How retired transplants are ruining rural Colorado (Colorado Springs, Wheat Ridge: appointed, section 8)

[jazzlover]

I have hesitated posting this (I wrote it some time ago), but a post on another thread pushed me over the brink. That post implied that we should welcome retirees into small Colorado communities because of the big benefits they bring to town. Well, that's one big fat "non-urban" myth--and here's why:

Let's look at what really happens. First, a lot of people try to retire in rural Colorado when they really can't afford it. They overpay for real estate, buying more house than they need, often because they have cash burning a hole in their wallet from selling out where they came from, but--as it turns out--with insufficient longer term income to meeting ongoing living expenses in Colorado. Pretty soon, a lot of these folks become a drain on the local economy. They have little money to spend, frequently wind up on things like Medicaid and other government-funded programs. If they are over 65, they are Medicare patients. Rural hospitals all over Colorado are financially choking in Medicaid patients (think they are all poor illegal aliens?--think again) and Medicare patients. That translates into a big burden on taxpayers--a lot of it upon local taxpayers that support the public hospital through property taxes. I have some first-hand experience dealing with these issues as part of my work--so this is not speculation on my part.

Second, the "poorer" retirees generally only spend money at two places--the large out-of-state-owned grocery store and the large out-of-state-owned big box. Those places at least do collect local sales taxes and employ a few local folks, but that's about it. Many of the more affluent "urban refugee" spoiled brats can't be bothered with shopping locally, so they are off to the bigger city to shop, or shop exclusively on the internet--in both cases, no local businesses benefit and the local governments effectively lose out on sales tax revenue, as well.

Third, a lot of those transplants, being used to a lot of "amenities" in the larger area they relocated from (that would be the area that they say they hated), demand them in the small town they relocate in. The local Chamber of Commerce types, being afraid that they will lose these "wonderful citizens" to some other clueless town if they don't, will usually promote the construction of such amenities--quite often at public expense. So, the local taxpayers wind up funding things like fancy recreation centers, golf courses, etc. that many of those taxpayers--especially those who actually have to work for a living--do not use. Of course, the transplanted retirees--having no children in the local schools--will vote every time against a bond issue to remodel or rebuild schools. After all, they don't have any kids there--why should their taxes go up for that?

So, what do the locals get out of all the wonderful "progress" from these people showing up? Well, they will get higher property values--high enough that people who actually have to work for a living may not be able to afford to live in their own community anymore; certainly expensive enough that their young adult children entering the workforce have to relocate elsewhere to make a living.

The locals will also get to "enjoy" higher taxes to pay for the services that the additional population requires and for the additional amenities needed to keep those newbies "happy."

They will also likely get a lot of opposition from those new people to any industry--say a mine or the like--that would employ local people at decent wages, but disturb the "ambiance" that those retirees like.

The locals will also get to see a lot of ag land lost to development, because many of the new folks just HAVE to own their "little piece of Heaven" away from existing communities.

Most of all, the locals have to learn that they are just supposed to shut up and not complain about any of this because if the transplants come in and basically turn the community upside down--well, that's their right, and the locals should just get over it.

I've watched this crap going on in rural Colorado for over 30 years now. After those 30 years of it, what has been the result? Despite in increase in the tax base of a large magnitude, local governments are in more financial distress than ever--mostly due to the burden of providing services to an increasingly demanding and sprawled population. Agriculture has gone from being a leading industry in many areas to being just gone--period. In real terms, there is been essentially no improvement in local incomes, and living costs--mostly thanks to exploding real estate prices--are outstripping local incomes at an exploding pace. Rural Colorado is even more hostile than it used to be when it comes to its own young people being able to remain there--Front Range cities (as well as places all over the country) are full of ex-rural Coloradans who have HAD to move there to make a living.

It's time to drive a wood stake into the heart of the misguided notion that promoting rural Colorado as a retirement haven is some kind of economic nirvana for the area. It never was, and it's not now. The influx of these people into Colorado is not the benign bonanza people think, and--in fact--may actually be harmful as a whole.

[sterlinggirl]

Amen!

[Mike from back east]

Good grief, I've never seen such hysteria as this, a pity party of enormous scale...I'll try to address most of the points, though not sure why it even deserves anyone's time. Everywhere has changed a lot in 30-50 years, this place is no different, and probably no better or no worse. Oldtimers in all states probably have the same moans and groans, my parents generation always talked and/or griped about the changes they'd seen since they were young (born 1900-1920). Bemoaning change is a national pastime.

