4 great articles in today's Denver Post (Aurora, Fort Collins: relocating, budget, travel)

[GraniteStater]

I think the aspect of limited water resources is the huge difference between the rural West and rural East. Most of the Eastern US has adequate levels of soil moisture compared with the rural West. Exponential population growth in the rural West has already constrained exisiting supplies of water and will continue to do so. The rural Great Plains and High Plains have relatively sustainable levels of population given the regions limited natural resources and water resources.

Here is a current soil moisture map for the US:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/soilmst...full.daily.gif

[Mr. Answers]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

I guess I don't care as much about a world population decline as I do about a steadily increasing US population. And birth rates are not the only factor...migration plays a big part as well in that. More desireable but less dense areas like CO are the most likely to bear the brunt of the population deltas in the near future.

As both Jazz and I have harped on in other threads, the infrastructure necessary to support the exurban commuter lifestyle is simply not sustainable in the long term. We are seeing road maintenance projects being cancelled all over the state, as the cost of asphalt has more than doubled in a few years time. We can't afford to maintain the road network we have now, much less build more to support unbridled growth. The cost and availability of energy also weighs big here. And "most people," as you put it, are beginning to get a clue on the "desireability" of long commutes to work. The real estate market in the outer suburbs of Colorado Springs is a no-man's land already...once desireable Black Forest properties are sitting in virtual deep-freeze now.

This isn't an issue of "eco-chondria." I'm no tree hugger...but I can do math. Infinite growth in a finite world is not only unsustainable, it's butt-stupid. I can't wait to see the new USGS study on the Denver aquifer...I'm betting it's going to point to some really ugly problems coming with respect to future water availability in those same exurban areas. When wells in the Dawson (top level of the Denver aquifers) start drying up and people need to drill a $40,000+ 1000 ft deep well (restricted to indoor household use only), or have their water trucked out to their exurban castles, they'll quickly learn to spell s-u-s-t-a-i-n-a-b-i-l-i-t-y.

Yeah that makes sense. But Governor Owens and the legislature put an intiative on the ballot a few years ago to open up new resevoirs along the front range to help ease a lot of your concerns. Afraid that it might allow for more growth in the region, voters turned it down (dumb, dumb, dumb.) The thing is, most opposition to growth in Colorado isn't about sustainability. That's a red herring. If that WERE a real concern--voters wouldn't turn down good initatives like the one Owens proposed. It's about NIMBYism--newcomers who want to slam and lock the door to Colorado behind them. Or the hippie-dippie eco-chondriacs and sacred bean worshipers who take offense to humanity's "encroaching" on nature.

The energy concerns are obviously a big deal--and not just in Colorado. That's why the debate is a centerpiece of this year's election. And there ARE things that can be done about it. What CAN'T be done is the NIMBYist approach that cities like Boulder have taken to more or less put up a tax "fence" restrictive enough to keep out all but the wealthiest people. The metro area has tried to do that with it's loose growth agreement (which has, I think fortunately, proven pretty easy to breach.) Colorado should develop wisely--and that means taking water initiatives like Owens' seriously--but do it with open arms to new economic opportunity and residents. The fact of the matter remains: Colorado CAN grow, attract business, and still do it in a sustainable way that doesn't involve high density housing and crazy "green" alternative developments. The Front Range can grow like any other part of the country--it just might have to work a little harder to make it sustainable. The problem is, with the latent NIMBYism and whack-job environmentalism so prevalent in the state, I don't think that hard work will ever get done.

[CosmicWizard]

onthamove wrote:

i just do not understand everyones negative attitudes towards californians, they are just relocating in search of a better life and who can blame them with places like san fransico openly welcoming crime?

Those who bash the Californians and other newcomers to the great state of Colorado appear to be longtime Colorado residents who failed to elect politicians who were willing to stand up to the developers. The resulting sense of betrayal and powerlessness, leaves them searching for an outlet to regain the power they lost. Blaming newcomers apparently gives them a sense of power. Don't take it too seriously. It's just human nature.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Mr. Answers

Yeah that makes sense. But Governor Owens and the legislature put an intiative on the ballot a few years ago to open up new resevoirs along the front range to help ease a lot of your concerns. Afraid that it might allow for more growth in the region, voters turned it down (dumb, dumb, dumb.) The thing is, most opposition to growth in Colorado isn't about sustainability. That's a red herring. If that WERE a real concern--voters wouldn't turn down good initatives like the one Owens proposed. It's about NIMBYism--newcomers who want to slam and lock the door to Colorado behind them. Or the hippie-dippie eco-chondriacs and sacred bean worshipers who take offense to humanity's "encroaching" on nature.

