Montana - Colorado comparisons (Denver, Vail: foreclosure, condos, home)

[brightdoglover]

Let me understand the previous post. So if someone is moving from a higher-cost place to a lower-cost place (assuming selling a property or having had years of higher salaries) that person is NOT ALLOWED to move anywhere lower cost? I am sure anyone in that position (and I could be one) knows the cost differences- part of why that person is moving. Many people spend their working lives in higher-cost areas for the work and leave when they can afford to or when the kids are grown or whatever.
Last time I looked, the people selling the property at those "outsider" prices have a choice, too. They could sell at a lower price to a local person. Oh, they don't want to? Capitalism is a *****.
Yes, rich people/trustafarians skew any place they go to. Gee, I can't move to Malibu no matter what. As I read, "money follows beauty," and it has always been so.
"The problem" is the overall change in the economy and the technology for people to be more mobile with their money, and for that matter, their work, if they work online. Is it that person's failing if a local person cannot do the same? Are we all required to stay wherever we were born and it's luck of the draw where that place is?
A friend (born in Montrose, lives in a trailer in Ridgway) told me, "There are 4,000 people in Ouray County. Two thousand are trying to make money off the other two thousand. You either accept it or you get out." (Friend is currently painting houses of higher-income people. He used to work in a family guest ranch business, which his mother and brother sold for big money. Mother retired nicely, not extravagently, to Montrose, brother moved to a big Midwestern city to make easier money and have schooling opportunities for older kids. I think his father bought the (stunning) guest ranch property from a regular ranching property, or part of one.
I think the only people with a realistic complaint are the Utes.

[jazzlover]

Let me explain the cascading effect. People with substantial sums of money from whatever source and with no reliance on the local economy start moving into an area. They can outbid most of the locals who do not make that kind of income or do not have that kind of equity to spend on properties. If enough of these well-heeled buyers show up, the local real estate markets inflate to the point that people who actually have to work in the area can not afford to buy property. Now, they have a choice--they can move elsewhere, which many wind up doing--either to an area with better paying jobs or cheaper real estate (or both); or they place themselves in ever more precarious condition financially to stay in the area. When the former occurs, it causes serious problems for the local businesses and industries who employ those people. Those employers are confronted with a shrunken pool of workers from which to choose and/or they are confronted with having to raise salaries to compete for workers or to pay the now-inflated "living wage" is in the area. Unfortunately, especially in rural Colorado, most businesses can not afford to raise salaries in that manner. So, a lot of those businesses--often in the historically viable industries in the area, either close or cut employees. Indeed, entire industries in rural Colorado have essentially been eradicated because of this type of "inflation." The transplants, shortsightedly, don't care, because they don't have to rely on the local economy for a living. Where it will (and not too long in the future) come to haunt them is the fact that a lot of those disappearing businesses and employers are the primary tax base in their communities. (Several studies have shown that residential property tax payers in Colorado do not even pay enough taxes to pay for the services that they consume.) When that happens, all nature of neat public services that ex-suburbanites love to expect--constant road maintenance, nice medical facilities, nifty recreation centers, fancy golf courses, plentiful law enforcement, etc.--soon may be going by the wayside. As I write this, this scenario is beginning to play out in my own community.

The simple fact is that an area without some viable primary industries--agriculture, timbering, manufacturing, or mining--tends to be a crappy place to live unless you bring all of your money in with you. The kind of equity locust growth that Colorado and other Rocky Mountain states are seeing now is literally killing off that very kind of economic enterprise--first, because of the reasons I have stated above; and, second, because many of the transplants actually dislike those kinds of industries and actively lobby to get them expunged from the region. What we are increasingly left with is a pretty "park" to be enjoyed only by a monied gentry from someplace else, with the natives and long-time residents increasingly "shown the door." Admittedly, not unlike the way the Indians were unceremoniously expunged from this area over a century ago.

[DOUBLE H]

And two good examples of towns that have gone berserk are Montrose and Durango. Durango has been nutsy for a long time. Even when Colorado's economy was bad during the recession years of the 80's, lots of real estate in western Colorado could have been had and WAS had-CHEAP! Durango was one exception, IMO there has always been a certain amount of "Texas" money there, from Durango east all the way to Pagosa Springs. When the newspapers ran full page ads for HUD homes in the Grand Jct. area from the late 1980's, Durango had VERY few listings.