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I have hesitated posting this (I wrote it some time ago), but a post on another thread pushed me over the brink. That post implied that we should welcome retirees into small Colorado communities because of the big benefits they bring to town. Well, that's one big fat "non-urban" myth--and here's why:
Why shouldn't we welcome newcomers, everyone's welcome to move where they wish. There are benefits to retirees:
- Don't need jobs, no need to give tax breaks for any firms to come here.
- Don't need to add more road lanes for rush hour flows since we aren't out there at rush hour since we don't need any jobs.
- Don't need cops, judges, courts or jails. At our age we're past the nonsense of our younger years.
- Don't need more schools, any kids are long grown and gone. Schools are half or more of all local tax needs. Retirees help pay for a school system they'll never burden.
- We bring our money from outside the state, i.e., we support the state, the state does not support us.
- We spend our money here. Lots of it. We ADD to the state's economy.


Let's look at what really happens. First, a lot of people try to retire in rural Colorado when they really can't afford it. They overpay for real estate, buying more house than they need, often because they have cash burning a hole in their wallet from selling out where they came from, but--as it turns out--with insufficient longer term income to meeting ongoing living expenses in Colorado. Pretty soon, a lot of these folks become a drain on the local economy. They have little money to spend, frequently wind up on things like Medicaid and other government-funded programs. If they are over 65, they are Medicare patients. Rural hospitals all over Colorado are financially choking in Medicaid patients (think they are all poor illegal aliens?--think again) and Medicare patients. That translates into a big burden on taxpayers--a lot of it upon local taxpayers that support the public hospital through property taxes. I have some first-hand experience dealing with these issues as part of my work--so this is not speculation on my part.
"Lots" of people buy more than they can afford? Lots? Really? ONLY in rural areas? Any stats on that? Looks like supposition, speculation and sour grapes. Have you stats on the state's Medicare/Medicate population? Is such data split between old timers and newcomers. Give us a break from such diatribes. What hospitals are choking? Make the case with real data, not wishful thinking. Medicare and Medicaid cover all people; newcomers, old timers, young poverty cases get medicaid as well as old poverty cases and the point is that the government's low rate of reimbursement is what makes these programs problematic for ALL of the medical community in the nation, not just in this state. The system is the problem, not the people using it, not newcomers any more than oldtimers.


Second, the "poorer" retirees generally only spend money at two places--the large out-of-state-owned grocery store and the large out-of-state-owned big box. Those places at least do collect local sales taxes and employ a few local folks, but that's about it. Many of the more affluent "urban refugee" spoiled brats can't be bothered with shopping locally, so they are off to the bigger city to shop, or shop exclusively on the internet--in both cases, no local businesses benefit and the local governments effectively lose out on sales tax revenue, as well.
Are big box stores ONLY in Colorado? Don't the "natives" shop there too? Are there ANY in-state-owned chain grocery stores? It sure isn't Safeway, Kroger/Soopers, Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Target, Whole Foods, et al. I know of NO locally owned grocery in, save maybe for an Asian or Hindu niche market. Just about EVERY form of retail store, IN THE NATION, has been rolled up into the bigbox phenomena. There is NO local shopping, save for liquor stores, eateries and artsy-fartsy boutiques. Shopping malls, NATIONWIDE, have the same set of chains, it's NOT just Colorado. Internet shopping is done ALL over the country, by people of ALL ages. How in the hell can a few retirees shopping on the internet be the "ruination" of Colorado, or even the rural subset of Colorado - or any state? Such remarks are wildly illogical, but then again, bias of all sorts is usually not logical.


Third, a lot of those transplants, being used to a lot of "amenities" in the larger area they relocated from (that would be the area that they say they hated), demand them in the small town they relocate in. The local Chamber of Commerce types, being afraid that they will lose these "wonderful citizens" to some other clueless town if they don't, will usually promote the construction of such amenities--quite often at public expense. So, the local taxpayers wind up funding things like fancy recreation centers, golf courses, etc. that many of those taxpayers--especially those who actually have to work for a living--do not use. Of course, the transplanted retirees--having no children in the local schools--will vote every time against a bond issue to remodel or rebuild schools. After all, they don't have any kids there--why should their taxes go up for that?
What examples have you, or anyone, that local taxpayers are building golf courses with civic money to please newbies? Don't the locals play golf too? They should, they deserve it too. Why aren't golf courses already there? I'd bet they are. Rec centers? They SHOULD be funded as a civic function; if you wait for Bally Fitness, et al, to come to podunk it will NEVER happen, those commercial dudes only go for the dense urban areas to milk the concentration of people. Every little town in Germany that I've ever seen has a local, civic-owned sports hall and soccer field, which LEADS to a healthier population and LESS need for health care spending. Would you prefer a saloon on every corner? Hard to believe that rural areas are SO swamped with newbies that school funding gets voted down, sounds more like the usual 'cut my taxes' mentality of many states.

