http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorest_places_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorest_places_in_the_United_States

 

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showpost.php?p=2291508&postcount=89

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showpost.php?p=2291508&postcount=89

 

I'm not knocking the area at all...I love the mountains and if my fiance would let me, We would move back to where she is from in Lee County, VA. But the thing is she is going into speech pathology and the opportunities to get a job in that area is not as great as the opportunity is around Lexington. I think that is the problem with the area, there just plain and simple aren't as many opportunities. Its very unfortunate but after visiting places like St. Charles,Rose Hill, Ewing and other rural areas in Lee Co. something needs to be done to help some of these people out.

^ The people that Firebird is referring to do exist and in large numbers. Everyone who lives in or frequents this area can tell the same story or worse. For politicians who would exploit this lifestyle for political gain it's a target rich enviroment, but for the hard working people of the area who are actually striving to make a better life for themselves and their children, it's a nightmare. While calling attention to these conditions brings in even more handouts and programs plus votes for the politician, it also perpetuates the stereotype which in turn is a deterent to attracting business into the area.

 

So what can a political candidate such as Edwards really do to help the region? Legislation. It's time to right the wrongs that caused the region to be so poor in the beginning. It's time to pass a law declaring all mineral rights contracts signed prior to, say, 1960 to be null and void. A great number of these deeds are over a century old, more than adequate time for the out of state companies that own them to have acted to remove the coal, gas, or oil is they so desired and get a handsome return on their two dollar per acre investment. Very many of the poor we've been discussing are actually living in a shack or a delapidated trailer on huge tracts of land. This land, minus the mineral rights, presents an extremely low tax base as it is far too steep and rocky for any purpose other than timber and is often valued at less than $100 per acre. By returning the rights to the land owner, we create a new class of citizenry with a large amount of disposable income. By also allowing all coal severence tax to be returned to the county of origin, we provide a means for local goverments to build roads to alleviate the isolation of these areas. To build and fund better schools. To build water and sewage plants, and too ween ourselves from dependence on other areas such as what the KERA act has provided. My vision is too then see this money reinvested into outlet malls and other ventures designed to attract tourists into the area where they will discover the natural beauty of the region. I see the formerly worthless mountainsides dotted with chalets and hunting lodges to cater to the hunters and wildlife viewers who will come to the area to experience our elk and bears. I see a huge tax base supported by these ventures, allowing even more investment and even more dollars.

 

Finally, I see our well educated young people who have been serving the cities of Detroit, Cincinnati, Fort Wayne and the larger Kentucky cities returning home to their roots and the mountains they love, reversing the exodus of our best and brightest that has gone on for generations, thus providing the area with even more ideas and visions. For, if one looks at the lists of graduating seniors from UK, EKU, Morehead, Cumberland, Union, Pikeville and others and note how many have Eastern Kentucky addresses, one would see that we are not the unmotivated, uneducated people that our reputation has portrayed us to be. We have simply been educating and training our young people for service to other regions, leaving only a fortunate few who have been able to land jobs with the local school systems or the few large companies in the area to go along with those that actually fit the stereotypes.

 

Nobody sees any merit in this idea? Is it even legally possible?

I agree with all of you here, BRJB.... I know it's hard to except that E KY. is POOR.... But the Fact is most of the people here are... I am from Paintsville, and there are no big companies to work for.. We do have the school systems, the Hospital, and Wal-Mart but no major companies that bring large financial gain to our area... Even the people that work in the 3 Jobs that are listed here are still making very low wages... My Mother worked at The School System in Paintsville and her yearly wages were just over $12 k...

 

I myself got was lucky and had a grandpa that was in charge of a large coal company and could afford to send me to College where I received a Business Degree and have started a successful small business.. I am not a Millionaire but as a 22 year old... From Eastern Kentucky...... I'm very lucky to own my own business, Home, and two vehicles with no mortage.... Not bragging but there are not many in this area that will ever be able to say that...

 

There are Rich people in East Ky... Coal Mine Owners, Doctors, Lawyers... and other professionals......

 

Then there is the other 95% that make it check to check and struggle to pay their bills..

 

This is not just a E. Ky problem this is a world wide problem...

 

No Disrespect Intended....

^ The people that Firebird is referring to do exist and in large numbers. Everyone who lives in or frequents this area can tell the same story or worse. For politicians who would exploit this lifestyle for political gain it's a target rich enviroment, but for the hard working people of the area who are actually striving to make a better life for themselves and their children, it's a nightmare. While calling attention to these conditions brings in even more handouts and programs plus votes for the politician, it also perpetuates the stereotype which in turn is a deterent to attracting business into the area.

