What are the pros and cons of these states?

[Southern_Gent]

I'm considering moving within the next few years, peferable before five years has passed. I'm looking at the possibility of starting a homestead in either Missouri, Kentucky or West Virginia. Most likely on nothing less than 40 acres, possibly more, as I have agricultural interests.

The question is whether or not the above mentioned states would meet some of my criteria. I'm interested in good soil for growing crops, prossibly even a small orchard of various fruit trees. Cool in the summer, as I'm rather tired of these sultry summers in the South, yet somewhat mild winters. A place where I can build my fortress and remain in seclusion, without pesky neighbors or government entities bothering me.

Anyone know how these states stack up? What about the political climate of such places?

[wax]

Rural Missouri would be the place I would narrow my search to if I were you.

Webster County, MO currently has a lax zoning and building code administration process.
If I were moving there I would invest in more than ten acres and declare myself zoned as agricultural to avoid building permits.
Pay the extra costs of inspection to insure no future "wetlands" problem.

I would jump through the hoops concerning both well and septic (four bedroom even if I didn't think I needed it) inspection in order to insure that the State would never raise a concern.

Then I would build whatever, however, I wanted.

But... I would attend every county meeting in some form and possibly get myself on boards.

Since the early 90's zoning and permit processes in this country have gotten out of control.
Many rural areas have lax enforcement but all States have ordinances in place to be utilized when "needed".
Arizona and New Mexico show that the biggest mistake one can make is to "take advantage" of non-enforcement and then fail to follow up by monitoring to insure things do not become more strict.

Good luck in your search.

[Southern_Gent]

Thanks, Wax. Good information as usual.

[wax]

Here are a few other places to investigate:

Monroe county, Ohio currently has refused to adopt State code inspection due to cost (and lack of need).
Land is very good (it is Ohio after all) and local resources are in place concerning living and building needs.
I would avoid rezoning however since subdivision is not encouraged by locals (developers are unwelcome).

Wilkinsin County, GA has cheap land... and very few services to go along with it. It is warmer than Kentucky but very rural concerning local stores and suppliers.
Local government is still run on the "good ol' boy" mentality which has both good and bad componants.
An associate of mine recently purchased 80 acres there and found that joining local fraternities (Eagles, Elks, Moose, etc) was the fastest way to get things done. *

Pennington County, SD (but not west of SD Highway 79) has cheap land and open code enforcement. In fact all of South Dakota is like this: Meade County/ 160 acres or more, Custer County, Fall River County).

The key to South Dakota appears to be a firm understanding of what is expected from you.
Land is cheap but the system is designed in such a way that it should either be used seasonally as hunting land, meaning it is not developed at all, or one is expected to ranch.

The development thing has become an issue recently in some places because land is so very cheap.
Developers who come in and buy up thousands of acres want to turn around right away and sub-divide... or worse!
Ranchers have interests just like everyone else in the world and developers tend to fence off water that has been used for an entire lifetime without hesitation.
In South Dakota one gets a great deal of mileage from stopping in on the neighbor and talking to him/her.
It might mean that a small portion of your property isn't fenced and someone elses cattle get a drink once in a while, but the goodwill goes a long way.

Agriculture in South Dakota is... well... it can be done by a man who is not afraid of hard work and willing to build the land. Sand and clay might not sound good at first but you would be surprised what is actually there for a good steward. * * *

Elko Nevada is great, but... it has suffered from the same developer problems as other places in America recently. It is high country where winter still exists, in my opinion one of the "prettiest" wild places left.
You will find extremely cheap land with little government oversight.
Be aware of course that this lack of oversight also means people are getting screwed every day and often by scam artists concerning land there.

What I find so interesting is how many people will walk right into a wall without hesitation concerning the purchase of land there.

The problem of course is simple: One can buy thousands of acres so cheaply that a "land-rush" mentality is established.
Someone eventually will divide those acres and sell so cheaply that some others can not resist.
Two thing to consider in the Elko area:
Water rights and access.
They are important of course everywhere but ranches are so big in this particular area that some who have purchased find themselves enclosed on all sides for miles!
It is hard for most Americans to pass up something like 1 acre for $500.00 down and $98.00 per month.
You of course know better but it is amazing how many do not.