So, what do the locals get out of all the wonderful "progress" from these people showing up? Well, they will get higher property values--high enough that people who actually have to work for a living may not be able to afford to live in their own community anymore; certainly expensive enough that their young adult children entering the workforce have to relocate elsewhere to make a living.
Property values almost always go up, everywhere, though the current economic situation may put a footnote to that usual situation. This is largely a result of growth that has occurred in this country, since the Mayflower landed. Blaming that on retirees, but ONLY the newcomers at that, is simple scapegoating, and is bogus.

The locals will also get to "enjoy" higher taxes to pay for the services that the additional population requires and for the additional amenities needed to keep those newbies "happy."
Where are the specifics, all we have is ungrounded bias. Newcomers pay taxes like anyone else and if they need a certain service, so be it, same goes on in EVERY city and county in the nation, nothing different about it being Colorado.

They will also likely get a lot of opposition from those new people to any industry--say a mine or the like--that would employ local people at decent wages, but disturb the "ambiance" that those retirees like.
The legacy of mining in this state, and most others, is not a happy picture. There is a mountain of noxious tailings on the west side of Colorado Springs that still sits, 50-100 years after the fact, without a single green thing growing on it. Polluted runoff from other mining sites is a hazard, most recently in the news in Leadville last year where emergency action was needed to keep dangerous waters from gushing out of an old mine or lagoon. No wonder people object to mining, I would too, whether a newcomer or an old native. Mining firms, usually out of state firms, rape the land, bribe the politicians, and leave taxpayers holding the bag.

The locals will also get to see a lot of ag land lost to development, because many of the new folks just HAVE to own their "little piece of Heaven" away from existing communities.
Ag land has been eaten up all over the nation. As has waterfront property. Ag is changing too, huge farming firms have moved to the midwest where there is abundant rainfall and little need for expensive irrigation. Colorado has always been a dry state, never should have been farmed in the first place, except that poor transport systems made it a necessity to farm locally, not just here, but everywhere. In the old days, it wasn't just farming that had to be local, every city was largely self sufficient in manufacturing due to poor transport. This picture began changing with the railroads and was hugely accelerated by the Interstate Highway System. There used to be large farmlands around most cities, all gone now for the most part, food comes from states better suited now that better transport is able to move stuff quickly without it spoiling.

Most of all, the locals have to learn that they are just supposed to shut up and not complain about any of this because if the transplants come in and basically turn the community upside down--well, that's their right, and the locals should just get over it.
"Turn the community upside down" is just a blatantly prejudicial remark, unsupported by any examples. Change, of itself, is usually a gradual matter and cannot turn and town upside down. Every town started out as one house or farmer and grew from there, many towns emptied out over the last 50 years, many became ghost towns long before this issue of "transplants" ever happened. There's been a migration from small towns to big cities for 150 years as agriculture mechanized and unneeded people left little towns in order to make a living. Suddenly, in your mind, a few retirees here and there are ruining the state? If anything, the retirees can help prop up the small towns, but some people choose to see it as negative.


I've watched this crap going on in rural Colorado for over 30 years now. After those 30 years of it, what has been the result? Despite in increase in the tax base of a large magnitude, local governments are in more financial distress than ever--mostly due to the burden of providing services to an increasingly demanding and sprawled population. Agriculture has gone from being a leading industry in many areas to being just gone--period. In real terms, there is been essentially no improvement in local incomes, and living costs--mostly thanks to exploding real estate prices--are outstripping local incomes at an exploding pace. Rural Colorado is even more hostile than it used to be when it comes to its own young people being able to remain there--Front Range cities (as well as places all over the country) are full of ex-rural Coloradans who have HAD to move there to make a living.
Young people are bailing out of almost all rural areas, it isn't just Colorado, it isn't just this era either, and it sure isn't the fault of any retirees. CAFO feedlot operations killed ranching, not a few old fart retirees. Same for farming. Should never have farmed this state, too dry. Now, factory farms in the midwest are the low cost producers because they don't have the expense of irrigation and are closer to big markets in the east. All this has put COLO ag at a cost disadvantage, has nothing to do with retirees or newcomers or oldtimers, and has everything to do with economics, and trust me, economics is one mean mistress, with ironclad discipline. Don't discount the effects of NAFTA; produce from Mexico is vastly cheaper to bring to market, even with transport costs, further impacting COLO ag, and that's not the fault of any retirees either.

