Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by jessaka
I don't think that it is the Californians that are trashing Montana. I think it is those in Montana that sell their land to big business that are trashing it. If there were no tract homes, no malls, etc. Calfornians would not come unless they had to buy an older home that had been there for 50 years or more.
Quote:
No offense, but have you ever lived in Montana?
No, but I live in a State where Calfifornians are moving too. Who is selling them the land that are then turning into trash? You have to nip it in the bud somewhere? Who are the people that are building the malls and homes that are ruining the countryside? Where do the construction workers come from, in State, out of State?
Honestly, when I lived in MT, I saw just as many people from TX, AZ, WA, and FL. I think it is convenient to put the blame on just one group of people but in reality it's everyone, including the locals.
Honestly, when I lived in MT, I saw just as many people from TX, AZ, WA, and FL. I think it is convenient to put the blame on just one group of people but in reality it's everyone, including the locals.
JoJoMan, You seem to be knocking the politicians. I'm wondering how come you don't run for elected office yourself? If what you think are the answers to everything affecting Montana, Then you should stand for election. Hell, I might even vote for you myself if I think that you are right! Coming up with solutions to our problems are a little harder than just lock the doors and don't let anyone else in. We have to remember that most of our jobs are effected by the housing market. If these folks who make their living building homes can't do that anymore, then what can the do? They can't be loggers because environmentalists have already shut down that industry. Remember the hardship and the loss of jobs and revenue we had to endure when that happened? How about when the state and feds kept passing more standards that the farmers and ranchers had to pay for. Do you remember the loss of multiple generation of farmers and ranchers that have occurred in the last 30 years? And now some are having to sell their spreads just to keep paying for the new regs and taxes on them? So where will the next generations, old family's and new find these jobs if we don't reinvest in our own substructure? What I'm saying is if you have the answers, put em out here and see if they pass muster and if they do, then you have my vote for office.
Sorry I don't have the answers for all our problems, don't think I said I did.
I think a while back I stated how/why I was so against growth.....it was because I suddenly begain to realize all the problems it was creating, and I thought we are just like dogs chasing our tales. For example: we have traffic problems, incresing fatalites, pollution etc,... so we try to address them, and of course that cost money, so we widen hiways, put up traffic lights, start goverment programs to promote/educate the public, to drive less, car pool, us your bike, etc.....and at the same time we're doing that we keep encourage more and more growth/cogestion, seems silly to me, the left hand is fight with the right hand....and the list goes on with other problem besides traffic issues, zoning, housing cost, the list goes on....we just keep making more and more problems for ourselves by promoting growth......
As far a people building houses, the simple scenerio is.......people move in the area, so build more houses which creates jobs, so more people move in to fill the jobs, but they need houses, so we need more people to build them, so more people move in and get jobs building houses, and round and round we go, what does that really accomplish, we now have an economy based on eating up our surrounds.....If (a big if)......a few companies have moved in to montana, say, and gave decent jobs to those people already living here that in short would have really helped, now if a company moves in, instead of 10 people apply for the jobs there are 100 applying. Get the picture ? So what's the point, of growth for growths sake, in the end it will all just be a house of card, and if a recession should hit, instead of 100 carpenters getting laid off and going on the government dole, there will be 1000 of them putting a burden on state resources. Is there a better answer to our economic problems ? perhaps yes, but the answer isn't growth. It's the equvilant of eating candy because it gives instant satisfaction and suppress your need to really eat something, but in the end all it is going to do is rot your teeth.
Second you can't just look the doors and not let anyone else in....because there are no doors to look, else it might not be a bad idea. It's hard to fix the problems you've already got while you continue to make more.
My simple solution to the problem is "Don't encourge growth" as a state we shouldn't do anything to encourage people coming here, we can't stop them, but we shouldn't encourage them. I would suggest ending any state or government programs that encourage such things. You know what I'm saying .... stop the wagon, so to say, so we can have time to get a handle on the problem(s) and fix it, so to say.
And personally I don't see where growth has ever increased the quality of anyone's life, put more cash in their pockets, yes for some, and money does make the world go round, and you gotta eat....but I look around western montana and I just don't see where much if any of the growth we've seen has really done much good to improve our way of life.
Sometime I feel like I'm making the same case for preserving what we have as the native americans were making for preserving their's years ago. But once again the white man's dollar rules.....and we get drunk and dilusioned from its power over us, you think we woulda' learned by now.
We have a bad habit in america of ruining what we have, over and over again and then looking back in disguest and blaming those in the past, truth is we would have done the same thing as them, we're doing it today - in 50 years we will look back and see - urban sprawl in the west in the same light as clear cutting and foul mining practices and say "What were they thinking?" or not thinking !
We have a bad habit in america of ruining what we have, over and over again and then looking back in disguest and blaming those in the past, truth is we would have done the same thing as them, we're doing it today - in 50 years we will look back and see - urban sprawl in the west in the same light as clear cutting and foul mining practices and say "What were they thinking?" or not thinking !