I have actually purchased some of these lots with the full understanding of why the sellers are so motivated.
But I can afford to wait out the current problems on the properties in question and they make nice little places to camp.

Don't buy anything in this area without full inspection and clear access (if you can't see it from gravel then access is not clear).

[wax]

I wanted to return and address South Dakota further for other readers so that my comments might be fully understood:

The most common problem in South Dakota (and the Elko area... well everywhere) is predatory developers who feed on finance.

As I said land is "cheap" but only if you can write a check today to buy it.
That is where the predation takes place.
And it can get very bad indeed.

Here is one example of the problem, a quick glance at Ebay brings up the following.
80.24 Acres currently @ a $195.00 bid with a "Buy it now" bid of $500.00

Of course no reader here is inherently stupid, this is not a purchase price but a down payment on the 80 or so acres in question.
The stated price for that 80 acres is set at $49,500.00 and everyone reading this would agree with me that this is extremely cheap!
$618.00 per acre is cheap, no matter how one looks at it.

But again... the readers here are "better than average" and so they know there is a catck somewhere in this little bargain.

Let's say you put down only $195.00 for a down payment.
You then only pay $492.00 per month until the property is yours free and clear!
Hey... most people are paying over $1,200.00 per month in a simple house payment right?

Yes... and no...
If you take this deal you will pay $91,707.00 for the property before it is officially yours.
Still not bad for 80 acres right?
And it gets better (or much worse depending upon how you look at it) because the seller is willing to give you 360 months to pay for this parcel and reduce your payments to only $397.00 per month!
That is only one half the "fools" out there are paying for rent right?
Right....

If you do this you will be paying $142,920.00 for 80 acres.
Bad?
Not really... not yet.
80 acres man, what is that worth?
Besides maybe you can pay it off early with tax returns (and hopefully someone will die and give you inheritance).
But of course predators are predators.
The law is clear that you can buy off a contract for deed whenever you want but you will pay substancially more than the fifty thousand dollar list price, in fact no matter what you do, once you make that "down payment" you will be lucky if you wind up paying double the list price.
And here is the kicker of course: the "list" price is a sham anyway.

You could walk into an office right now with $50,000.00 cash and say, "I want that 80 acres... no down payment, cash in hand!" but you won't walk away with title.
I know what you are thinking, "Of course I will, it is advertised and I have the money in hand."
The fact is that as far as the advertiser is concerned the actual price is twice that amount at least.

But let's say you did...
Don't get me wrong, you can buy 80 acres in the same area for less than 50 grand.
So let's say you do.

You take care of one very big problem:
While the following is actual wording from one example it is given as a "typical" example of predatory sales processes.

"TRANSFER OF TITLE-

In South Dakota, it is legal and common for title to be transferred by means of Sales Contract whereby the recorded title is held until payment in full, at which time a Deed is issued in the buyer's name. The seller currently has a policy of title insurance by Stewart Title Guaranty Company."

So what does that mean?
Well it means until all payments are met you don't own anything at all... well you own an option to pay whatever the seller requires in order to transfer title.

But again let's say you bought it outright, deed in hand.
You own it, you bought it, it is yours right?

Yes... and no.

"ZONING- The property is zoned "agricultural" which allows one residence per 40-acres. You can build on the land!"

This is absolutely true... in a way. You own more than 40 acres so you can build one residence to be sure.
Because it is zoned agricultural?
The main problem with zoning laws is that the writters themselves are often confused by what the laws mean.
So you have 80 acres zoned agricultural.
Do you actually make more than 60% of your income from the agriculture produced on those 80 acres?
Hmm... have you violated the "intent" of agricultural zoning ordinances?

As I pointed out above, enforcement can be very lax in any number of places.
If you have 80 acres in South Dakota you can do just about anything on it without official interference.
But that is where the concept of being a good neighbor comes in concerning South Dakota.