Until maybe 10 years ago, Montrose wasn't that way at all. It was, and still remains, my favorite town in Colorado. But all of a sudden the people who called the shots over there envisioned expansion, California style. And there are several big box retailers over there that I have no idea why they are still there; stores such as Target, Home Depot, Office Depot, etc. It is sad that families who have lived there for decades have to pull up stakes and move.

There is a situation similar to what Jazzlover is talking about regarding viable primary industries, and that is the western end of Montrose county. That area of the state has usually had the highest rate of unemployment in the state. That area is hurting for jobs, have been hurting for jobs, and Montrose and San Miguel county fights them at every turn over these type industries. Never mind the fact that most of them have never even been to Naturita and Nucla. Go to Telluride and ask the locals if they know about that part of the state and see what type of response you get. Well, if they want to run all the commercial industry out of there, ok. They've done a good job of that already. I'm tired of listening to the hoity toity set sit in their ivory towers and scowl at the "grunts". It's galling to me how they use their clout to influence decision making and most of those people who own these 30,000 square foot behemoths not only don't live there permamently, but a lot of them probably live there one week out of the year at the most.

And the next area that will be relocating people who have lived there for decades will be Gateway, about 50 miles southwest of Grand Junction.

[brightdoglover]

And I still say that no one person moving into these areas with "outside money" is responsible for the cascading effect, and I don't think any one person would help the situation by deciding to move to Cleveland.
Not every outsider demands golf courses, etc. etc. Now, if developers offer these things and people want them, that's called a market. I don't like it any better than "insiders," but I'm not sure who the "powers that be" are- local people who make a killing on the development? The developers who buy from the local people and stick in golf courses?

Small towns connected by rail and working in mining and agriculture are not the future, like it or not. And the bucolic life pre-invaders wasn't so wonderful, either. People lived limited lives because they had limited options. Yes, I do think that (esp. kids) working with the land, having respect for the mountains/rivers/weather, respect and knowledge that there is something much bigger than the individual, is a wonderful thing. I do fear that suburban kids think a challenge is finding a parking space.

But without the world that supported remote living (into town every few months?) and kids in boarding houses to get past sixth grade and so on, there aren't many options. Maybe the rich(er) people will be the only ones who live in a place. Maybe these places, as beautiful as they are, can't support a modern economci reality. Maybe a town with retired people and retired people spending their money and not needing jobs isn't the worst way to do business (small business).

As far as I know, some posters here are not from the same small towns they lament and blame on people from out of state. Shouldn't they move back to the metro areas or places they're from?

I guess you could say I'm a bit steamed at this carping at outsiders when it's a lot more than that, and not restricted to Colorado or the Mountain West. Try coastal Maine.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

Small towns connected by rail and working in mining and agriculture are not the future, like it or not.

With all due respect, I disagree. Here's an example. In west-central Colorado there are several major coal mines. Up until recently, they were shipping about 6 unit trains of coal a day. EACH TRAIN represented just over a half million dollars of economic activity in the area. That's equates to 90 million dollars per month of economic activity. There is no amount of tourist trinket shops, bed and breakfasts, latte houses, or anything else that can make up for that. Close to a thousand people are employed in those mines, at averages salaries well over $50,000 per year in a area where a $10 per hour job in most any other business is considered "prime."

Similarly, the inflation-adjusted income of many residents of the area was higher back when the major economic activities besides coal mining was the raising of sugar beets, malting barley, and fruit. Those were high-dollar crops, and the people raising them made good livings, and spent much of their money locally. I would trade the increasingly bull**** economy we have in rural Colorado today for that one in a second. And, back then, people didn't expect to have all the material "goodies" that they do today, and they didn't go into debt to get them. They also could also make a sufficient income to live in the area without carrying a two-ton yoke of debt. Now, if thinking that prior lifestyle is preferable to today's makes me a backward-looking nostalgia-lover, so be it. We could really use some that nostalgic living right now. In fact, if we don't start thinking and living like that again in many respects, I do not think this country has much of a future.

