Pagosa Springs VS. Granby? (Denver, Eagle: middle-class, crime, how much)

[gc57]

Which is a better choice to live/retire to and why?

[jazzlover]

Both have serious long-term problems. Granby first. It is located in Middle Park. It is not going to stay looking the way it does now. The City of Denver already owns much of the water in Middle Park. Despite some creative mitigation efforts, when that water gets eventually diverted to Denver, a lot of the irrigated ranches that are the hallmark of the area are going to become dry sagebrush flats. Surrounding the valley areas of Middle Park are forests of nearly 100% lodgepole pine. Pine beetles have already killed up to 90% of the trees in some areas around Middle Park--large fires in those stands are now considered virtually inevitable by most professional foresters. Estimates are that most of Colorado's lodgepole forests will be dead within 5 years.

Pagosa Springs. First, it is isolated. The area around Pagosa is beautiful, but the forest--once again--is a problem. Earlier logging and a century of fire suppression have the left the area with overcrowded even-age stands of pine trees--Ponderosa pines in this case--a prime candidate for beetle infestation and large scale die-offs and fires. Pagosa is not likely to stay looking as it does now over the long term, either.

Both towns offer lousy prospects for any local employment at anything much above minimum wage, while housing and living costs (at least for now) are significantly above the state average. Unless one brings a lot of money with them, much of anything beyond a very austere lifestyle is unlikely. Finally, if one believes that resource scarcity (especially oil) is going to play hell with tourism and retirement income (and I do), places like Granby and Pagosa may become increasingly unattractive places to live in the future. The entire "recreational/rural/retirement" gambit is very likely to become non-viable.

[gc57]

Thanks, good view of both places. Your opinion of where in Colorado would be a good place? Retired and not looking to enter the work force again. Nice to see that your a jazz lover also.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by gc57

Thanks, good view of both places. Your opinion of where in Colorado would be a good place? Retired and not looking to enter the work force again. Nice to see that your a jazz lover also.

That is strictly a function of what amenities you want and can afford, and how much money you bring with you. The less picky you are about the former, and the more you have of the latter, the more options there are.

I'm a half-century plus Colorado native, and I detest the resort areas. I like neither the culture of them nor what they have done socially, economically, and environmentally in the areas in which they are located. They can be fun to visit, but they are lousy places to live, in my opinion. By their very nature, they are inherently socially unbalanced, with a large minimum-wage underclass of worker bees (many immigrants, legal or otherwise) serving a largely non-native non-permanent wealthy class, with a very small resident middle-class.

I similarly dislike the Front Range metroplex--it is no different than any other sprawled, suburbanized mess one can find just about anywhere in the country. That leaves a handful of agricultural towns, mostly in the west-central valleys and the San Luis Valley, and the larger group of farm towns on Colorado's Eastern Plains (that area much more like western Kansas than Colorado in geography). If you are looking for a true small-town to retire in, the choices in Colorado are pretty few. Though the mountains are not necessarily as spectacular, there are better options in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and New Mexico--though each of those states have their own unique challenges, too.

I do love Colorado--at least I did before it starting growing beyond reason--and I have spent time in literally just about every nook and cranny of it. That said--right now--my family is here, my work is centered here, my home is paid for, and I'm debt-free--were any of those conditions to be no longer true, I probably would not stay here. This state's future is pretty troubled, in my opinion--and few people recognize that yet. I've worked enough with Colorado's resource, economic, and governmental issues (on the "inside") to see a picture much different than many people with more limited knowledge can.

[gc57]

I agree with you on this. I have lived in Idaho( Sun Valley, McCall, Coeur d'Alene, Jackson Wy, never in MT or NM though.I think MT is nice but the weather is tough in the winter. NM has no attraction for me. I wouldn't think of Eastern Co, looks too much like Kansas for me. I would like a view and some ammenities, not isolated. Though about Eagle, Idaho near Boise, but not sure just yet on that.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by gc57

I agree with you on this. I have lived in Idaho( Sun Valley, McCall, Coeur d'Alene, Jackson Wy, never in MT or NM though.I think MT is nice but the weather is tough in the winter. NM has no attraction for me. I wouldn't think of Eastern Co, looks too much like Kansas for me. I would like a view and some ammenities, not isolated. Though about Eagle, Idaho near Boise, but not sure just yet on that.