It's time to drive a wood stake into the heart of the misguided notion that promoting rural Colorado as a retirement haven is some kind of economic nirvana for the area. It never was, and it's not now. The influx of these people into Colorado is not the benign bonanza people think, and--in fact--may actually be harmful as a whole.
It's time to drive a stake into the heart of the misguided notion that newcomers are some terrible boogeyman who are ruining this state or any other. The influx of pension money, which is essentially "found" money, is a blessing to all economies.

The whole issue of natives versus newcomers is bogus.

The whole issue of "change" being the fault of newcomers/retirees is bogus.

People are retiring everywhere, not just here.

People are welcome to live anywhere they choose.

We should stop wasting our time on it.

[sterlinggirl]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

The whole issue of natives versus newcomers is bogus.

You're speaking as a newcomer. You can't speak as a native until you've raised your children here and had to watch them move out of state because they couldn't afford to raise their own families in our retirement paradise.

The whole issue of "change" being the fault of newcomers/retirees is bogus.

The newcomers want things the same as where they came from. The oldtimers want things the same as where they came from. You wouldn't be arguing the point if he had called it cultural diversity instead of "change".

People are retiring everywhere, not just here.

People are retiring in nice climates and pretty places. If they were retiring everywhere, you'd see threads about retirees in the Detroit and Fargo forums.

People are welcome to live anywhere they choose.

Try moving a white family with kids into Flint, Michigan, and tell us how welcome you feel.

We should stop wasting our time on it.

Does that mean we should stop wasting time on trying to protect our neighborhoods? You may not understand why rural farmers don't want to be surrounded by 1/2 acre parcels of suburbia, but I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn't want your neighborhood to be rezoned to allow high density section 8 housing to be built next door to your house.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Good grief, I've never seen such hysteria as this, a pity party of enormous scale...I'll try to address most of the points, though not sure why it even deserves anyone's time. Everywhere has changed a lot in 30-50 years, this place is no different, and probably no better or no worse. Oldtimers in all states probably have the same moans and groans, my parents generation always talked and/or griped about the changes they'd seen since they were young (born 1900-1920). Bemoaning change is a national pastime.




The whole issue of natives versus newcomers is bogus.

The whole issue of "change" being the fault of newcomers/retirees is bogus.

People are retiring everywhere, not just here.

People are welcome to live anywhere they choose.

We should stop wasting our time on it.

I know you and I dont agree on much but this is one topic where I am in 100% agrement with you....

And FYI I am a 4th generation Coloradoan.

[Hipchik]

The whole issue of natives versus newcomers is bogus.
The whole issue of "change" being the fault of newcomers/retirees is bogus.
People are retiring everywhere, not just here.
People are welcome to live anywhere they choose.
We should stop wasting our time on it.

Amen to that! Great post Mike.
I may be new to this forum but I am not new to Colorado.
My parents have been visiting me since I attended CU. They dream of retiring here in a few years. They have spent LOTS of money in this state over the past 15 years. Why should they not be welcome to live here?
And no, they DO NOT want things the same as they are where they live now! They will be a wonderful addition to any community they choose to live.

[jazzlover]

Mike,

The world is not a clear as you make it sound. If you check foreclosure (and bankruptcy filings) in the rural counties, you will find plenty of retirees are having difficulties, too. I used to labor under the notion that people approaching retirement would be trying to get out of debt and paying off their mortgages. Nope. A lot of them got seduced with the idea that real estate could never go down in value, so they "traded up" when they moved to Colorado to retire--and some of them them are now in trouble financially.

"Retirees help pay for a school system they'll never burden." I've heard that crap argument a thousand time before. It's crap because somewhere, somebody paid for those people and their children to go to school. Now, they P and M when they are expected to pay for a school system in a location where THEY happen to have no children attending school--including opposing bond issues or anything else to improve those schools. Check the failure rate for bond issues for schools in rural Colorado in the last 10 years.

Your traffic argument is another bogeyman. Go to rural Colorado and see where people are building houses. It's not in town--it's out in the country. That has meant thousands and thousands of miles of roads that have to be maintained at greater levels than before--plowed, graded, paved, etc.--at local taxpayer expense, often only to serve a few residents. Studies have proven that tax revenue from those residents does not even pay for the services they consume. Thanks to Colorado's absolutely mentally retarded land use laws, "subdivisions" of land 35 acres or greater are not even reviewable by local government. The result has been highly dispersed, expensive to serve, environmentally and agriculturally disastrous "rural ranchette" development that ignorant transplants just love to embrace. Of course, any attempt to stop such silliness is met with fierce opposition in Colorado's developer and real estate lackey-owned Legislature. And, yes, many of those developers are, guess what?--out-of-state carpetbaggers.

