Why the "split" between "old" and "new" Coloradans . . . (Colorado Springs: rent, construction)

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by TaraMoon

Despite having lived in California, I am not a latte-sipping, trendy, consumption-driven airhead. Nor am I a conservative, provincial, go-with-the-herd Midwesterner. I'm definitely not herd material. I am an individualist who enjoys some intellectual companionship. So far, I haven't found a place that meets my needs. I don't want to live in a place filled with busybodies, nor do I want to live in a place where your neighbors will let you freeze to death if your furnace goes out and you don't happen to be a Bible thumper.

I've been following this discussion about the old and the new Colorado with some interest and wonder if there's a place in Colorado that meets my needs and isn't economically out-of-sight.

A few towns come to mind. Leadville has a Libertarian city council and is posed for good growth with the re-opening of Climax. Steamboat and Telluride might also go well with your intellectual interests. I wouldn't listen to the nay sayers who say that there are fewer places to live. In reality, Colorado has some of the greatest places in the country.

[CosmicWizard]

Bagz wrote:

In reality, Colorado has some of the greatest places in the country.

I'm strongly inclined to agree, but what the heck do I know, I've been in Colorado for less than 2 years. I'm not able to compare it to the good old days. Based on the perceptions from some of the old timers who make comparisons, my not having anything to compare is a real blessing. I just take it the way it is for better or worse. What is...is, and one person's label is as good as the next persons label.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by NewAgeRedneck

Bagz wrote:

In reality, Colorado has some of the greatest places in the country.

I'm strongly inclined to agree, but what the heck do I know, I've been in Colorado for less than 2 years. I'm not able to compare it to the good old days. Based on the perceptions from some of the old timers who make comparisons, my not having anything to compare is a real blessing. I just take it the way it is for better or worse. What is...is, and one person's label is as good as the next persons label.

I think there is a lot of confusion between opinions of what might be aesthetically desirable in a community and what is practical as a place to live. In the case of the former, there are some people who think yuppie-overrun trophy house resort towns are just fine--I am not one of them. Other people might think an "old time" Colorado town with an active mine nearby, or some logging, or some ranching is a hick-backwards dump. That's a matter of perception and taste.

What I think is a lot more important to readers of this forum may be what communities are actually going to be sustainable and possible to live in now and in the future. Right now, unless you are wealthy or have a substantial income coming from somewhere else, a big bunch of Colorado towns are already off of the "doable" list. If real estate prices resume their upward climb, as so many people fervently wish, more towns will go off of the lists of all but the rich. A greater question is what will happen when (my personal view is not a matter of "if") the coming energy crisis/shortage in this country starts laying waste to our automobile-centric lifestyle. That will severely impact most every part of the US, but it will have an amplified impact in a state like Colorado, where a lot of any alternative transportation infrastructure (railroads being the primary example) has been dismantled, the population is disbursed (both in suburbs and rural areas) so greatly that mass transit is largely impractical, and so much of the economy is totally reliant on cheap auto and air transportation to be viable. Pile on top of that the fact that so much of the Colorado economy is dependent on money inflows from transfer payments (pensions, etc.) and tourism--two sources likely to be severely diminished in an economic downturn--and the prescription for economic pain is pretty certain.

People who have lived in Colorado for a long time, have their homes paid off, and can maintain at least enough cash flow for day-to-day existence may be able to stay here in that kind of environment--but an awful lot of people who bought in at the top of the market, are living in expensive areas, or need a substantial income to maintain their lifestyle just may find Colorado to become "unlivable" for them. That happened to many in the last "crash" in the early 1980's, and I believe what's coming will put that one to shame in length, extent, and severity. Colorado has been an abnormally "possible" place to live in the last 25 years or so in comparison to all of the times before that. My bet is that it is going to revert to its more "difficult" ways in the years ahead. The things that made it "easier" (cheap energy, cheap transportation, speculative money, excess consumption) are all evaporating.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I think there is a lot of confusion between opinions of what might be aesthetically desirable in a community and what is practical as a place to live. In the case of the former, there are some people who think yuppie-overrun trophy house resort towns are just fine--I am not one of them. Other people might think an "old time" Colorado town with an active mine nearby, or some logging, or some ranching is a hick-backwards dump. That's a matter of perception and taste.

Funny how you can spin these great Colorado towns in such a negative light. What is your definition of yuppie? Someone who is younger and makes more than you? You consistently whine about how worker bees are finding it harder to live in an economy where retirees are moving in, but then you whine about traditional Colorado industries like tourism, mining and logging and ranching. Is there anything that would put a smile on your face?

