<p>Pizzagirl–^^you nailed that one !!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have a point, but it depends on the rural scenery IMO… rural with stone walls, woods, rolling hills(maybe mountains and the ocean) is quite charming…rural with endless fields of corn…not so much…</p>
<p>Pizzagirl #60…BINGO</p>
<p>I think rural is nice but I’d prefer rural within an hour of a big city instead of rural within five hours of a big city.</p>
<p>Yes, Pizzagirl! (re #60). </p>
<p>However, us hicks in the Midwest sure have fun when y’all folks from the “civilized” parts of the country ride in on your high horses for a visit. </p>
<p>Although I will say there’s not much that’s “pastoral” about western NE (which we ALL know is the postal abbreviation for Nebraska). It’s very rugged.</p>
<p>“rural is charming and pastoral when it’s in New England, and hick when it’s in the midwest, plains states or south”</p>
<p>I’m a Midwesterner, and I think there’s some truth to this, at least when it comes to the pastoral charm part. Iowa and Illinois rank 50th and 49th among the states for the percentage of our land that’s in a natural state. It was too easy to plow our prairie under and plant corn. A monoculture field of corn is no closer to nature than a city street. A lot more of New England is forest, hill, meadow – something other than monoculture. That’s where I find the charm. That and the old towns with classic architecture and multicentury history, which doesn’t exist in the Midwest/Plains.</p>
<p>The parts of the South that share those attributes with New England (like Eastern Virginia) get all the charm credit they deserve.</p>
<p>Yes, well, people do have to eat.</p>
<p>We need electrical power, too, but we don’t mention proximity to coal plants as a selling point for a region. You don’t have to be on some kind of high horse to find that ugly necessaries lack charm.</p>
<p>As a transplanted Westerner, I find plenty of history and beauty in the upper Midwest. Many areas were being settled and built up 150 years ago and the architecture is still around to enjoy, is appreciated and preserved. </p>
<p>The Midwest changes greatly depending on where you look. I 80 through Iowa is corn, flat, devoid of charm. Angle north toward the Mississippi from Iowa City, bucolic beauty returns as the land gains contour. Enter Wisconsin, the ridges are impressive for many miles. </p>
<p>As an Arizonan, yes, I’d rather look at jagged peaks and canyons. But the green, softer beauty here has many charms. No reason for geographic arrogance. </p>
<p>Pizza girl, very astute!</p>
<p>Regarding the necessity of all that corn-most is not destined for human food, and necessity has been a topic of debate for decades. Those who believe in sustainable growth certainly aren’t impressed.</p>
<p>great lakes mom–I agree-travel down the Mississippi in Iowa and Missouri is just lovely. Western Iowa/Missouri is also lovely.</p>
<p>"Regarding the necessity of all that corn-most is not destined for human food, and necessity has been a topic of debate for decades. Those who believe in sustainable growth certainly aren’t impressed. "</p>
<p>True, a lot of it traditionally went for feed for livestock, but that has changed, too, these days a lot of livestock is fed by this gruesome mess of ground up bones of other dead cattle and such (it is part of the reason mad cow disease can spread), though a significant portion of the crop does go to feed cattle.</p>
<p>Most of it now goes into being processed, whether it is high fructose corn syrup (subsidized by the government quite heavily, hence HFC being cheap) and the gigantic boondoggle that is ethanol production, corn kind of became the gold rush once they started heavily promoting Ethanol again and gave it huge tax subsidies.The same people growing the corn for this use, which is one of the reasons corn prices have gone through the roof, or those processing it, will tell you they get nothing from the government, whereas if it weren’t for government subsidies, ethanol and HFC would be economically unattractive.</p>
<p>zoosermom, you don’t want to hear this, but I think the city school problem isn’t helped by the fact that the NYC property tax rate is half of what most of the suburbs pay. Can’t comment on Omaha, my father-in-law was from there, and there’s some talk about having a family reunion in the area this summer. We’ll see if it actually happens. Unfortunately Nebraska was one of the few states I didn’t get to on my big trek around the country in 1978-79. I did love Kansas City though!</p>
<p>One little food for thought kind of thing, I don’t know what the numbers mean per se, but take a look at the relative numbers, and how much the top 4 or 5 states outpace the rest…</p>
<p>[Best</a> Educated Index statistics - States Compared - StateMaster](<a href=“http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index]Best”>http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index)</p>
<p>Most of the top states are fairly high tax…there is also an interesting example here of what happens when tax cut mania happens. California at one time had one of the best public education systems in the country, after proposition 8 (? is that the right one) limiting property taxes, they took a nosedive, and it shows. Note too that most of the states at the bottom of the list are relatively low tax states. There are some low tax states, like NH, that do relatively well, and high tax ones that do not, but for the most part, educational achievement is directly tied to spending on education, those who spend the least on education generally get the worst results (the obverse, that spending a lot of money to fix problem areas, won’t work, key word there is those are areas with serious social problems, poverty and so forth)…but for example, the top achieving districts in this country are all high wealth, high tax areas.</p>
<p>
Not that I’m the greatest advocate for city life, but I spent the better part of a week in downtown Omaha a couple of years ago and it seemed very impressive to me. The Qwest center, new stadium (under construction when I was there), riverfront parks area, etc. were all very pleasant and there was a good bit of activity on the streets.</p>
<p>I live in ma. My town taxes went up 2k and my house was evaluated lower. My h cant wait to retire so he can move out of this state. I think Deva is honing his legacy so he can run. dont want to get political here) why are they chooding now when the federal is up, to do this. So there are more quiet rumblings because we are startin to figure out we have no choice.</p>
<p>Consolation, sorry my response came across as harsh. That wasn’t my intention. I just was pointing out that there have been changes in the many years since we all had been there.</p>
<p>Omaha is a very “sprawl-y” city. Lots of land available. In terms of square acres, it is one of the largest cities, compared to its population, in the country. People there like large yards and space between houses. East coast cities can feel pretty claustrophobic in comparison. </p>
<p>Not better, not hicksville, just different.</p>
<p>“The Midwest changes greatly depending on where you look. I 80 through Iowa is corn, flat, devoid of charm. Angle north toward the Mississippi from Iowa City, bucolic beauty returns as the land gains contour.”</p>
<p>Agreed. New England does stand out for consistently attractive rural areas, though. Almost all of them fall between pretty and gorgeous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not true…</p>
<p>Not to me, PG. And I certainly hope you didn’t think I implied such a thing.</p>
<p>Patrick’s education initiatives are just political folly. He talks about his education initiatives, but they are all just new programs when existing education is still in dire straits. He needs to increase funding for local aid so school districts like mine can restore the cuts they made over the last decade. The last thing we need are new programs when there are still kids sitting on the radiators in some classes because we can’t afford enough sections. </p>
<p>I don’t mind paying higher taxes, but earmarking them to specific spending initiatives is ludicrous. Bring in the revenue, allocate appropriately. It’s really so simple, but politically boring.</p>