I suppose you think it's right for some communities to support their tennis courts, golf courses, etc. through the fees they charge their residents for town-supplied utilities like electricity, water, sewer, and trash pickup. There are rural Colorado towns that do that. Fact. Nothing like charging poor little old ladies who are living on cat food a fee on their utility bill, so the fat*** golfers, many of them retirees--many of which don't even live in the incorporated area of town--can play a round of subsidized golf at the golf course. You think that's right? Sort of a "reverse welfare state," isn't it?

While we're on the subject of tax subsidies--it's always great how we will subsidize the hell out of some new business that wants to come to town with tax dollars --and not do a damned thing for the existing businesses already there. Not to mention that many of those "new" businesses compete directly with existing businesses. Cities and towns fall all over themselves to provide subsidized infrastructure, land, or just outright tax subsidies to bring in businesses to kill their downtowns. Smart. I don't blame the newbies for that, aside from the fact that the newbies have no long-time business relationships or loyalties to long-time local businesses, so are more likely to patronize those shiny new big boxes and corporate strip malls. No locally-owned grocery stores in rural Colorado? Well, there used to be and there still are a few. But, the above describes pretty well why there are fewer and fewer of them, along with a lot fewer of other locally owned businesses.

Mining can be an environmental disaster? Yes, if not managed. But all those non-productive rural subdivisions and sprawl are hardly environmentally benign (and we are finding out that they are lot more damaging than we originally thought), and often affect areas much larger and potentially for much longer than many types of "extractive" industries.

I will agree, Mike, that a lot--if not most--of this stuff I relate here happens all over the country, not just in Colorado. But that does not make it right. There is an old World War I saying, attributable I believe to the French holding a line of defense that the enemy easily circumvented, that applies to the argument of "well, they do 'X' in a lot of places." It is: "Just because 90,000 Frenchmen made a mistake, it's still a mistake." For once in Colorado's very less than stellar history of the past few decades, I wish this state would quit being as dumb, or even dumber, than the rest of the United States when it comes to managing its own destiny. This country has so mismanaged itself, and so bungled its future, that it wouldn't take much for Colorado to ascend to a higher plane--and to quit blithely accepting that all growth is both good and inevitable would be a good place to start. Even if that included making the latest people to show up go look in the mirror and recognize their presence in Colorado may not be the totally positive thing that they would like to believe that it is.

[Mike from back east]

Rural farm towns are not becoming too pricey to raise a family because of a few retirees. Just isn't so. Global economics plays a huge role. Cost of living is generally up everywhere. If job opportunities are down in rural areas, the reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not retirees are coming in. Newcomers CREATE demand for goods and services, which should be supportive of jobs for the local populations. Those towns were declining for decades, which has nothing to do with retirees and everything to do with economics at the national and global levels.

Arguments that we want things here to be like where we left are vague and I really can't figure out what it is that I'm supposed to want from back east, except for maybe a good crabcake sandwich, which I get via mail order. Otherwise, all I want from here is a change of scenery and a nicer climate, neither of which cost anyone a thing or deprives anyone else of those things. COLO SPGS has everything I need, and had back east. Same for most newcomers, whether retirees or workers.

People who DO move when they retire usually go to a nicer climate and/or one that is nicer looking. Detroit, Flint, Fargo, et al, all have retirees who lived there and retired there, either by choice or lack of economic wherewithal. All big industrial cities see many of their retirees head out for other places as the big old industrial cities are not the sort of places people retire to; but if they want to stay or go there, they are free to do so. Whether it helps or hurts those cities is moot, people are welcome to go where they wish, no one has any right to tell anyone they can't go there or come here. This retiree migration has been going on for generations. Best we can do is be honest with them about what it's like here, there or wherever.

If a location is attractive in some way, be it ocean or mountain scenery and activities, or low cost of living, or nicer climate, or whatever, then yes, such areas are prone to getting some retirees. This historically was and still is true in FL, AZ, NV, CA and now there is more of it in UT, WY, CO, NM too. There is nothing wrong with this. No one is bound by chains or decree to stay where they grew up. Life isn't always fair, some come out better than others, always has been that way, always will be. The same dynamic is also true in job markets, some areas have growing job markets with working age people going there, no different than retirees moving around. Nothing wrong with it. Local governments have to adjust, not throw up their hands as if all is lost, because it isn't.