 

So what can a political candidate such as Edwards really do to help the region? Legislation. It's time to right the wrongs that caused the region to be so poor in the beginning. It's time to pass a law declaring all mineral rights contracts signed prior to, say, 1960 to be null and void. A great number of these deeds are over a century old, more than adequate time for the out of state companies that own them to have acted to remove the coal, gas, or oil is they so desired and get a handsome return on their two dollar per acre investment. Very many of the poor we've been discussing are actually living in a shack or a delapidated trailer on huge tracts of land. This land, minus the mineral rights, presents an extremely low tax base as it is far too steep and rocky for any purpose other than timber and is often valued at less than $100 per acre. By returning the rights to the land owner, we create a new class of citizenry with a large amount of disposable income. By also allowing all coal severence tax to be returned to the county of origin, we provide a means for local goverments to build roads to alleviate the isolation of these areas. To build and fund better schools. To build water and sewage plants, and too ween ourselves from dependence on other areas such as what the KERA act has provided. My vision is too then see this money reinvested into outlet malls and other ventures designed to attract tourists into the area where they will discover the natural beauty of the region. I see the formerly worthless mountainsides dotted with chalets and hunting lodges to cater to the hunters and wildlife viewers who will come to the area to experience our elk and bears. I see a huge tax base supported by these ventures, allowing even more investment and even more dollars.

 

Finally, I see our well educated young people who have been serving the cities of Detroit, Cincinnati, Fort Wayne and the larger Kentucky cities returning home to their roots and the mountains they love, reversing the exodus of our best and brightest that has gone on for generations, thus providing the area with even more ideas and visions. For, if one looks at the lists of graduating seniors from UK, EKU, Morehead, Cumberland, Union, Pikeville and others and note how many have Eastern Kentucky addresses, one would see that we are not the unmotivated, uneducated people that our reputation has portrayed us to be. We have simply been educating and training our young people for service to other regions, leaving only a fortunate few who have been able to land jobs with the local school systems or the few large companies in the area to go along with those that actually fit the stereotypes.

 

 

The declaring contracts null and void argument is interesting. In effect, you call for a "right of reversion," legislatively enacted, to take the property right from the coal companies and give it back to the landowners.

 

I have questions:

 

1. Do we pay the coal companies for this? Or just take it from them? Isn't this 'reverse eminent domain' illegal after Kentucky amended its constitution to prevent the type of private takings we condemned in the Kelo case?

2. Once the mineral right is restored and the value increases to the landowner, the value to the landowner will be sold, right? Who will it be sold to? The coal companies? The landowner is not going to develop the mineral right are they?

3. Where will the landowners go once they have sold their land?

4. How does this assist with local investment and development?

 

As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "your destiny lies down a different path" than coal. Edwards' proposal to create 1 million new temp jobs at minimum wage offers no particulars as to what temp jobs he proposes to place these people in. As we have said many times before in the minimum wage threads, the minimum wage does not support a family. It does not get people off of welfare. I like Edwards, but his economic ideas are nothing more than window dressing. EKY needs more substance.

As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "your destiny lies down a different path" than coal. Edwards' proposal to create 1 million new temp jobs at minimum wage offers no particulars as to what temp jobs he proposes to place these people in. As we have said many times before in the minimum wage threads, the minimum wage does not support a family. It does not get people off of welfare. I like Edwards, but his economic ideas are nothing more than window dressing. EKY needs more substance.

 

The rest of your reply I'll leave to those who know more about those things than I.

 

But, I do have a couple of questions about the last part of your post.

 

If we could raise the minimum wage to a living wage & revise the current welfare system to include a limit on the amount of aid a person could draw (similar to the limits on unemployment, for example), could it not make a huge impact on the attractiveness of being dependent on welfare as a way of "earning"?

 

Right now, there's no "real" incentive to get off welfare. Wages for many on welfare would be too little to live on. Granted many don't take advantage of some of the programs within the system to get an education and then find a job that would pay more than minimum wage. But what if they were forced to, or lose their benefits?

The rest of your reply I'll leave to those who know more about those things than I.

 

But, I do have a couple of questions about the last part of your post.

 

If we could raise the minimum wage to a living wage & revise the current welfare system to include a limit on the amount of aid a person could draw (similar to the limits on unemployment, for example), could it not make a huge impact on the attractiveness of being dependent on welfare as a way of "earning"?

 

Right now, there's no "real" incentive to get off welfare. Wages for many on welfare would be too little to live on. Granted many don't take advantage of some of the programs within the system to get an education and then find a job that would pay more than minimum wage. But what if they were forced to, or lose their benefits?