I would add that it is an "inconvenient truth"--a truth that many modern Americans refuse to acknowledge--that it is the basic industries of mining, agriculture, and manufacturing that are the basis of all true wealth--not bull**** real estate speculation, recreation, or trophy house building. Everything else comes secondarily to those basic industries. To the extent that we destroy those basic industries, we destroy the long-term viability and prosperity of our economy. That is exactly what we have done in the last couple of decades in this state and country--and we continue to do--and that is going to cause us unbelievable economic pain in the future.

[Shuffler]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

I guess you could say I'm a bit steamed at this carping at outsiders when it's a lot more than that, and not restricted to Colorado or the Mountain West. Try coastal Maine.

No kidding. I've spent a lot of time in Camden over the past couple years and note that the main employment there among men my age would appear to be contracting....building/renovating/maintaining 2nd homes for the wealthy set 'from away places'. Meanwhile the average folks & year-round residents struggle.

[80skeys]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

"shown the door." Admittedly, not unlike the way the Indians were unceremoniously expunged from this area over a century ago.

... relegated to the backwaters of the U.S. Reservations in locations that don't have much in the way of natural resources or desirability or usefulness to the general American population and therefore were the ideal places in which to expunge them.

[CTC]

Originally Posted by Brain Drain

One joke we used to hear when we lived in Montana when we were about to travel to see family elsewhere -- people move to Montana to get away from their friends and family not to stay in touch with them. With this comment I'm not trying to cast a unsociable light on Montanans. More it's just a realization that Montana is a remote place. From Billings, the closest major cities are Denver and Salt Lake City -- both about 8 hours drive away. Calgary may be closer!

Having lived in both states, let me give you the highlights of the pluses and minuses of both states:

Montana

Downsides:

1) It's remote (as stated above). You really can't drive anywhere (other than places of natural beauty) in fewer than 5 or 6 hours. Airports are pretty small and tend have high airfares.

2) It's cold and suprisingly cloudy in the winter. Winter is long! Denver is about 39 degrees north compared to Billings/Bozeman at 46 degrees north latitude. That makes a big difference. Winter nights are long. Nederland, Colorado at over 8,000 feet is milder than Bozeman, Montana at 4500 ft elevation. Average weather in Denver in January -- 43/16 and mostly sunny. Bozeman 28/3 and mostly cloudy.

3) It's a monoculture for the most part except for perhaps Missoula -- and then it's just the "crunchy" part of Montana -- sort of like Boulder in Colorado.

4) Job market is tough and pay is low.

Upsides:

1) Montana has a lot fewer people, so there tends to be a lot less pressure on campsites, ski areas, freeways, etc than on the Front Range. The I-70 traffic jam in the winter up to Summit County does not happen anywhere in Montana

2) People in general tend to be friendlier in Montana to people they don't know. Don't underestimate the kindness of strangers. Sometimes while hiking I'll pass people who don't even make eye contact and sometimes look at you and not say anything in Colorado. In Montana this almost never happened. This is a cultural thing in some ways - the Front Range has a lot of new immigrants from the Coastal conturbations where talking to people in the grocery line would be seen as strange.

3) Montana is generally less expensive, although Bozeman and Whitefish are certainly pricier than La Junta and Canyon City. It's just a generalization.

Both states have unrivalled beauty and gorgeous mountains. But when you're living in the middle of Denver, it is certainly not surrounding you (although you can see Mt Evans and the Front Range in the distance). Billings with its contingent of oil refineries is not the most picturesque of small cities.

If you can take the cold, long, somewhat cloudy winters, don't need good ethnic food or much diversity, and can line up a good job, Montana can be great. However, a lot of people flame out because of one of those reasons.

Good luck.

great post

We live in Billings now (2 years), but plan on moving back to CO (Estes Park) this fall due to a great job offer for my wife in Medical care-

We like both states , but CO wins for us because of the sunnier winters, and closer proximately to the 4 corners, and more progressive feel.

I wish that CO would enact the same public access laws for streams/rivers that Montana has-meaning you can legally access any stream/river below the high water mark as long as you gain entrance through a public right of way such as a bridge etc-but on the other hand much public access is hard to come by in the valleys around Billings(except for the awesome FAS (Fishing Access Areas) sites. Open space/recreation in Billings seems to be a low priority-bike paths do not connect, there are only two very short bike lanes in Billings that I am aware of-walking in a rare option.

