It has to do with the fact that it doesn't need to be a poor city to be a BAD city.
Worst Places to Live In Iowa (article)
- Thread starter TBT
- Start date
It has to do with the fact that it doesn't need to be a poor city to be a BAD city.
The fact that someone thinks there are eight places worse than my hometown is a real win for Clinton. I figured the cancer-inducing smell wafting throughout the town would guarantee it a top three finish.
I've been to the four corners of the state and everywhere in between. My list would be.
1. Keokuk
2. Clinton
3. Ft. Dodge
4-10. Fill in randomly with southern towns giving special preference to those whose name starts with an "O."
I've been to the four corners of the state and everywhere in between. My list would be.
1. Keokuk
2. Clinton
3. Ft. Dodge
4-10. Fill in randomly with southern towns giving special preference to those whose name starts with an "O."
It is noteworthy that the article counts low population density as a negative. So basically, if you like big lawns and wide-open spaces, this list is going to be way off for you.
Give me a postage-stamp lawn and houses so close together that I can look into my neighbor's bedroom from mine any day!
My guess is the reason for this is population density. In southern Iowa, most counties tend to have one larger town of around 8-10K. In northern Iowa, you have 3-4 towns in the 1-2K range in most counties. So, each tiny little town in northern Iowa has to have more things and tends to be a bit nicer because the more affluent people in the county still live in the tiny towns. In southern Iowa those 1-5K towns are the complete backwaters that time forgot. It's like Mason City, a town the size of Burlington or Ottumwa with stores more comparable to a town the size of Cedar Rapids. North of Hwy 30 and west of I-35 there is just not much out there so a town of any decent size concentrates a lot more services and wealth.
But like someone else said, even towns like Keokuk are much better than towns even as far south as Kansas.
I'm going to guess they sit around and drink Busch Light in a machine shed like the rest of rural Iowa.
This, but ... and it is a big but (that is, the effects are probably large)... the effect here is greatly exacerbated by government farm subsidies.
This is one reason I don't cotton to (haha) northerners looking down their long pretentious noses at other parts of Iowa.
Corn has long been subsidized -- since the days of the Great Depression and Henry A. Wallace, at least. Government programs have changed over time, but those that increased the price of corn above what it would otherwise be, encouraged the drainage of much of northern Iowa, for one thing, as well as brought other otherwise marginal corn ground into production elsewhere, such as in southern Iowa. The effect of such programs in southern Iowa would have been greater than in other states, than Missouri or Nebraska, for example, where the soil isn't as productive or the land is dryer -- not as productive as southern Iowa for raising corn. Much of this land in southern Iowa would have been used as pasture or hay ground before, or raising cattle, which is the highest risk/highest reward generally among Iowa's major agricultural commodities (a much longer production period than for raising pigs, for example). That is, it has the greatest profit potential. As southern Iowa is generally some of the best land for raising cattle anywhere (good rainfall and productive soil, again relative to other states), it is also well suited to raising purebred cattle (which a good farmer/rancher will want to keep a closer care/watch). As purebred production is even further up the production chain -- it is even higher risk/higher reward.
From the beginning, government programs made corn production more profitable and livestock production less so, by raising the price of corn to corn producers -- and the cost of corn to livestock producers -- encouraging more and more otherwise Iowa pasture- or wood-land to be brought into crop production. Farm programs made raising crops more profitable relative to raising livestock, especially for cattle. Pigs and chickens can be raised in confinement and don't take as much land.
Much of this land that government programs encouraged be brought into production likely today is in the Conservation Reserve Program. Much of it is in southern Iowa.
Much of this land would never have been brought into crop production but for the government subsidies. Much of it would have instead remained as pasture or idled voluntarily without any involvement by the government.
Absent the government price supports and various other programs, much of southern Iowa instead would likely have remained pasture and used for cow herds. As recently as the 1970s, Iowa was the number 1 state in beef production. Today, if more were instead used today for cow-calf production instead of lying farrow as part of the Conservation Reserve (or otherwise), the money from local cow-calf producers would feed back more into the local community and into supporting local small businesses (than the CRP rental payments to landowners).
The farm programs championed by many or most Iowans don't do a lot for local business development in southern Iowa, and IMO, have instead done a great deal of damage.
And again, government programs similarly encouraged the drainage of northern Iowa. All of this is uncertain, but I am less certain about how much less of northern Iowa would have been drained and brought into production but for government crop support -- relative to what I believe the negative impact has been on local agricultural production in southern Iowa.
No doubt government programs beginning in the 1930s have encouraged corn production on such wetlands, but perhaps much of northern Iowa was drained prior to that.
Last edited:
AL Franken is very highly regarded by his state, colleagues and anyone with any real sense of what is going on. He works harder for his consttiutatians and spends almost no time giving TV interviews.
Just because a subsidy exists doesn't mean you need to change your livelihood because of it. If land was better suited for ranching than owners should have continued ranching.
The substance of my post is pretty basic economics as covered, say, in agricultural economics, agricultural policy courses at Iowa State.
Granted, besides economics, one also needs to understand something of the history of U.S. agricultural policy over the years, and some basic facts about Iowa agriculture, geology, and topography and such to get the gist of it.
Say what you will about Centerville, but Rathbun is a fun lake and there are some really good restaurants in town. George and Nicks is a great pizza place and the recently opened Garage has some really, really good food. Plus it is really cool on the inside with a classic car garage theme.
It ain't awful. Some nice scenery along the river, plus the Amish near by give some touristy oppos.
NW IA is beautiful. Rolling hills. High $ Property. Some of the most productive land in the entire world. You are nuts man. Nuts.
Grew up and now live back down here this is mostly true. But you won't find better cattle county in IA than South Central/Western Iowa. Besides NW IA, but ya..
I grew up in NW IA and while the towns are typically nicer than those in other regions, scenically it is pretty bland, especially now that every inch is tilled.
I think The lack of tillable land in Southern Iowa is a big factor. They have a lot of CRP down there, which has money spent on it in the first year of establishment, a mid-contract management year, and that is it. If that land were tillable the farmer would be paying the seed guy, fertilizer guy, chemical, crop insurance, trucker, banker, etc money every singles year that would circulate in the economy. With CRP that money circulation is gone. Northeast Iowa has some rougher ground but seems to have more livestock than Southern Iowa. The livestock guys spend a lot of money too on equipment, feed, buildings, supplies, etc that are all good for the local economy.