 

I totally agree with you. I have mentioned this before in a thread a while back. Welfare was created to help people who had jobs and still struggling to make it not a way of life or income which it has become.

I also think that to get benefits you should have to be drug tested for any non-prescription medicine. I have known people that have traded food stamps or using their welfare check to buy drugs.

 

 

Also someone had mentioned that Pike County had more Millionaires per capita than anyone in the USA. I know that was the case in the late 70's and early 80's when coal was booming and alot of people got rich.

But I really doubt that now with Silicon Valley or anywhere there is a tech job in the Seattle area.

Finally. Thanks, Hearsay, these are the type of legal issues I wanted to discuss. You've asked some very valid questions in your post and to do it justice I'm going to need to break it down into individual issues. Some of your questions I feel I have good answers to but some are going to require theory on my part.

 

Let's start with question #4. (local investment and development). I touched on this one in my earlier post. I propose reinvesting the increased wealth in tourism as a starting point. With the wealth of natural beauty and wildlife, some of which can not be seen elsewhere east of the Mississippi, I envision an area modeled after the Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge area complete with outlet malls, chalets, hunting lodges, hotels/motels, and all the satellite industries that will follow. This will lead to an enormous jump in property values and taxes collected for local governments. This leads to better schools, better infrastucture, and a generally more attractive atmosphere for future businesses. Granted, this will require some sort of governmental incouragement to see that private funds are channeled in this direction.

 

#3, where do the landowners go? Nowhere. Mining coal or drilling for gas or oil does not usually require relocation. The landowner is paid on a per ton of coal or per cubic foot of gas, or barrel of oil basis as opposed to selling off the rights on a lump sum basis.

 

Your other two question are much more of a grey area and I'll deal with them shortly.

The rest of your reply I'll leave to those who know more about those things than I.

 

But, I do have a couple of questions about the last part of your post.

 

If we could raise the minimum wage to a living wage & revise the current welfare system to include a limit on the amount of aid a person could draw (similar to the limits on unemployment, for example), could it not make a huge impact on the attractiveness of being dependent on welfare as a way of "earning"?

 

Right now, there's no "real" incentive to get off welfare. Wages for many on welfare would be too little to live on. Granted many don't take advantage of some of the programs within the system to get an education and then find a job that would pay more than minimum wage. But what if they were forced to, or lose their benefits?

 

Again, most of these programs are already in place in one form or another. For these to work, there must be a job to graduate to.

Again, most of these programs are already in place in one form or another. For these to work, there must be a job to graduate to.

 

In order to end dependence welfare, there has to be a stopping point to it. The way it's set up now, it's, in effect, an unlimited resource. I know it's callous, but people have to be given a firm ultimatum (so to speak) in order for some to get up off the rolls. Yes, there does need to be a job to graduate to. But, I think that there has to be some expectation that a person finding a job is a priority....that jobs don't find people, people find jobs.

 

Back in the early 50's, my dad left his home to come to Louisville to work. That's where the jobs were. My mom rode a Greyhound to and from work in Louisville from West Point. Back in the day, you did what you had to do to find work.

 

The problem today is that some people are "picky" about what they do. The ones who aren't are working, at least in my community. People say, "I'd rather draw welfare than work at McDonalds". Or, "That job doesn't pay enough." Or, "I'm better than that." These are real comments I've heard while eavesdropping on the bus on my way home to work some days.

 

IMO, people need a real threat of losing their home, or going hungry to create an impetus. As long as many can find a reason to avoid it, they will.

 

I'm not saying this is all people, maybe not even most. But it sure as heck seems like a lot of them.

The rest of your reply I'll leave to those who know more about those things than I.

 

But, I do have a couple of questions about the last part of your post.

 

If we could raise the minimum wage to a living wage & revise the current welfare system to include a limit on the amount of aid a person could draw (similar to the limits on unemployment, for example), could it not make a huge impact on the attractiveness of being dependent on welfare as a way of "earning"?

 

Right now, there's no "real" incentive to get off welfare. Wages for many on welfare would be too little to live on. Granted many don't take advantage of some of the programs within the system to get an education and then find a job that would pay more than minimum wage. But what if they were forced to, or lose their benefits?

 

Of course, I could ask the same question in the alternate, which is, what if they were forced to get a job because I removed their benefits?

 

The problem with your approach, politically, is that for the Democratic Party, no amount of wage is never enough. 'Living wage' has no upward ceiling for Democrats. We just passed legislation (landmark because it was bi-partisan for the most part) raising the minimum wage over $2.00 per hour, and already Democrats like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and George Miller, are standing on stage and demanding that it be raised again to over $9 and $10 per hour. ITS NEVER ENOUGH. This type of political mentality is why Europe is in the mess that it is in. All your approach does is substitute wage welfare for benefit welfare. It does not change the system, which is what is needed.