I had this same conversation with Jazz about 3 years ago, we went back and forth over it. Change happens. Everywhere. We have our memories. Time marches on. The Chesapeake Bay of my youth, with iron men harvesting millions of bushels of oysters from sail powered wooden skipjacks is as long gone as my father's steam railroads which are as long gone as cowhands poking cattle across the fruited plains of Wheat Ridge.

Perfect situations don't exist, but Colorado is far better off with the retirees it gains than it would be without them.

[Mike from back east]

Thanks for having a good discussion.

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Mike,

The world is not a clear as you make it sound. If you check foreclosure (and bankruptcy filings) in the rural counties, you will find plenty of retirees are having difficulties, too. I used to labor under the notion that people approaching retirement would be trying to get out of debt and paying off their mortgages. Nope. A lot of them got seduced with the idea that real estate could never go down in value, so they "traded up" when they moved to Colorado to retire--and some of them them are now in trouble financially.
No doubt that bankruptcy and foreclosure filings are up. But that is everywhere, not just rural Colorado. I'm sure a lot of locals also got caught up in the insane mortgage nonsense. I'm sure that retirees in just about every state are in this boat, not just here. No need to scapegoat a few retirees who come to Colorado, the issue, and the ruination is at work everywhere.


"Retirees help pay for a school system they'll never burden." I've heard that crap argument a thousand time before. It's crap because somewhere, somebody paid for those people and their children to go to school. Now, they P and M when they are expected to pay for a school system in a location where THEY happen to have no children attending school--including opposing bond issues or anything else to improve those schools. Check the failure rate for bond issues for schools in rural Colorado in the last 10 years.
I agree that some retirees are selfish and will vote no on school issues. Shame on them. But again, that can be anywhere. I truly have a hard time believing that some rural town, somewhere in Colorado, has so many retirees that retirees, and retirees ALONE, are able to sway school spending into the "nay" column. I agree, such cheap bustards do exist, but there is widespread anti-tax / anti-spend sentiment in this state, and others. For a school spending issue to fail, there has to be a base of locals also saying "no" to the issue, along with some retirees.


Your traffic argument is another bogeyman. Go to rural Colorado and see where people are building houses. It's not in town--it's out in the country. That has meant thousands and thousands of miles of roads that have to be maintained at greater levels than before--plowed, graded, paved, etc.--at local taxpayer expense, often only to serve a few residents. Studies have proven that tax revenue from those residents does not even pay for the services they consume. Thanks to Colorado's absolutely mentally retarded land use laws, "subdivisions" of land 35 acres or greater are not even reviewable by local government. The result has been highly dispersed, expensive to serve, environmentally and agriculturally disastrous "rural ranchette" development that ignorant transplants just love to embrace. Of course, any attempt to stop such silliness is met with fierce opposition in Colorado's developer and real estate lackey-owned Legislature. And, yes, many of those developers are, guess what?--out-of-state carpetbaggers.
Most rural roads are dirt, and yes, there is some cost, but I suspect that most of those roads were already extant. Colorado land use laws may be stupid, but they were NOT written by retirees, we can't blame that on retirees, we can only work to bring sanity to them.

I suppose you think it's right for some communities to support their tennis courts, golf courses, etc. through the fees they charge their residents for town-supplied utilities like electricity, water, sewer, and trash pickup. There are rural Colorado towns that do that. Fact. Nothing like charging poor little old ladies who are living on cat food a fee on their utility bill, so the fat*** golfers, many of them retirees--many of which don't even live in the incorporated area of town--can play a round of subsidized golf at the golf course. You think that's right? Sort of a "reverse welfare state," isn't it?
I'm all in favor of some form of municipal rec center. I don't like taxpayer subsidy of golf courses that only benefit the connected few. There's no reason that high school facilities can't also open to the locals who've paid for them. If I were king, all high schools would have a public rec center built on adjacent contiguous land, and share facilities (except maybe for locker rooms, nuff said). Schools would use the tennis courts, pools, weight rooms, basketball courts, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, etc, when school is in session and the community would use these in the non-school hours, or in portions of those facilities not fully used by students. That way, one facility serves a dual purpose, minimizing expenses, and everyone in the community gets to use these facilities, not just those who can afford to pay an expensive gym membership. Umpteen billion of dollars of school facilities sit unused after 3PM weekdays, all day on weekends, and all summer when school is out. It can be done, it can be managed just fine, we just have to change our mindsets and do it. Under my way, that little old granny would get to use the pool if she wanted to, no extra charge to her, she's already paid for it in her local property tax or rent. Of course this will never happen, we're supposed to let the marvelous private sector meet all our needs. IMO, we are indentured servants to corporate America. Teddy Roosevelt tried to strike a fair balance between the two, these days its all one-sided, favoring the corporate side.

