A piece of heaven (ski resorts, fit in, condominium)

[jazzlover]

What the OP wants is exactly what is wrecking the natural beauty of Colorado--some "stick out like a sore thumb" place in a secluded spot. Those are very kind of people that I wish would stay the hell out of here--and I'm very much not alone in that opinion among long-time Coloradans.

[mjfeeney]

Thanks for the response. Talk about crushing my dreams! haha. I just stumbled across that website and noticed you could get a few acres for a very cheap price. Not knowing the area at all I constituted this to poor housing market, low economy and probably not the most desirable areas. I grew up in the Adirondacks so I always appreciated wildlife. I am looking for a nice, peaceful plot of land, where I can get away and possibly live (way down the road) and wont have to travel too far for those recreational activities I mentioned. Side note: I don't necessarily need trees, I grew up in the mountains, surrounded by trees. It is a nice to have.

To jazzlover, I do not want a place that will "wreck the natural beauty of Colorado." I am sure you dont exactly live in a grass hut that you share with some of the local animals. What I would like is a piece of land, with a small cabin, that I can get away once in a while when I come back from a 12 month deployment, working 80 a week, protecting your freedom.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by mjfeeney

Thanks for the response. Talk about crushing my dreams! haha. I just stumbled across that website and noticed you could get a few acres for a very cheap price. Not knowing the area at all I constituted this to poor housing market, low economy and probably not the most desirable areas. I grew up in the Adirondacks so I always appreciated wildlife. I am looking for a nice, peaceful plot of land, where I can get away and possibly live (way down the road) and wont have to travel too far for those recreational activities I mentioned. Side note: I don't necessarily need trees, I grew up in the mountains, surrounded by trees. It is a nice to have.

To jazzlover, I do not want a place that will "wreck the natural beauty of Colorado." I am sure you dont exactly live in a grass hut that you share with some of the local animals. What I would like is a piece of land, with a small cabin, that I can get away once in a while when I come back from a 12 month deployment, working 80 a week, protecting your freedom.

Jazz sees anything in Colorado built outside of his special urban zones as a plague along the landscape. In his thinking there should be gulags where everyone is forced to live, such as Denver, and then the rest of the state is a zoo, where animals and trees run buck naked wild. Only "special" people such as himself who are 4th generation or higher Coloradans are allowed in such areas, where they 4x4, hike, camp, fish, hunt, have campfires, shoot guns, etc.

My advice in this case, is rent what you need when you need it. Let someone else have the hassles. I've seen this so many times and the Colorado real estate business feeds off of the dreamers, who just absolutely have to have and own their little piece of Colorado. And instead of the fantasy, the reality is a money pit.

If you are going away for 12 months at a time, an isolated cabin is a prime target for theft and vandalism or as what happens many times is you get squatters.

Land that is cheap in CO is cheap for a reason.

What I would recommend if you just absolutely have to have a piece of land, is buy in a respectable property owners association area. There are plenty of subdivided ranches out there split into 35 acre ranchettes. With this you have a better shot at having existing utilities, a source of water, access to some services such as plowing so you get into your property, some minimal security to keep transients out from casing your property(or reduce the risk of it), etc.

I'd say that's better than buying some dirt cheap spread that will probably have terrible access, no water, no utilities.

If you go into any rural mountain Colorado real estate office, they'll have books of listings with tons of land for sale, all ready to get flipped to the next dreamer who wants a piece of Colorado and then realizes what it will take to get it livable and then they put it back on the market.

It's all very tempting to hear the call of that siren, but you better do tons of homework and know what you are getting into.

[bongo]

I can't imagine anyone sell buildable 2acre plots in Ouray, Silverton, or even Pagosa or Salida for 15K. Probably there is a catch: the land won't perk; it's flood plain; accessibility issues; etc.; etc.

Don't give up on your dream, mj. I just don't think you'll find a proverbial piece of heaven for $7.5K an acre. Best of luck in your searches.

[bongo]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

What the OP wants is exactly what is wrecking the natural beauty of Colorado--some "stick out like a sore thumb" place in a secluded spot. Those are very kind of people that I wish would stay the hell out of here--and I'm very much not alone in that opinion among long-time Coloradans.