Finally. Thanks, Hearsay, these are the type of legal issues I wanted to discuss. You've asked some very valid questions in your post and to do it justice I'm going to need to break it down into individual issues. Some of your questions I feel I have good answers to but some are going to require theory on my part.

 

Let's start with question #4. (local investment and development). I touched on this one in my earlier post. I propose reinvesting the increased wealth in tourism as a starting point. With the wealth of natural beauty and wildlife, some of which can not be seen elsewhere east of the Mississippi, I envision an area modeled after the Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge area complete with outlet malls, chalets, hunting lodges, hotels/motels, and all the satellite industries that will follow. This will lead to an enormous jump in property values and taxes collected for local governments. This leads to better schools, better infrastucture, and a generally more attractive atmosphere for future businesses. Granted, this will require some sort of governmental incouragement to see that private funds are channeled in this direction.

 

#3, where do the landowners go? Nowhere. Mining coal or drilling for gas or oil does not usually require relocation. The landowner is paid on a per ton of coal or per cubic foot of gas, or barrel of oil basis as opposed to selling off the rights on a lump sum basis.

 

Your other two question are much more of a grey area and I'll deal with them shortly.

 

You're thinking big, which is good. But your premise is "reinvesting the increased wealth." Whose increased wealth? To have increased wealth, I am assuming that you are talking about giving the mineral rights back to the landowner (from your earlier post). Giving the rights back only makes the real estate more valuable to them. It does not create any increased cash flow (necessary to construct chalets, etc.) unless the landowner SELLS the land to the only people interested in buying land with mineral rights, the coal companies. But the coal companies are not going to develop the mineral rights, or they would already have done so with the rights they currently have.

 

Maybe you are talking about increasing the land value to the landowner so they can then borrow upon the real estate to develop the chalets, etc.? I'm just not sure that I understand. Wealth on paper and cash flow are totally different concepts.

Of course, I could ask the same question in the alternate, which is, what if they were forced to get a job because I removed their benefits?

 

The problem with your approach, politically, is that for the Democratic Party, no amount of wage is never enough. 'Living wage' has no upward ceiling for Democrats. We just passed legislation (landmark because it was bi-partisan for the most part) raising the minimum wage over $2.00 per hour, and already Democrats like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and George Miller, are standing on stage and demanding that it be raised again to over $9 and $10 per hour. ITS NEVER ENOUGH. This type of political mentality is why Europe is in the mess that it is in. All your approach does is substitute wage welfare for benefit welfare. It does not change the system, which is what is needed.

 

But, we agree that something needs to be done, right?

 

And that we cannot go on with the "status quo", because the abuse is too pervalant, and the system doesn't encourage or even facilitate, self-sustainment. A real, workable solution is a priority, IMO. It has to be bi-partisan, and frankly, I think needs to be hammered out by people with nothing to gain politically. Maybe a real start would be to quas-privatize the aid system. Get the politicians out of it, and get people who actually know what they're dealing with and who can effect real, immediate change. Let the program be funded partially by grants from tax dollars, for instance. Maybe fold current charitable organizations into some sort of non-profit umbrella where their tax status doesn't change, but they can work together in their communities.

 

I do think, though, that not doing anything because "it won't work" is wrong. Somewhere along the line, someone has to take action. We're into generations of inaction that is just causing the problem to be harder and harder to resolve.

But, we agree that something needs to be done, right?

 

And that we cannot go on with the "status quo", because the abuse is too pervalant, and the system doesn't encourage or even facilitate, self-sustainment. A real, workable solution is a priority, IMO. It has to be bi-partisan, and frankly, I think needs to be hammered out by people with nothing to gain politically. Maybe a real start would be to quas-privatize the aid system. Get the politicians out of it, and get people who actually know what they're dealing with and who can effect real, immediate change. Let the program be funded partially by grants from tax dollars, for instance. Maybe fold current charitable organizations into some sort of non-profit umbrella where their tax status doesn't change, but they can work together in their communities.

 

I do think, though, that not doing anything because "it won't work" is wrong. Somewhere along the line, someone has to take action. We're into generations of inaction that is just causing the problem to be harder and harder to resolve.

 

Noone is happy with the present welfare system. Noone has the answers on what to do about it. The 'efforts' of both political parties have failed. I could agree to try to privatize. I would not make it a non-profit, though. Let someone try and make some money. The private sector is smarter.