Idaho - what's the reality? (Boise, Nampa: wealthy, refund, racism)

[boi2socal]

I agree that jakobinarina has a mostly fair post. Although I feel the sentiment against Hispanics is most certainly not unique to Boise.

Just a few of my personal viewpoints of the Treasure Valley:

The Good / Pros -
>Endless nearby recreational opportunities.
>Many community/civic events in every city large and small.
>Relatively inexpensive housing.
>Overall safe communities.
>Great dining comparable to larger cities.
>Concerts and art entertainment comparable to larger cities but with a small town charm.
>More recently shopping has become on par with larger cities or at least their suburbs.
>Friendly people.
>Charming downtown that isn't too big but isn't too small.
>Four diverse seasons.

The Bad / Cons -
>Poorly managed growth in almost every realm. Mosty transportation.
>Never ending road construction projects that often take years to design and complete.
>Traffic and congestion that isn't comparable to larger metros but considerably worse than similar sized cities and metros.
>Some of the worst public transit of any city of any size.
>Lack of easily attainable quality higher education.
>Low wages.

The Boise Area is in serious transition. For years it was only a growing town. Now it is a growing Metro; affecting people miles around. Infrastructure has not been able to keep up and it doesn't appear government at any level is doing much to change this trend. Too much funding seems to go to project studies that almost always end with the same findings - not enough money.

It is a great place but if things continue at this pace Boise will just be Phoenix with snow.

[micrguy]

I had to get Idaho license plates yesterday and started talking to the clerk there about everyone moving in. She said that California was still the most popular place to move from. Her biggest complaint is that she doesn't care if you move here, but don't try to change Idaho. You should know that when you move here it is pretty conservative and people still have a small town point of view. If you do not like that, then stay in California. She said that if she moved to San Francisco she would know that she is moving to someplace very liberal and wouldn't be writing letters to the editor complaining about how liberal the place is. You have to know what you are getting into before you move here.

[Syringaloid]

I don't think of Canyon County being "rife" with poverty...there is poverty and the poverty level in Canyon is much higher among hispanics than caucasions,(I don't consider this racist or labeling, facts are facts), and I have heard so many people judge the whole of Nampa based on seeing run down mexican/migrant hoods by the railroad tracks. Much of Nampa and Caldwell have very clean, tidy neighborhoods much like any other town or city, and then there are the less than desirable hoods. I have mentioned before that both Nampa and Caldwell are undergoing massive investement and renewal to each of their downtown areas, so change is on the way, and in the past year a lot has changed. Nampa reminds me of Idaho Falls or Provo, Ut.
There are some very beautiful areas of Canyon County and the area south of Nampa and Caldwell is very scenic as is the area West of Meridian along the Boise River into Star and Middleton. I don't know if many people know this, but Canyon County is one of the top ag food producing counties in the nation, so cherish it It isn't all that bad.

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by boi2socal

I agree that jakobinarina has a mostly fair post. Although I feel the sentiment against Hispanics is most certainly not unique to Boise.

Just a few of my personal viewpoints of the Treasure Valley:

The Good / Pros -
>Endless nearby recreational opportunities.
>Many community/civic events in every city large and small.
>Relatively inexpensive housing.
>Overall safe communities.
>Great dining comparable to larger cities.
>Concerts and art entertainment comparable to larger cities but with a small town charm.
>More recently shopping has become on par with larger cities or at least their suburbs.
>Friendly people.
>Charming downtown that isn't too big but isn't too small.
>Four diverse seasons.

The Bad / Cons -
>Poorly managed growth in almost every realm. Mosty transportation.
>Never ending road construction projects that often take years to design and complete.
>Traffic and congestion that isn't comparable to larger metros but considerably worse than similar sized cities and metros.
>Some of the worst public transit of any city of any size.
>Lack of easily attainable quality higher education.
>Low wages.

The Boise Area is in serious transition. For years it was only a growing town. Now it is a growing Metro; affecting people miles around. Infrastructure has not been able to keep up and it doesn't appear government at any level is doing much to change this trend. Too much funding seems to go to project studies that almost always end with the same findings - not enough money.

It is a great place but if things continue at this pace Boise will just be Phoenix with snow.

I agree with this post, especially the final sentence. We'll become a smaller, more congested version of SLC first, and then we'll be on our way to being Phoenix.

I'd prefer our growth model that of Portland, personally.

[Torrie]

I love Portland too, but the traffic is terrible. When I've looked at some of the studies in the past for worst traffic, Portland seems to hit somewhere in the top 25. Though they do have light rail it hasn't really helped with the congestion in my opininon, so if that's a reflection of their growth model, why would you want that for our area? I lived in the area for 8 years, so I'm pretty familiar with what it's like to sit in the traffic.