Then you should get down on the long-time Coloradans who are subdividing & selling off parcels, not the buyers LOL This is the United States of America the home of the free not jazzlover's republic of Colorado LOL

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by bongo

Then you should get down on the long-time Coloradans who are subdividing & selling off parcels, not the buyers LOL This is the United States of America the home of the free not jazzlover's republic of Colorado LOL

My opinion of the people subdividing critical lands like wetlands habitat, riparian areas, and mountain locales where a house is visible for miles, etc. for people to build homes is about the same as my opinion of the pimps and prostitutes who sell their wares to "johns"-- I have a very, very low opinion of the whole lot of them.

Contrary to wanneroo's interpretation of my opinion, there are plenty of existing communities where people can live in Colorado--with nice views, etc.--without crapping up the landscape with rural subdivisions 10 or 20 miles from the nearest town. It is an absolute fact that those rural subdivisions are not "benign"--they cause significant environmental damage to everything from water quality, dust pollution, spread of noxious weeds and non-native vegetation, disruption of big game migration patterns and winter grazing areas, severe damage to critical riparian areas, as well as either disrupting or preventing proper forest management. On top of all of that, thanks to Colorado's unbalanced property tax structure, it is also a proven fact that such rural subdivisions actually consume more dollars of public services than they generate in tax revenue. That means that commercial businesses and in-town property owners in an area are actually subsidizing the people living in rural subdivisions. That is also one reason that so many rural Colorado counties and local service-providing entities are in serious financial distress. Of course, the land developers, their real estate lackeys, and the people who want to live in those subdivisions want to hear none of this.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

My opinion of the people subdividing critical lands like wetlands habitat, riparian areas, and mountain locales where a house is visible for miles, etc. for people to build homes is about the same as my opinion of the pimps and prostitutes who sell their wares to "johns"-- I have a very, very low opinion of the whole lot of them.

Contrary to wanneroo's interpretation of my opinion, there are plenty of existing communities where people can live in Colorado--with nice views, etc.--without crapping up the landscape with rural subdivisions 10 or 20 miles from the nearest town. It is an absolute fact that those rural subdivisions are not "benign"--they cause significant environmental damage to everything from water quality, dust pollution, spread of noxious weeds and non-native vegetation, disruption of big game migration patterns and winter grazing areas, severe damage to critical riparian areas, as well as either disrupting or preventing proper forest management. On top of all of that, thanks to Colorado's unbalanced property tax structure, it is also a proven fact that such rural subdivisions actually consume more dollars of public services than they generate in tax revenue. That means that commercial businesses and in-town property owners in an area are actually subsidizing the people living in rural subdivisions. That is also one reason that so many rural Colorado counties and local service-providing entities are in serious financial distress. Of course, the land developers, their real estate lackeys, and the people who want to live in those subdivisions want to hear none of this.

Who determines these prime communities(gulags) where people should exist? A totalitarian government is what you are talking about.

In fact, rather than environmental destruction, a lot of these rural lands are better off with humans as many times they improve the land as such wildlife and fauna is better off. I've seen it many times with my own eyes.

[brightdoglover]

I hope the OP finds a solution that works, and thank you for your service.
I would concur with renting a place for however long you want when not deployed. Maybe buying later on when you can be there more or full-time.
(Disclaimer- I live in the East, visit Ouray/Ridgway often over 25 years, bought and sold property twice outside Ridgway with the daydream of summers there, gave up my own daydream and believe in renting now. At least, I wouldn't buy again until I rented for a couple of summers or decided to live there full-time, which isn't likely as I continue to give it thought).
Best wishes.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Who determines these prime communities(gulags) where people should exist? A totalitarian government is what you are talking about.

No, I'm talking about development paying its own way--including the adverse impacts that it imposes upon adjacent public lands and upon taxpayer-funded services. Being opposed to privatizing profits and socializing costs upon the taxpayers has somehow been perverted into being in favor of big government. In fact, privatizing profit and socializing costs upon taxpayers in one of the most pernicious kinds of government intrusion into people's lives that there is.

I've also been a long-time champion of responsible logging, mineral extraction, and agriculture in Colorado--and I've not been shy about "calling out" the environmentalist movement when they spout unreasonable curbs on such industries. What I'm sick of is seeing recreational and residential development treated like some "golden boy" in Colorado, when, in fact, is not environmentally benign and is not really of much net benefit to the economy. One of the most obnoxious examples of such unproductive development is some mountain cabin snuggled up against the public lands. Those do little more than clutter up the landscape, with few real economic benefits and a whole lot of negative impacts.

[md21722]

Just imagine how wonderful Colorado would be if those miners and loggers didn't come. Far less pollution, people and houses.