Quote:
Originally Posted by crittersitter
We are seriously considering retiring in Oklahoma. We are very conservative people that want a place on a little acreage for us and our horses in a more remote area that is reasonably priced. Preferably an area with less tornado activity (is any area less prone than others). Thanks for any suggestions. This rat race we are currently in with "progressive" ideas forced down our throats is driving us nuts.
|
"Reasonably priced' depends on where you are currently living. The place I have would have had 1-200K added to it in NW WA, where I came from. I'm in a small town that is still sort of remote, in that I have over an acre of land and room for dogs and a horse, but I can still walk to the post office and most other stores. I have really nice neighbors, too. I think it's a fairly conservative town, but since I don't talk about politics or religion, I don't really know. Pretty much any place just outside the city limits of most smaller towns will be relatively private and remote, with the exceptions of OKC and Tulsa - they actually have suburbs, but not in the same way as Seattle, Chicago, St Louis, Atlanta, etc.
As for tornado activity, pick whatever towns are in any part of the state that looks like it might be interesting, do a web search, and pick the result from CityData. They give the frequency of tornadoes as well as the annual weather trends. As for myself, I'd rather take a chance on a tornado than have the opportunities to experience tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes. BTDT in Alaska, to say nothing of being so close to Yellowstone, which is apparently a supervolcano that has been rumbling and mumbling for the past few decades. A tornado is a lot easier to deal with, all things considered - and yes, I have seen first hand what tornadoes can do.