While we're on the subject of tax subsidies--it's always great how we will subsidize the hell out of some new business that wants to come to town with tax dollars --and not do a damned thing for the existing businesses already there. Not to mention that many of those "new" businesses compete directly with existing businesses. Cities and towns fall all over themselves to provide subsidized infrastructure, land, or just outright tax subsidies to bring in businesses to kill their downtowns. Smart. I don't blame the newbies for that, aside from the fact that the newbies have no long-time business relationships or loyalties to long-time local businesses, so are more likely to patronize those shiny new big boxes and corporate strip malls. No locally-owned grocery stores in rural Colorado? Well, there used to be and there still are a few. But, the above describes pretty well why there are fewer and fewer of them, along with a lot fewer of other locally owned businesses.
Subsidies tend to be used for major plants, not small businesses, except maybe for enterprise zones, and I'm not sure those still exist. I believe that EZ's were done to revitalize blighted areas, where there was no competition to start with. Wal-Mart has done more to close down the local mom and pop stores than any subsidies. Not sure Wal-Mart or any other big box ever got such subsidies, at least on a widespread basis. What I see here in Colorado Springs are deals made for big ticket companies, like the USOC to stay here, or H-P to build a major facility. I think the death of the small town downtown has been occurring for decades due to the bigbox movement, not really to subsidies. I haven't seen local grocery stores in decades, they continue a steady march to extinction, and locals usually hate them for their high prices, as we read recently in our Crested Butte thread.

Mining can be an environmental disaster? Yes, if not managed. But all those non-productive rural subdivisions and sprawl are hardly environmentally benign (and we are finding out that they are lot more damaging than we originally thought), and often affect areas much larger and potentially for much longer than many types of "extractive" industries.
True enough. Can't tear them down, people gotta live somewhere. As we learn more about what the impacts are, we can adjust and fix things. I'm still disappointed that COLO SPGS, the state and the Feds are letting "gold mine hill" here in the Springs get paved over with a clay cap and used for housing. We've a rail line not more that a mile away serving the Drake power plant, it would've been a minor effort to load those mine tailings into empty coal hoppers and move that material to a former open pit mine and actually bury it, thus restoring the west side to it's proper terrain, even if a clay cap were still needed, at least it wouldn't be the artificial mound it now is.

I will agree, Mike, that a lot--if not most--of this stuff I relate here happens all over the country, not just in Colorado. But that does not make it right. There is an old World War I saying, attributable I believe to the French holding a line of defense that the enemy easily circumvented, that applies to the argument of "well, they do 'X' in a lot of places." It is: "Just because 90,000 Frenchmen made a mistake, it's still a mistake." For once in Colorado's very less than stellar history of the past few decades, I wish this state would quit being as dumb, or even dumber, than the rest of the United States when it comes to managing its own destiny. This country has so mismanaged itself, and so bungled its future, that it wouldn't take much for Colorado to ascend to a higher plane--and to quit blithely accepting that all growth is both good and inevitable would be a good place to start. Even if that included making the latest people to show up go look in the mirror and recognize their presence in Colorado may not be the totally positive thing that they would like to believe that it is.
Agree. This whole nation has been grossly mismanaged for so long, and on such a massive scale, that few even recognize it for what it is. You and I and others who understand transport know that once we started public funding of highways, 80 years ago, that we were on a collision course with a painful reality that is now setting in with a broad segment of our society. I call this sort of thing "structural inefficiency" as it's been built into our way of doing business for so long that we take as a given that it's the right thing to do. Development is a subset of banking, or at least an incestuous family, and we know what swell guys those people are. If a black guy uses a gun to rob a bank of $2k, he gets 20 years to life, but if a white guy pulls a scam from his briefcase to rob Wall Street of $2B, he gets little or no penalty; such is the strength of the banking/money community and their developer pals. It sucks, and I wish we could change it.

[gea12345]

I think this is wonderful post!!

I only feel that it might be a little misguided in terms of who to blame!

I don't know the answer, but my gut feeling is that it is NOT the senior adults retiring.

Since an economist might feel that the inflow of the dollars versus the outflow of infrasturcture balances itself out.

I think that even in my city where we had 10 greasy spoon affordable diners 10 years ago, we now have one!!

Why? Because everyone wants to join the latte bandwagon, even the young people from good ole Colorado, I would imagine are not happy with the same way of doing things as their parents or grandparents.

