U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2012, 07:38 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,125,069 times
Reputation: 9066

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by md21722 View Post
Just imagine how wonderful Colorado would be if those miners and loggers didn't come. Far less pollution, people and houses.
I have never condoned irresponsible exploitation of resources, either. There are certainly some hideous examples of destruction, both old and recent, perpetrated by those industries when they behaved irresponsibly. Ironically, some of the most destructive mining activities carried on in Colorado--the silver mining boom of the late 1870's and 1880's--was carried on because of massive government subsidization of the price of silver. That was an early and classic case of privatization of profit and socialization of cost that nearly broke the US Treasury. When the federal government finally recognized the peril of national bankruptcy and repealed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act in 1893, it threw Colorado into an economic depression that persisted in many areas of the state until World War II. This state, in my opinion, faces a similar decades-long depression when the taxpayer-subsidized bubble in real estate and recreational development enters its final stages of bursting within a few years. Those pretty trophy homes up in the mountains will be practically worthless then--most abandoned to the elements, just like the mining ghost towns are today. History may not repeat, but it usually rhymes, as the saying goes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2012, 09:30 PM
 
590 posts, read 2,010,938 times
Reputation: 417
When the silver and gold ran out some mining towns hung on and some turned into ghost towns. When ski resorts came to Colorado in the early 1960s some of the older mining towns saw a revival as a ski town. While you say that that the ski towns are not representative of real America or a good place to raise a family, were the original mining towns any better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 09:49 PM
 
9,817 posts, read 19,039,713 times
Reputation: 7541
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
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.
Uhhhh, it's private, not public land and it's really noneofyobidness if someone puts a house on it.

A property owners association has nothing to do with any privatizing profits and socializing costs to the general public. In most cases in rural Colorado, they provide their own services and whatever they don't, gets paid for with property taxes.

All these big houses you rant about, that are a tiny footprint of land, generate enormous, huge sums of property taxes, not to mention other economic impacts of spending and collecting taxes off of that.

I don't think you are a "champion" of any economic activity outside of your gulags. As you yourself have pointed out, you have no qualms about hiking, hunting and 4x4ing all over mountain Colorado, so you have no special rights to access, unless it is your own private property.

I think you need to check yourself about your smarmy attitudes about what other people do or don't do on their own private property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 10:42 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,125,069 times
Reputation: 9066
wanneroo,

You forget that what gives most mountain private property in Colorado its value is that it is surrounded by public lands whose maintenance is paid for by the American people. So, your argument that it's all "free enterprise, don't tread on me" is a bunch of crap right from the get-go.

As for property taxes, if you would do some research you would find that the effective property tax rate for residential property in Colorado is between about 0.3%-0.7%--which puts the rate between 46th and 50th lowest in the US--hardly generating "huge sums of property tax" as you insuate. Since I research this economic stuff as part of my work (and I'm trained in it and I get paid for it), I DO know what I'm talking about here.

If you want to know who bears the big property tax burden in Colorado, it is capital-intensive business and industry (and, by the way, that class does not even contain most resort condominium complexes in Colorado--those slugs managed to get a law change making their properties "residential"), the minerals extraction industry, and the public utilities. In other words, largely non-productive second-home and recreational property gets "sweetheart" tax treatment in this state, while productive business and industrial activity gets hammered with higher tax rates. And, thanks to the fact that all of that is buried in the State Constitution means that it probably will stay that way until Colorado's fiscal crisis reaches the point that it bankrupts the state and chases most productive enterprise out. Then those second-home residents can sit in "their little piece of heaven" with crumbling roads, nearly non-existent law enforcement, bankrupt schools (if they even care about that) and closed hospitals. I wonder how they will like that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 11:09 PM
 
9,817 posts, read 19,039,713 times
Reputation: 7541
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
wanneroo,

You forget that what gives most mountain private property in Colorado its value is that it is surrounded by public lands whose maintenance is paid for by the American people. So, your argument that it's all "free enterprise, don't tread on me" is a bunch of crap right from the get-go.

As for property taxes, if you would do some research you would find that the effective property tax rate for residential property in Colorado is between about 0.3%-0.7%--which puts the rate between 46th and 50th lowest in the US--hardly generating "huge sums of property tax" as you insuate. Since I research this economic stuff as part of my work (and I'm trained in it and I get paid for it), I DO know what I'm talking about here.

If you want to know who bears the big property tax burden in Colorado, it is capital-intensive business and industry (and, by the way, that class does not even contain most resort condominium complexes in Colorado--those slugs managed to get a law change making their properties "residential"), the minerals extraction industry, and the public utilities. In other words, largely non-productive second-home and recreational property gets "sweetheart" tax treatment in this state, while productive business and industrial activity gets hammered with higher tax rates. And, thanks to the fact that all of that is buried in the State Constitution means that it probably will stay that way until Colorado's fiscal crisis reaches the point that it bankrupts the state and chases most productive enterprise out. Then those second-home residents can sit in "their little piece of heaven" with crumbling roads, nearly non-existent law enforcement, bankrupt schools (if they even care about that) and closed hospitals. I wonder how they will like that?
Afraid not. These multi million dollar homes pay hefty 5 figure sums in property tax every year, not to mention the cut the state takes off their back for all sorts of other activity and whatever economic activity those people spend on. These vacation and 2nd homes are keeping rural mountain Colorado afloat in revenue flowing into government coffers.

