Do you mean only privately run, like below, or something publicly funded?
Posted on 09/19/2014 5:39:15 AM PDT by thackney
Many a town in west Texas was created due to the oil booms and field housing built by the oil companies them selves. there allot of old geezers who were raised in oil camps.
So how do you propose they be educated?
There is sooooooooooo much oil in No. Dakota that the oil companies could themselves fund the housing and school needs. U.S. tax payers should not be expected to pay for their “wants” and needs.
ND has a rainy day type fund off a revenue of oil but can’t touch it until 2017..
There is quite a mix of tiny to small to midsize business in the ND oil industry, plus a multitude of small business selling support from stuff as basic as selling steel, grading and gravel, etc.
I don't think we really want oil company run schools. The companies need to pay a wage high enough to find the people they need. The taxes collected have been going up, both from direct oil severance tax, as well as the taxes paid by the additional people. The state needs to continue to use those funds for the infrastructure of the state.
Granted, it is difficult in a fast boom situation. The people coming in tend to expect some difficult conditions, such as living in a temporary man-camp, school classes in temporary trailers, overpriced propane, etc. It is the reason they get a high-wage to show up.
Are you joking? Are you actually saying that children cannot be, and never were, educated before socialist schools?
Just about the only good news I’ve heard in the last year or two is this: In North Carolina, there are now more children being homeschooled than are in government fornication-instruction centers.
I don’t think we really want oil company run schools.”..
I never suggested that the oil companies should run the schools. With the amount of earnings, they can pay for them without any ties to running them. The government makes the tax payers do that all the time.
They are here as well. The oil companies, andd all the associated additional business, are paying taxes.
That is what I have heard also.
There is a game being played, and it has little to do with the housing issues.
No you're not! Not only are you correct in your thinking, there's something else clearly in play here… GANG-GREEN hates "housing" of any kind, either public or private as much or more than they hate oil patch development and it's economic progress that call for real estate "improvements" such as housing, schools, urban sprawl.
They only tolerate "infill development," "mass transit," "bike trails" and "putting Americans back on their feet!"
ND wants public housing??
Which used to be paid for by special assessments levied against the builders, who would in turn pass those expenses on to renters, commercial clients, or individuals, rolled into the purchase price for the property.
When the only reason aside from being disabled to not have a job is that you don't want one, why fund the welfare state at all?
But the focus will likely be on 'low income' housing, subsidized at least in part--which will keep rents high for everyone else. Rent for a relatively plain-jane two bedroom apartment was running $3000/month, and even at $20/hour, it takes two wage-earners to make the bills.
Prices were beginning to come down as construction caught up with demand somewhat.
What I have noticed, is that a lot of oil impact funding does not go to oil producing counties, as was the case with federal funding for airport upgrades, some of which went to Grand Forks, Jamestown, and Devil's Lake, all well outside the oil producing region (Grand Forks is across the state from the oilfields, just across the river from Minnesota).
My concern is that this money won't end up where it is needed, in the counties producing oil. Williston, Minot, and Dickinson, are in those areas, and are involved in the Bakken in the order presented, with Williston in the center of things (as is Watford City), more so than Minot and Dickinson, which are closer to the edges of development, though there certainly has been impact in those towns as well.
I would rather see the elimination of the property tax than direct subsidies, but will have to see how this gets allocated.
If you are down to using a trash can for a toilet, you're not doing it right.
I saw an article recently about a ND trailer park building small buildings large enough to park the RV inside to gain some shelter and usable space. I suspect they get to charge a decent premium for that.
There will be infill wells in the future, and in many places, there will be another round of Three Forks drilling in a deeper part of the formation. The planning you see revolves around access road construction and infrastructure for getting the oil and gas to processing facilities. Your parallel lines of well pads should be roughly two or four miles apart, from north to south, as the normal lease size is two sections (1280 acres), or two square miles.
I do agree, however, that temporary housing for temporary workers makes sense. Overbuilding will cause property values to drop significantly in the future, and that becomes a disincentive toward buying a home versus renting.
Multiples of that, actually.
They are charging a premium for just about anything, so it falls to reason that would go high, too. My concern would be over carbon monoxide leaks and heating in that instance. Most RVs have propane heat.
Do you mean only privately run, like below, or something publicly funded?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.