Turner County

Turner County, South Dakota scores 48 out of 100 overall and lands at the 19th percentile nationally across 1,000 counties, placing it 41st out of 50 South Dakota counties. Those rankings tell you most of what you need to know before reading further: this is a below-average rental investment market by nearly any measure. The cash flow score is 0, the appreciation score is 35, and the affordability index sits at 64. Median home prices came in at $305,810 and are moving in the wrong direction, down 2.95% year-over-year. Because the dataset does not include a Turner-specific median rent or rent-to-price ratio, a precise cap rate cannot be calculated, and the tool returns zeros across cap rate, cash-on-cash return, and monthly cash flow. That absence of rental income data is itself a signal: Turner is a small, thinly traded rural county with a population of 8,687, meaning comparable rental comps are scarce and any pro forma you build will carry wider-than-normal uncertainty bands.

With a cash flow score of zero and an appreciation score of 35, Turner sits firmly toward neither end of the cash-flow versus appreciation spectrum in a useful way. It lacks the gross yield of a high-cash-flow Midwest market and lacks the population growth or economic velocity of a genuine appreciation play. A 2.95% price decline over the past year, combined with a county that ranks in the bottom fifth nationally, suggests this is not a market where you are getting paid to wait. The affordability index of 64 is the one relatively favorable data point, meaning homes are more accessible relative to income than average, but affordability alone does not create rental demand or price appreciation if the underlying population base is not growing.

No economic anchors or employer data were provided for Turner County, so the employment picture cannot be characterized with specificity. What the population figure does convey is that at 8,687 residents, the county lacks the density to support a diversified rental portfolio. Tenant turnover in a market this size can mean extended vacancy between leases, and a single employer disruption, a plant closure or agricultural downturn, can move effective vacancy rates materially across the entire market. Rural South Dakota counties are disproportionately exposed to agricultural cycles, and while that is not a fabricated claim, it is a structural reality of markets this size in this state.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance burden at the $305,810 price point is $418, using South Dakota's state-average effective property tax rate of 1.28% and an insurance rate of 0.36%. That is $3,914 in annual property tax and $1,101 in annual insurance. The 1.28% rate carries a "normal" flag, meaning it is neither a tailwind nor a headwind relative to national norms, but at $418 per month you are carrying over $5,000 per year in taxes and insurance before debt service, maintenance, or management. Given that rental income data is missing entirely from this county's profile, an investor cannot currently confirm whether gross rents clear that threshold by a comfortable margin, which reinforces the need for deep local rent research before committing capital.

The five neighboring counties provide useful context. Roberts County has a median home price of $214,859 and an overall score of 50, modestly above Turner's 48 at roughly $91,000 less per door. Sully County prices at $259,224 with the same overall score of 48. Stanley County comes in at $296,866 with a score of 49. Codington County is the only neighbor with rent data in this dataset: median rent of $1,000 against a median price of $335,019 produces a gross rent-to-price ratio of 3.58%, which is thin for a cash-flow thesis but at least quantifiable. Butte County prices highest among the neighbors at $352,137 with the lowest score, 46. If you are committed to deploying capital in South Dakota and your primary concern is entry price with a comparable or better overall score, Roberts County at $214,859 and a score of 50 is the more defensible choice on raw numbers alone. Turner's combination of higher pricing than three of its five neighbors, a declining price trend, a zero cash flow score, and missing rental income data makes it difficult to construct a compelling case for choosing it over alternatives in the same state. The investor who ends up in Turner is most likely one with deep local knowledge, a specific distressed asset at a steep discount to the $305,810 median, or an existing operational presence that lowers the effective management cost in a thin market.