I haven't been to the Montana thread in awhile so I thought I'd see what's new. I think this statement from JoeJoeMan is well stated and makes alot of sense. I visited Butte and Missoula awhile back when I went to my class reunion and they were having the bad forest fires at the time. I remember a few months ago when we talked about people building homes in heavily forested areas and when a fire broke out that the firefighters had to spend all of their time protecting that property instead of containing the fire. There's no question that irresponsible development is going to haunt us for decades to come and it's not easy trying to undo past mistakes. If you bring up the Google Earth website you can clearly see satellite images of areas in western Montana where developers have carved out patches in the forests to build new developments. This really needs to stop. People are drawn to this type of environment when they see the promotional materials from developers who are describing this wonderful lifestyle in the middle of beautiful scenery that's private and secluded. These same developers don't mention the fact that the western states are in a serious drought and that this fancy house in the woods is a fire hazard. I don't see this issue as the locals versus the newcomers because Americans tend to be very mobile and moving from state to state is very common. Everyone shares in the blame to a certain extent but the politicians who should be overseeing what's happening in their own state are the ones who should be held accountable.
So what's the point, of growth for growths sake,.............. My simple solution to the problem is "Don't encourge growth" as a state we shouldn't do anything to encourage people coming here, we can't stop them, but we shouldn't encourage them.
Obviously you are passionate on the subject, and I agree that "growth for growth's sake" is a false God. However, you need to find a way to encourage selective growth. This includes encouraging people to immigrate that can help you solve the CURRENT problems. Tourism and construction are the primary industries supporting many Montanans, yet they perpetuate the PROBLEMS of growth as you point out. You can't escape world and national trends, inflation, rising property taxes, etc with the wages paid by only tourism and construction. Diversification to other industries requires better education for Montanans. Therefore, encourage teachers to come.
An aging population of Montanans requires better healthcare facilities. Therefore, encourage physicians, nurses, and other health professionals to immigrate. If you don't actively encourage the type of people that can solve Montana's problems, you will default to the current situation where the short-term marketplace encourages ONLY the people that add to the problems. Sort of a geographically reverse carpetbaggers syndrome.
I've got to throw this into the mix... When you take away the means for an area to make money as it has done for generations (as in logging and ag) then you destroy the local economy so there is only 2 things it can do.
1.die out
2. Grow in another direction that allows the cities to survive which will draw more people.
We are now seeing a replacement of our economy from resource/ag based to service based which is just strip mining in another form!
If you want to stop/slow growth then knock off the ecocrazies, open the forests and go back to resource/ag economy. Restart logging, make it more profitable to grow things than sell the land etc. Then there wouldn't be the need for all the stores,eateries,shops,malls,roads,houses etc. because our economy wouldn't be based on that. People would still trickle in here as always and we would have some tourism but the place wouldn't turn into another CO. I personally don't think it's too late yet but it will be soon. We've allowed too many outsiders to dictate this states future for too long, and by that I mean the out of state ecogroups who's stated agenda is a total lockup of OUR resources with no consideration as to what it'll do to the residents in the long term.
I am not from Montana, but I am from a State that USED to be my home...Florida. I had to leave the town my husband and I raised our kids because it is over crowded and nothing like it was just 10 years ago. I understand how you would want to keep your piece of the pie for yourself. However, I hope someday I'll be there to share it with you. I don't want or need anything special...just room. So I sit here in Florida (where many of you most likely visit) dealing with the snow birds (some of who come from Montana) hoping I win the lotto to get out of here.
I have read a fair amount of this thread, and just wanted to toss in my nickel's worth (used to be 2 cents).
I grew up at the beach in Calif, and when that was ruined with high rises and fast foof/mini marts etc, I moved to a small town in the mountains, about 4000 people IN THE WHOLE AREA. Now- over 60,000 people. They want the streets made wider, and hey, let's put in some street lights too.
Too much growth - water shortages - traffic, crime, drugs, grafitti, gangs. Heck, we even had a traffic light for a while, but it caused such a back-up, they finally took it out. I was a deputy up here - no real crime then, Now the guys are so busy they might as well be in the city.
There is only ONE way to limit growth (you can't stop it) and that is to keep the politicians from approving non-conformin land use - read subdivisions. They do it because of political contributions or they think they and their friends can make money from the growth. It's all about money.
Let your politicians know that you DO NOT WANT that kind of growth. If you currently have one house per acre, do no let them allow 20 per acre. Let them know you like things the way they are. This lets people move in who like what they see - but keeps out those that want to tear it down and put in a mall. Make the politicians put it on the ballot and let YOU decide. They ARE supposed to do what the PEOPLE want, aren't they?
Last edited by wyliecoyot; 12-15-2007 at 01:52 PM..
Reason: spelling
With the high land prices now there is no way that agricultural land for timber or livestock can be worth more than developing it. The present value of future cash flows from agricultural operations can't be worth the 20-50 grand per acre you see land going for in western Montana.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are people so mad?