Believe it or not the ranchers who were raised in South Dakota are not "hicks"!
They are good men and women with good intent but they kill predators every day!
They are just like the average reader of this forum, smart, thoughtful, and a bit set in their ways.
There are things they will stand for and things they will not.

And that is where the real issues come into play, daily life with those around us.

"MINERAL RIGHTS- A Previous rancher reserved an undivided 50% interest in all mineral rights, gravel, and fossil rights that he might have owned, thus an undivided 50% interest in any of those rights previous rancher might have owned will be tranferred to a new buyer."

Did you catch the phrase?
"Might have owned"
You buy this property and you might be able to use 50% of it but then again you might not.
That rock might be half yours... but then again it might not!

Nearly all western States have a mineral rights problem.
Fight for it.
Sign your name right underneath the full mineral rights clause.
It almost seems silly but it is not.
The rancher next to you "might" have purchased mineral rights to your land.
His cattle "might" need access to the salt (a mineral) found on your wetlands.
You "might" find oil.
It "might" be half yours.

Mineral rights are usually overlooked concerning land ownership in the west.
Yet they are the easiest to exploit.

" WATER AND UTILITIES- This is raw, unimproved land that is not serviced by any utilities (power, telephone, water lines, sewage, etc.) Any cost for utilities would be at the buyer's sole expense and seller has absolutely no estimates as to any of these services. While the buyer has the right to drill a well for domestic water the success of finding water is not guarenteed. However, cisterns have been successfully utilized in the past."

Hmm... well here is where the five hundred dollars for a complete land assessment comes into play.
It is a good chunk of money but it is always worth it.
Yes power is less than one mile away... but the company has already denied access because of shale deposits (or whatever).
Oh they will do it... for $50,000.00.

I assume that at least some readers would tell the power company to go to... well... they would think outside the box.
But the fact is you must have a complete land assessment.
Will a well cost you $40.00 or $9,000.00?
More importantly can a well be done?
Was a well found next door at 40 feet and has it held up to nearly one hundred years of use or were ten tries made and a usable well never established?
Pay the five hundred bucks and get a local assessor.
Spend at least a few moments standing in the same room and let him/her get a feel for you.
We have become impersonal today, but you can't afford to be here.

"ACCESS- South dakota law provides access to properties along section lines. In addition,access easements to every parcel are being officially recorded in Butte County. However, an actual physical road might not exist at this time ( but an owner has the right to blade a road at his/her own expense) ."

This is absolute truth. But re-read what is being said.
South Dakota is clear... just like the Elko, Nevada area is clear. A landowner will have access to property.
It is an absolute.
But the problem occurs when predatory salesmen start talking about "section lines".
You can always walk to your property (I own at least three now near Elko I can and do walk to).
That... and that alone... is "access".

[wax]

I happen to have a great deal of experience when it comes to issues of access.

The issue concerning "section lines" seems like common sense but many don't consider it.
On any given piece of property anywhere in America the owner must allow... let's say ten feet on any given perimeter for any given purpose.
It is often refered to as "right of way" but the point is the same. There is a twenty foot path between any given property which must be left open for whatever reason.
Cities use this to insure that firetrucks can get to any given property etc.

I happen to own a property that exists less than one mile from a Nevada highway. My odometer consistantly reads 4.80 miles before I reach my property after leaving that highway.
Why you might ask?
Well because the access granted is along the space provided for that access; the property lines of the surrounding owners.
Now of course the funny thing occurs when we read things like "However, an actual physical road might not exist at this time (but an owner has the right to blade a road at his/her own expense)".
This is absolutely true... but an absolute lie!
Yes the law states this... and another law negates it!
You can't use that twenty (or so) odd feet to "blade" a road at will.
At best (and I have been forced to do this once) you can "make" the owners in question "allow" you to grade by paying whatever market rate is established for the land required.
Let's just say that you don't want to even consider such a thing!
I did it out of spite once... I will never do it again!
The problem of course is worth.