That system would not have helped the dispersed exurban areas in El Paso and Douglas countries that rely on wells sunk into the Denver aquifer system.

Resource limits are not a red herring at all. Yes, there are those that want the view from their hillside McMansion to remain untouched by the sight of even more hillside McMansions...but this debate is not by or for them or the idiots with "NATIVE" bumper stickers on their rusted-out jalopies.

Sustainability is key. If you want to come to Colorado...fine. But there are scores of posts that read something like this: "I'm 22 and make $70,000 a year in San Jose as a board-certified dog groomer and my wife and I think it would be neat to live in Telluride. Where can I find a good job as a dog groomer with full medical and dental benefits (I'm willing to work for as little as $60K), and an apartment for $600 a month?" It's not "NIMBY" that motivates a few of us to tell the truth...namely that there is no market for board-certified dog groomers in Telluride, and that an apartment is practically unaffordable if your only useful job skill is dog groomer. There is limited opportunity here, but apparently no limit to the scores of starry-eyed people of few means with dreams of Colorado living. Those who come unprepared will probably not enjoy the ride, and that's the truth.

Growth is not the Holy Grail. Not all growth is either good or desireable, particularly when the resources to sustain it long-term aren't there. That's how places like Tombstone, AZ (and modern-day Maricopa, AZ) came to exist--ghost towns that died when the realities of sustainability weighed in.

[Katiana]

RE: population, no one predicted the drop in birth rates in Europe and Japan until after they started happening. They are now in general below replacement levels. There is research that immigrant families have the same size families as other couples within a generation or two. The Mormon church now leaves the decision on the number of children to have up to a husband and wife.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by NewAgeRedneck

onthamove wrote:

i just do not understand everyones negative attitudes towards californians, they are just relocating in search of a better life and who can blame them with places like san fransico openly welcoming crime?

Those who bash the Californians and other newcomers to the great state of Colorado appear to be longtime Colorado residents who failed to elect politicians who were willing to stand up to the developers. The resulting sense of betrayal and powerlessness, leaves them searching for an outlet to regain the power they lost. Blaming newcomers apparently gives them a sense of power. Don't take it too seriously. It's just human nature.

No, I can't agree here. In places where the politicians have kept a lid on the developers (Durango and Boulder come to mind) we find that the monied noveau rich are driving the natives out as the prices on limited places to live get competitively bid up to absurd levels. Prices are so ridiculously high in both those places because of the artifical limits to development imposed by local governments.

I think a drastic increase in property tax rates, accompanied by a generous resident homestead exemption would be one way of keeping prices affordable for those who actually live in such places, while deterring misallocation of the limited property available as summer homes for the wealthy.

I also favor a stiff transfer tax that would put house-flipping into the history books right next to carpetbagging.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Mr. Answers

Yeah that makes sense. But Governor Owens and the legislature put an intiative on the ballot a few years ago to open up new resevoirs along the front range to help ease a lot of your concerns. Afraid that it might allow for more growth in the region, voters turned it down (dumb, dumb, dumb.) The thing is, most opposition to growth in Colorado isn't about sustainability. That's a red herring. If that WERE a real concern--voters wouldn't turn down good initatives like the one Owens proposed. It's about NIMBYism--newcomers who want to slam and lock the door to Colorado behind them. Or the hippie-dippie eco-chondriacs and sacred bean worshipers who take offense to humanity's "encroaching" on nature.

Those initiatives failed in part because a lot of rural Coloradans saw them for what they were--another gambit to expropriate water from agriculture and the Western Slope and divert it to the water buffaloes on the Front Range who would use it only to accommodate more sprawl. Another group that very correctly opposed it were people who figured out that it would be financed with their tax money--while they would receive little benefit from it. Nothing like existing water users and taxpayers being stuck with the bill for accommodating development from which they would receive no benefit. Funny how you never see the developers ponying up to pay for the impacts of their development--they would much rather socialize those costs on the taxpayers. Next time you see one of these initiatives on the ballot, go follow the money and see who's promoting it.