You definitely know the resort "vibe," then. I'm surprised you mentioned Pagosa Springs, since it very much has a "New Mexico" feel to it, as does much of south-central and southwestern Colorado. I personally don't mind that part of that area, but the resort/tourist part of it I do not like. Anyplace in Colorado that is west of I-25 and south of US50 generally has a very significant native Hispanic population and culture. Again, I don't mind that myself at all, but some people do.

Yes, Montana winters can be brutal, but it and Wyoming are probably the two least despoiled states in the lower 48--despite all of the energy production in both states. There are parts of Wyoming I like very much--I lived there for a few years. Also, a place not many people think about (except during the Harley rally at Sturgis) is the Black Hills of South Dakota. I have some friends up in that area (Rapid City, etc.) who really like it there--some OK mountains, but still small town South Dakota (my friend are natives of the Dakotas, though, so they are a little prejudiced toward their home turf). Wyoming and South Dakota do tend to be popular with retirees due to the lack of an income tax.

Because of their lack of megaloptic metro areas, economies which still have some roots in agriculture and energy, and relatively smaller populations, it is my opinion that all of the aforementioned states above have a more positive overall future than Colorado may. Colorado is finding out--quite dramatically in some places--that growth does not pay for itself, and the state is in severe fiscal distress because of it. Colorado also has demands on its physical infrastructure--everything from water to roads--that it likely will never be able to meet. Think of Colorado as California--just 20 years behind it on the trend curve.

[DOUBLE H]

Jazzlover is right. Most people think of South Dakota as one of the plains states. Well, it is for the most part but that part of the state is in the mountain time zone. I have gotten to know a lot of folks from that state, I mean 25 to 30 who have been Denver Bronco fans for decades and come out for the games. Their season ticket priority numbers are in the low 2000 range, which means they go back to day one of the history of the club.

And check out the road atlas, you'll find Rapid City to be about the same distance from Denver as Pagosa Springs, maybe a little closer. Certainly a much milder climate. Many years ago I went to a "Guys Collectibles" swap meet at the Rapid City Holiday Inn where everything to coins, sports cards, records, comic books, etc. were on hand. Had a blast! Place was full too!

There is also a fair amount of people who will come in to Denver from S.D. for shopping, music concerts, etc. It's only a six hour drive.

[gc57]

Interesting info. I don't care for the Air quality for both MT and WY, too much inversion for me. Never gave SD a thought though. I will have do some research on that one. From The stats that I saw, it looks like the air quality is a bit bad and crime a bit up. Any comment?

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by gc57

Interesting info. I don't care for the Air quality for both MT and WY, too much inversion for me. Never gave SD a thought though. I will have do some research on that one. From The stats that I saw, it looks like the air quality is a bit bad and crime a bit up. Any comment?

Only a few places in Wyoming and Montana have air inversion problems, versus many in the Colorado mountains. Virtually anyplace in the mountains, especially west of the Continental Divide, is subject to serious air inversions in the Rocky Mountain West--especially in winter. The only question is whether there is enough human development or industry to provide a pollution source. Ironically, the areas of Wyoming and Montana with air quality issues are frequently around the most popular resort/tourist towns--Missoula, Jackson, Kalispell/Whitefish, etc. Unfortunately, some places in Wyoming--Pinedale is a great example--are now having air pollution issues related to natural gas production. Nearly all of the Rocky Mountain states are home to large coal-fired power plants--often right next to areas that historically had clean air. Some of the dirtiest are the older plants at Four Corners in New Mexico near Farmington, and some older plants in Wyoming.

Air pollution in the Rockies has followed sort of an inverted bell curve: High for many years due to coal being used as a primary heating and transportation fuel, then declining as oil and natural gas replaced coal--along with better emission controls, and now rising again due to power plant construction, more vehicles, and an exploding population. Paradise lost.

[gc57]

So, how does Rapid City fall in to this topic, good or bad?