Also, Colorado has been attracting all ranges of people for a long time, and farmers have been losing out to developers for a long time!!

Number one working class people prefer to buy 5 pairs of shoes at Wallmart, than 1 pair of shoes, which they repair for 5 years.

Also, Ciity council people and citizens are entirely responsible for the lack of zoning laws. That is one thing that Portland Oregon is known for, although not perfect, which is thinking ahead and not jumping on the first bandwagon carrying fast money.

So, my point is that people's priorities have changed, regardng credit, saving, housing cost, reliance on neighborhood farmers, tolerance of odors, etc...

And I agree, gentrification is not good, when it makes current citizens unable to afford their own homes!

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I have hesitated posting this (I wrote it some time ago), but a post on another thread pushed me over the brink. That post implied that we should welcome retirees into small Colorado communities because of the big benefits they bring to town. Well, that's one big fat "non-urban" myth--and here's why:

Let's look at what really happens. First, a lot of people try to retire in rural Colorado when they really can't afford it. They overpay for real estate, buying more house than they need, often because they have cash burning a hole in their wallet from selling out where they came from, but--as it turns out--with insufficient longer term income to meeting ongoing living expenses in Colorado. Pretty soon, a lot of these folks become a drain on the local economy. They have little money to spend, frequently wind up on things like Medicaid and other government-funded programs. If they are over 65, they are Medicare patients. Rural hospitals all over Colorado are financially choking in Medicaid patients (think they are all poor illegal aliens?--think again) and Medicare patients. That translates into a big burden on taxpayers--a lot of it upon local taxpayers that support the public hospital through property taxes. I have some first-hand experience dealing with these issues as part of my work--so this is not speculation on my part.

Second, the "poorer" retirees generally only spend money at two places--the large out-of-state-owned grocery store and the large out-of-state-owned big box. Those places at least do collect local sales taxes and employ a few local folks, but that's about it. Many of the more affluent "urban refugee" spoiled brats can't be bothered with shopping locally, so they are off to the bigger city to shop, or shop exclusively on the internet--in both cases, no local businesses benefit and the local governments effectively lose out on sales tax revenue, as well.

Third, a lot of those transplants, being used to a lot of "amenities" in the larger area they relocated from (that would be the area that they say they hated), demand them in the small town they relocate in. The local Chamber of Commerce types, being afraid that they will lose these "wonderful citizens" to some other clueless town if they don't, will usually promote the construction of such amenities--quite often at public expense. So, the local taxpayers wind up funding things like fancy recreation centers, golf courses, etc. that many of those taxpayers--especially those who actually have to work for a living--do not use. Of course, the transplanted retirees--having no children in the local schools--will vote every time against a bond issue to remodel or rebuild schools. After all, they don't have any kids there--why should their taxes go up for that?

So, what do the locals get out of all the wonderful "progress" from these people showing up? Well, they will get higher property values--high enough that people who actually have to work for a living may not be able to afford to live in their own community anymore; certainly expensive enough that their young adult children entering the workforce have to relocate elsewhere to make a living.

The locals will also get to "enjoy" higher taxes to pay for the services that the additional population requires and for the additional amenities needed to keep those newbies "happy."

They will also likely get a lot of opposition from those new people to any industry--say a mine or the like--that would employ local people at decent wages, but disturb the "ambiance" that those retirees like.

The locals will also get to see a lot of ag land lost to development, because many of the new folks just HAVE to own their "little piece of Heaven" away from existing communities.

Most of all, the locals have to learn that they are just supposed to shut up and not complain about any of this because if the transplants come in and basically turn the community upside down--well, that's their right, and the locals should just get over it.

I've watched this crap going on in rural Colorado for over 30 years now. After those 30 years of it, what has been the result? Despite in increase in the tax base of a large magnitude, local governments are in more financial distress than ever--mostly due to the burden of providing services to an increasingly demanding and sprawled population. Agriculture has gone from being a leading industry in many areas to being just gone--period. In real terms, there is been essentially no improvement in local incomes, and living costs--mostly thanks to exploding real estate prices--are outstripping local incomes at an exploding pace. Rural Colorado is even more hostile than it used to be when it comes to its own young people being able to remain there--Front Range cities (as well as places all over the country) are full of ex-rural Coloradans who have HAD to move there to make a living.

It's time to drive a wood stake into the heart of the misguided notion that promoting rural Colorado as a retirement haven is some kind of economic nirvana for the area. It never was, and it's not now. The influx of these people into Colorado is not the benign bonanza people think, and--in fact--may actually be harmful as a whole.