"AGRICULTURAL RIGHTS- The previous rancher retained agricultural rights in perpetuity but simply fencing off the parcel by a new owner can terminate that right."

Now this brings us back once again to the "good neighbor" concept.
There is no lie involved; you can "terminate" whatever right you wish by building a fence.
But sometimes common sense dictates thatliving by the law is better if it is the "law of the land".

Amazingly new landowners fail to stop by the people who live next to a new property and simply say hello and ask, "are there any issues for you?"
And the affront is always more than the issue!
Always... every time!
All of a sudden this "SOB" is shooting at you whener you go outside and why?
If you think it is because his cows always drank from your side of the river and now they can't because you fenced it off you are missing the point.
The cows are not important... Hell the water isn't important... and in a way neither is the fence.
You just changed the only life he has ever known without bothering to say, "hello"!

I have agreed and disagreed, I have bowed and remained firm; I have been gracious and... downright nasty!
But the fact is clear, you buy land next to a farmer or a rancher you can not go wrong by knocking on his door and shaking his hand... and you can not go right if you fail to do this!

I have one or two associates who would be considered "hippies" or the more common "Green". They are not bad people but they consistantly run into problems because they fail to understand what urban people need.
You ask a rancher or a farmer for advice and you will need to hurry in order to complete the work yourself!
You refuse to talk to him and you are screwed!

One of my associates got "bad vibes" when he stopped in on a neighbor and told him of his plans to build a house made of old tires and "recycled" (read garbage).
It didn't seem like the rancher in question even cared about the environment at all.
Yet when he was called in to face potential fines for zoning and building code violations one man showed up.
One man who happened to own 75% of the county and who happened to pay 75% of the bills.
"Give him a chance to show what he can do" is all it took, and I know for a fact that endorsement was made by a handshake and a smile.

[RangerRick]

Hands down, MO would be my choice for many reasons.

Rick

[wax]

"HUNTING RIGHTS- The previous rancher can hunt on the property (on a non-commercail basis) but a simple written notice from a new owner can terminate that right."

For some reason, in South Dakota, this one causes the most friction (or at least appears to in my associates there).
99.999999% of the time leaving hunting rights in place never become an issue, at most it means that a deer shot on your land who falls down on mine can be picked up by you.
Beyond that at most it might mean that the little grove of trees on your southern border might be hunted during season.

I'm not an avid hunter, but humans are predators and prey is prey.
I have actually faced more angry men with loaded firearms in South Dakota than any other place I have ever been (and considering Belize that is saying something)!

I'm not completely sure why it happens.
For the local it is a slap in the face.
It is almost like saying, "I don't trust you on my land with a gun" and sadly that is almost never the intent.

"No trespassing" and "no hunting" west of the Mississippi are signs of not fitting in. They are declarations of being better than those who know better.
Always... always... make our own signs.
"Unless I know you, and you know me, no hunting!"
It doesn't seem like much but it is.
It allows a freind to make a judgment call, and yet it uses the law to declare that a non-freind is forbidden such a thing.

[Southern_Gent]

Good information on South Dakota, Wax. Yet that is a little too far North for me. As I understand it, they have fierce winter weather up there.

Anyways, you mentioned something about South Dakota property that I've noticed with property for sale in West Virginia. That being that the mineral rights have been sold off. I don't much like the sound of that. Indeed, it sounds like someone may be able to come onto my property and start strip mining, whether I like it or not.

[Pitdog]

WV is the place for me. Been spending a lot of time there and am loving it more and more. Mountains, with altitudes up to 4700 ft, unpopulated, good farmland. No less than 40 for me either.
However unless I live in a more populated area, I will never make the money I need to make to afford the land.
The land is affordable for tracts of more than 40 acres is the best news. Have found WONDERFUL land and deals, and unless you live in the coal areas, strip mining is not to worry about. Any details like that would come out in with a title search and trip to the courthouse, and an attorney's advice is never a bad thing either. Despite hating them, they have a place once in a while.