I think CO has more variety-but the lack of people in MT leads to very low stress levels-except for having the bear spray handy when in the mountains!

Both are great states, I work in the Environmental field (technician/chemist) and make about 2/3 here in MT compared to CO-wages are much lower here

[brightdoglover]

I thought, with all the discussion of energy-related crashes and closings, that the extraction industry wasn't an option for sustained employment in western Colorado. My own pessimism is that there really isn't a viable way for these places to be sustain a population, not that everyone has to build trophy houses or starve.
If the extraction industry is still viable, then yes, non-ski towns can make it. (I suspect places like Telluride, filled to the top with serious outside/Hollywood money, will not revert to mining, and other high-end ski towns will probably stay that way. (I have always been glad that Ridgway/Ouray, which I love, did not have a ski mountain, and people with money don't need to live there to get to Telluride, 45 miles away).
Have people stopped the agriculture that Jazz says was appropriately productive? To sell the land to developers, or did the agriculture market change too much with mobility of food produced from other places? Did those involved in the agriculture blow it by borrowing too much money for non-essential items?
I wonder if the "buy local" or "buy food that only travels 100 miles" is a tiny elisist movement, or if it could work more generally. I know where I live in the East (not elitist, but well, liberal) local farms are doing well and better every day. And this is 40 miles away from Boston.

[jazzlover]

To answer the agricultural question, the ag industry is under full assault in rural Colorado from numerous fronts. First and foremost in the areas west of I-25, ag is in trouble because:

a) the market price for land has nothing to do with its ag use, but rather its development potential. One can argue that this is just the market asserting highest and best use for that land, but that is not completely true. Everything from Colorado's tax system to our penchant to socializing development costs onto the taxpayers makes for an uneven playing field when it comes to land development.

b) in many areas (including the Eastern Plains east of I-25), ag also faces the depletion of its water supplies--mostly because the rights are increasingly being purchased by metro areas, or because more water must be delivered elsewhere to satisfy water compacts. This latter scenario is now the case in the San Luis Valley, for example, where about 25% of the irrigated cropland will be dried up to deliver compact-guaranteed water for use (mostly urban) in New Mexico and Texas.

The combination of the two factors above makes for a nasty one-two punch for agriculture. Combine that with national issues and it's not hard to see why a lot of ag folks sell out to the developers. That's tragic on two levels--one, because ag is about the ONLY thing protecting open space on private land in Colorado, and, two, because we are rapidly approaching a time when we will desperately need that ag production. Bringing ag back will be exceedingly difficult in places where the water has gone elsewhere and land divisions, houses, roads, and the like have obliterated farm ground.

The other factor in the demise of a lot of Colorado agriculture can be attributed to what I call the loss of "critical mass" in the supporting infrastructure for ag. As an example, western Colorado used to have a thriving fruit business. Supporting it were numerous packing sheds, and some large plants that used cull fruit to make things like apple juice, apple sauce, vinegar, etc. As development has chewed up fruit acreage in western Colorado (nearly half of it in the last 20 years), there no longer was sufficient volume to keep those plants viable. One by one, they closed--and when they did, the remaining fruit growers were left without local markets for a lot of their crop (not everything is prime enough to be sold at a roadside stand). The remaining growers found their businesses less and less profitable, and many quit the fruit growing business, putting more pressure on the remaining packing sheds, etc. So, it becomes a vicious, downward spiraling circle.

The tragedy of that is that the state of Colorado used to be pretty much self-sufficient in food production. While oranges and bananas can't be grown here, to be sure, the state produced more than enough food to feed itself, and export a lot of product to other areas (some in trade for those things we can't grow here). That is no longer the case, and--as energy becomes more and more scarce and expensive--that could cause real problems for us in the future. It really disheartens me that Colorado seems to be a state, unlike many of its neighbors, that really does not care about maintaining a viable ag industry in the state. Maybe that's because there are too many ignorant metropolitan morons in Colorado who can't be bothered about thinking of where their food comes from--and too many equally ignorant Colorado politicians listening to them. Go to most any other state in the region--Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, even New Mexico or Utah--and you will generally find agriculture held in far higher importance, esteem, and priority as an industry. That is the way it should be, but it sure ain't that way in Colorado.