And, maybe, "Mr. Answers," you don't give a **** about preserving some free-flowing rivers in Colorado, and maybe you don't care if every canyon in the state gets dammed up, and maybe you don't care if the metroplex sprawls from Cheyenne to Trinidad, and--from what you've already posted--you sure as hell don't care that farmers and ranchers that are feeding your face might not have the land or water they need to keep you in hot dogs and Cheetos, but there are a lot of us who actually DO care about such things. We aren't NIMBY's, radical environmentalists, or left-wing whackos--we are people who care about the state we call home, don't want to see its most irreplaceable assets squandered, and don't want us to paint ourselves into a corner where we must struggle for even the most basic necessities.

I doubt that you have ever grown food for people, perfected a water right, studied water law, worked with developing Colorado agricultural products, or anything else remotely connected with actually producing food. All of that has been just ONE part of my working career. It's a compliment for me to be a called a "bean worshiper." You can decry people like me all you want--just don't do it with your mouth full. People like me are feeding you.

[Noahma]

Originally Posted by Mr. Answers

Yeah that makes sense. But Governor Owens and the legislature put an intiative on the ballot a few years ago to open up new resevoirs along the front range to help ease a lot of your concerns. Afraid that it might allow for more growth in the region, voters turned it down (dumb, dumb, dumb.) The thing is, most opposition to growth in Colorado isn't about sustainability. That's a red herring. If that WERE a real concern--voters wouldn't turn down good initatives like the one Owens proposed. It's about NIMBYism--newcomers who want to slam and lock the door to Colorado behind them. Or the hippie-dippie eco-chondriacs and sacred bean worshipers who take offense to humanity's "encroaching" on nature.

The energy concerns are obviously a big deal--and not just in Colorado. That's why the debate is a centerpiece of this year's election. And there ARE things that can be done about it. What CAN'T be done is the NIMBYist approach that cities like Boulder have taken to more or less put up a tax "fence" restrictive enough to keep out all but the wealthiest people. The metro area has tried to do that with it's loose growth agreement (which has, I think fortunately, proven pretty easy to breach.) Colorado should develop wisely--and that means taking water initiatives like Owens' seriously--but do it with open arms to new economic opportunity and residents. The fact of the matter remains: Colorado CAN grow, attract business, and still do it in a sustainable way that doesn't involve high density housing and crazy "green" alternative developments. The Front Range can grow like any other part of the country--it just might have to work a little harder to make it sustainable. The problem is, with the latent NIMBYism and whack-job environmentalism so prevalent in the state, I don't think that hard work will ever get done.

What boulder did is just plain self destructive. They made it extremely difficult to build big houses, which means with the land values, small homes are going to pop up like wildflowers around boulder. Home values that are already very high, and not very affordable are going to get even worse forcing people out of the area. We are still building big houses (I have several 7000+ sqft) projects going within the county, the owners just have enough money that they don't care what boulder does, they will still build.
I can see it being very equitable now for companies such as KB homes, Ryland homes and DR Horton to buy all of this previously large home land and putting several thousand small homes since they get it easy to build. The cap is at 4500 sqft, over that cap you have to start spending quite a bit more money to get the HERS rating points to build.j They hid the Anti-growth stuff in an energy policy, after getting hammered to death when they tried to come out with an all out anti-build ban.

[Katiana]

Boulder's "slow-growth" policies are responsible for the growth of Louisville, Lafayette, Niowt and even for some of Longmont's growth. Louisville was a sleepy little town of a few thousand people in the late 70s, now has almost 20,000. IMO, it's not all bad. It's decentalized. Otherwise, many of us would be living in Boulder. People have to live somewhere.

[Noahma]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Boulder's "slow-growth" policies are responsible for the growth of Louisville, Lafayette, Niowt and even for some of Longmont's growth. Louisville was a sleepy little town of a few thousand people in the late 70s, now has almost 20,000. IMO, it's not all bad. It's decentalized. Otherwise, many of us would be living in Boulder. People have to live somewhere.

You would be surprised at how many of our high end builders are selling the land they currently own in Boulder for land in surrounding towns. The building is not dead, it is just going to be moving a bit.