Public lands are public lands, regardless of where they are. And private land is private land, so if someone buys with their own money a piece of land, what they do with it, is really nothing to do with you.

The point is, here is a guy that posts a thread about wanting to own some sort of vacation property. He seems relatively uninformed. So I think it's one thing if you help him out with the whos, whats, where, hows and things to consider and look for and any other tips and ideas. To me it seems that was the original posters intent.

And instead you come in and poop all over the thread with all sorts of ranting about humans and their habitation being this horrific blight on the Colorado landscape and wrecking everything in sight.

I would hope you would have the wisdom to see this thread isn't the place for it.

Mike needs to create a sticky thread for you called:

"Jazzlover's Apocalypse N' Destruction Coffee Chat" thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2012, 09:36 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,125,069 times
Reputation: 9066
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
These multi million dollar homes pay hefty 5 figure sums in property tax every year, not to mention the cut the state takes off their back for all sorts of other activity and whatever economic activity those people spend on. These vacation and 2nd homes are keeping rural mountain Colorado afloat in revenue flowing into government coffers.
A person owning a $2 million valued home in Colorado would pay a whopping $6,000-$9,000 in property tax in Colorado, about what many people in other states pay in property tax for a home valued at $300,000. Get your facts straight.

As for the OP, I think he's entitled to hear about how some of us feel about the "rural subdivision second home invasion" in Colorado--and the truth about the impacts those have and how they fit into the fiscal scheme of the state.

Last edited by jazzlover; 04-24-2012 at 10:01 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2012, 10:39 AM
 
20,327 posts, read 37,840,000 times
Reputation: 18118
The vast majority of people here have no problem with buying land and building a house. Millions of us have done just that.

Mother nature can (and will) deal just fine with all those horrible pesky homeowner impacts. We can manage that quite well, especially compared to industrial pollution.

I'd rather have tens of thousand more homes built all over this state than the pollution we're going to derive from the oil and gas well fracking that's now cranking up in this state. We'll be dealing with that for generations, just as we're still dealing with the waste piles from gold and silver mining in the late 1800's and the uranium mining of the cold war era.

It's not a case of two wrongs don't make a right. It's a case of the lesser of two evils, and frankly, I see little evil in home building.

The OP is on here to do his/her homework, like everyone else with money to spend, he's most welcome here.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2012, 11:04 AM
 
590 posts, read 2,010,938 times
Reputation: 417
If you want to know the evils of homebuilding in the mountains, just ask the long time residents in the Montana Rockies. The long time residents are not investment bankers brining their millions or billions with them to a rural economy. The long time residents could afford to live in Montana on what the local economy offered. As property values go up their children cannot afford homes near their parents and the residents who stay see tax increases and restrictions on some of their favorite past times. Its not unique to the Mountain West either. Its happening in various parts of the country.

A better way to deal to deal with this is to promote smart growth and boundaries on the growth to preserve the open space that everyone loves about the area. Limiting growth does increase the property values, but also helps preserve the quality of life.

I noticed that jazz never commented on my last post. I consider the time between the mining and the skiing to be an anomaly because for most of man's existence in Colorado they've been exploiting the land. At least with skiing they're using snow, one of "nature's renewable resources". If we could do away with mining, we could save government and taxpayers millions by eliminating pollution issues and the resulting government agencies that regulate it. Not to mention the quality of life issues.

But, just as population growth drives the demand for housing and jobs, it drives the need for resources and they have to come from somewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2012, 11:11 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,125,069 times
Reputation: 9066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
, like everyone else with money to spend, he's most welcome here.
Mike, I never profess to speak for everyone in Colorado--you shouldn't, either. Not everyone in Colorado greets people "with money to spend" with open arms. That is especially true when the Colorado resident sees no direct personal benefit from the money spent by the transplant and the transplant's presence imposes direct or indirect costs upon the resident who sees no economic benefit from the person moving in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2012, 11:37 AM
 
590 posts, read 2,010,938 times
Reputation: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Mike, I never profess to speak for everyone in Colorado--you shouldn't, either. Not everyone in Colorado greets people "with money to spend" with open arms. That is especially true when the Colorado resident sees no direct personal benefit from the money spent by the transplant and the transplant's presence imposes direct or indirect costs upon the resident who sees no economic benefit from the person moving in.
I agree. Many of the residents of these areas use them as second homes and want everything just perfect for them when they come for a few weeks or months a year. About all they do is take away open lands for year round residents and drive a demand for service employees to fill their coffee cups and bring them meals when they dine out. In that respect they do not bring talent to the area, but they do allow some restaurants (small business) to open year round or seasonally and employee people in the service industry who would otherwise need to leave the area to find work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top