It's quite a number of people, not just a few wealthy people. The few wealthy investors are buying up huge tracts of land, but the people who actually move here are large in number as well as income. Again, the average income in the area for a family of 4 is around 55k. It doesn't take much money to upset that system. And it would be different if the folks moving here actually spent money in the local economy, or integrated into the community at all. They do neither of those things.

Also -

>What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities?

Literally none. There are no housing policies regarding number or type of dwellings. There is no zoning, zoning restrictions, or any other type of restriction. It's very rural. Those things don't exist. There are no home inspections, there is no building code you must follow to get a mortgage approved or anything like that. In essence - if you can build it, you can live in it or rent it to someone.

I have no idea why people keep coming back to local and state policies. They don't exist.

It sounds like it's more than just a few wealthy people.

"What local and state policies might be inhibiting this and harming these communities?"

Do you have any examples? It sounds to me like the policies have made it a nice place to live, enticing people from other places to move there, and that influx is causing the shortage. Should they impose some sort of moving tax or other policy to remove that demand?

In my experience, policy isn't the issue in rural areas. The people who live there and own the land don't want to sell the land to be developed on.