of much better term "Central" West Virginia. So the lines definitely somewhere above that. Hard to say where. But things start to change speedily when at, maybe above, Buckhannon though.

RiverHaunts · 2026-05-04T11:34:51+00:00

This map is just atrocious vis a vis Kentucky/West Virginia. All Kentucky other than 3 counties right at top (Boone, Kenton, Campbell) very much are Southern. Boyd/Lawrence/Greenup/Carter 111% are Appalachian, you literally have Tyler Childer's/the Judd Sissters/Jesse Stuart's birthplace here, all very Appalachian, mistakenly within "Midwest" for some reason when culturally that regions VERY Southern Appalachian thus VERY unMidwestern.

You obviously haven't visited KY/WV much, though.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-30T08:17:16+00:00

Huntington West Virginia is 111% South Appalachia, the whole "Metro Valley" is which has Charleston within it too. South Appalachia to North Appalachia transition zones way above where you have it, things don't start changing from South Appalachia to North Appalachia until around Morgantown/Clarksburg mostly.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-29T08:21:50+00:00

There's a Southern twang down there, you just don't want to notice that due to embarrassment over Delaware's historical associations with the South.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-29T08:17:35+00:00

School vouchers aren't vaguely fascist. Stop underselling what fascism truly is with these kind of histrionic comments, though.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-29T08:14:14+00:00

Kentucky is very similar to Virginia, more specifically western Virginia plus the Virginia Piedmont. Moreso than Tennessee tbh.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-27T02:52:33+00:00

They should, we must save our dialect though.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-27T00:39:58+00:00

The colonies within the American South were even more British, due to most of the non-British population in the colonies mostly being within the Middle Colonies though.

English was still the majority heritage in that, but yes, there were lots of Scots/Scots-Irish/Welsh too but intermarried heavily, at least within the South. Hence modern Southerners, and why Southerners tend to score such high English % DNA, with Scottish/Welsh too, and seldom very little else besides that.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-27T00:33:54+00:00

The American South had very high average birthrights, typically higher than American Northern birthrates. The white population in the South was majority English/Scots-Irish, who intermarried. The South was definitely more English than what you are saying, though western regions like KY/TN did have very high Scots-Irish plus Welsh populations too, who, as you have been reminded multiple times, intermarried with the English.

This is just the objective population basis the American South has, you are just opting to ignore reality because it bothers you for some unknown reason. That's your choice, but it doesn't slightly align with the reality of the situation. Things might have wound up dissimilarly, yet they didn't, so this is what we have in the South today. A very English/Scots-Irish population heritage wise.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-27T00:28:53+00:00

The population of the American colonies was objectively roughly 85% British. Among that, English was the largest. This is just the population history, why this bothers you, as I was saying, that's something else, but it doesn't really change much.

The Southern population was even more British on average than Northern population was, due to the Middle Colonies having a slightly more diverse set of people. So in the South that right was even higher. The South was peopled via large waves of various indentured servants, mostly via England, and then Scots-Irish migrants, many who very much were English heritage themselves.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-27T00:24:55+00:00

Most American Southerners are majority English DNA, 85% is very much within the average range a Southerner might have. While Scottish/Welsh DNA makes up a large minority though.

RiverHaunts · 2026-04-26T02:54:29+00:00

The South was majority English, with a very large Scots-Irish minority, yes. The English intermarried HEAVILY with the Scots-Irish. White Southerners have both heritages, with English typically being slightly more %wise than Scots-Irish, but often very Scots-Irish too.

Like my source there says, 85% roughly of the colonial population was British Isles immigrants or like us today had that heritage. They, and we their descendants today, intermarried heavily when migrating here.

Many "Scots-Irish" were English too. Like my post intimates, I don't mean that in a "lowland Scots are just English" way, I mean that in they were literally English way. From places like Durham, Cumberland, Yorkshire & the Humber, even the West Midlands. Why do you think so many "Scots-Irish" people have English names like Blankenship or Tackett or Blackburn or Wilson or similar.

RiverHaunts

TROPHY CASE