One other thing I noticed there that drove me crazy- they'll start on a road project and then stop when they run out of money, and then work on it again, stop when they run out of money- well you get the idea. Some of these projects go on like this for a long time. Meanwhile the traffic has to be routed around while they are working on the project- it's annoying.

[donnam]

Originally Posted by boiseguy

Everything is right on our doorsteps if you just get involved to make the change. There is enough of us here that are new and know better, to where we can really make an impact and make boise a place to call home for everyone. Just don't count your chickens till they're hatched, Boise is on a quick road to change in a decade.. the kind of change places like pdx and california took 3 or 4 decades to achieve...

I agree that changes probably will happen here in Boise. However, as someone that moved here from out of state, I honestly don't feel that I have any right to expect change. Wanting Idaho to change to suit my needs isn't really fair to Idahoans. I've come to believe that if I want a lot of same amenities that I had in California, then I probably need to move back there. Idaho is a unique and interesting place, it doesn't need to become a mini-version of any other state.

Jakobinarina's post was very honest and informative for anyone who is researching this area for possible relocation. For my personal experience, I recommend that people do their homework, check it twice and get several different opinions before they make their final decision.

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by Torrie

I love Portland too, but the traffic is terrible. When I've looked at some of the studies in the past for worst traffic, Portland seems to hit somewhere in the top 25. Though they do have light rail it hasn't really helped with the congestion in my opininon, so if that's a reflection of their growth model, why would you want that for our area? I lived in the area for 8 years, so I'm pretty familiar with what it's like to sit in the traffic.

One other thing I noticed there that drove me crazy- they'll start on a road project and then stop when they run out of money, and then work on it again, stop when they run out of money- well you get the idea. Some of these projects go on like this for a long time. Meanwhile the traffic has to be routed around while they are working on the project- it's annoying.

[MOD CUT]

Los Angeles - almost entirely car dependent. Terrible public transportation, and probably the worst traffic in the nation.

San Francisco - commuting is a bit better simply because of the many options (MUNI, BART, GG Transit, Cal Train, and a whole ton of commuter/car pooling services. A bit unique because of the bridges, but to commute by an auto in this area (and worse, to find parking) is horrid.

Sacramento/Davis - more comparable to what Boise and SLC face - not terrible, but still not a great situation either. Probably the best traffic as far as the California metro areas go.

Portland - I don't live there but I visit once or twice a year - I've never had a horrible time with traffic. A few times I've got into gridlock trying to get onto the interstate from the Lewis and Clark / Reed College areas, but it emptied out soon enough. The commute to Beaverton has never been terrible when I'm around. But oddly enough it's also never rained one time I've been in Portland. I like this model because I do like the Max, I do think park and ride is a good model for most areas. It seems to be working a bit in SLC. But granted, I'm no expert.

Seattle - Simply god awful. This may be the most congested commuting in any metro area I've been.

SLC - I don't get it. SLC drivers are the worst I've been around anywhere. I'd rather sit in LA gridlock, because at least they know how to drive on the freeway. I don't have a ton of experience commuting here, but I've heard good things about the new light rail, and bad things about the interstates. Supposedly the new work done since the Olympics has been beneficial.

I don't know a ton about Denver, Vegas, or Phoenix - I've driven in these areas but I haven't experience "the commute," so to speak.

--

[boi2socal]

Portland does have a nice transit system but I think it seems so great to us because it is so convenient to tourist and business travellers. But is it that beneficial to most residents? Portland does have a great urban center but it should be noted the city and it's suburbs sprawl in every direction.

[Torrie]

When I lived in the Portland-Metro area the commute was 10 times worse than Boise. Hwy26 into the city is very congested during typical commute times as was the 26 to 217. Then when I moved over to Vancouver, trying to commute on the 5 was terrrible. Then when the ice storms hit, the 205 on the other side is just a nightmare as it crosses over the river. Hardly a model that I think we should follow IMO. I loved living there and you just learn to tolerate it, but now that I'm here, I'm so glad it's not that bad. I think every city as it grows is going to have a traffic problem, it's just how it is. Nobody has the money to keep up with the growth. We are not alone in that aspect.

As I was looking around for stats I came across the Texas Transportation Institute, what they do is, "study virtually every aspect of transportation." So they're the guys who do all the research on our roads and traffic. As I was poking around in there at the different studies I thought it important to note that Boise doesn't even pop up for bad traffic. Though I know it has gotten thicker over the years, especially to those who have lived here most of their lives- it's a breeze compared to the majority of areas.

http://tti.tamu.edu/

[boi2socal]

Boise wasn't studied for whatever reason. So that's why it doesn't pop up. I would assume Boise has congestion comparable or worse than Eugene or Spokanke. Both of which were studied.