What I think is a lot more important to readers of this forum may be what communities are actually going to be sustainable and possible to live in now and in the future. Right now, unless you are wealthy or have a substantial income coming from somewhere else, a big bunch of Colorado towns are already off of the "doable" list.

Small towns across the country have remained small for DECADES because it requires jobs to support larger towns. Unless a town has a job for you it is not "doable" unless you have external income. This is nothing new.


People who have lived in Colorado for a long time, have their homes paid off, and can maintain at least enough cash flow for day-to-day existence may be able to stay here in that kind of environment--but an awful lot of people who bought in at the top of the market, are living in expensive areas, or need a substantial income to maintain their lifestyle just may find Colorado to become "unlivable" for them. That happened to many in the last "crash" in the early 1980's, and I believe what's coming will put that one to shame in length, extent, and severity. Colorado has been an abnormally "possible" place to live in the last 25 years or so in comparison to all of the times before that. My bet is that it is going to revert to its more "difficult" ways in the years ahead. The things that made it "easier" (cheap energy, cheap transportation, speculative money, excess consumption) are all evaporating.

People who pay off their homes will always (and historically have always) be in a better position than those that do not. This is nothing to complain about. The crash in the 80's happened because energy prices dropped and Colorado suffered when the rest of the country benefited. Colorado is energy rich and technologically sound. Higher energy costs will benefit us more than hurt us.

Some communities export their children because there is no industry to sustain them. When these children move to New York or Los Angeles and keep their nose to the grindstone for 20 years and retire early, we should welcome them and their external income toting friends back with open arms.

[CosmicWizard]

Bagz wrote:

Small towns across the country have remained small for DECADES because it requires jobs to support larger towns. Unless a town has a job for you it is not "doable" unless you have external income. This is nothing new.

Having grown up in Pennsylvania, a state comprised mostly of small towns in very rugged, eastern mountain countryside I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately many of those PA towns are deeply mired in the rust belt economy or lack thereof. BECASUE they resisted growth and change when it was an option many years ago, and they have become rust belt relics. Those PA towns are no longer desirable place to be. At least the small towns of Colorado are magnificently desirable locations. They still attract those who are wealthy. Most of those PA towns would be HAPPY to have wealthy people moving into them. Better to have a few crumbs from the wealthy than no food at all.

[jazzlover]

Funny how you can spin these great Colorado towns in such a negative light. What is your definition of yuppie? Someone who is younger and makes more than you? You consistently whine about how worker bees are finding it harder to live in an economy where retirees are moving in, but then you whine about traditional Colorado industries like tourism, mining and logging and ranching. Is there anything that would put a smile on your face?

You apparently haven't read my posts very carefully. I am a strong supporter of agriculture (I worked in it for years) in Colorado. I support responsible mining, logging, and ranching--they actually produce something of value, and--particularly in the case of logging and mining--produced a fair amount of relatively good-paying jobs. You are right about exporting Colorado's youth elsewhere--that has happened for years, and it has accelerated as Colorado's rural economy has become more and more dominated by minimum-wage tourism jobs. I am not even anti-tourism, but the modern version of it--the mega-resorts and their ilk--are not the environmentally benign critter that their champions would like everyone to believe. I especially despise the modern incarnation of the ski resort because--at its very root--it can not survive without continuing recreational sprawl and land development. A ski area executive stated in an unexpectedly candid moment at a meeting I was attending that the ski business is not about skiing, it's about land development, and that without continuing land development, a ski area can't survive financially. I don't think it could be stated in a more clear manner what they are all about. When it comes to preserving open space, a modern mega-ski area is pretty much the anti-Christ in my book.

I make no apologies for offending some people who think that big population growth, rampant real estate speculation, stupid and unnecessary development, and destruction of Colorado's historical and natural heritage is a necessary or inevitable result of "progress." I don't buy it--never have, never will.

[CosmicWizard]

Jazzlover wrote:

I make no apologies for offending some people who think that big population growth, rampant real estate speculation, stupid and unnecessary development, and destruction of Colorado's historical and natural heritage is a necessary or inevitable result of "progress." I don't buy it--never have, never will.

Jazz, I'm not a fan of big population growth, rampant real estate speculation, stupid and unnecessary development, and destruction of Colorado's historical and natural heritage as a necessary or inevitable result of "progress." either. I do however believe that those things are the lesser of two evils when compared to no-growth, stagnation, and outright deterioration.

[vegaspilgrim]

Man, this thread just never goes away! But that's fine-- good discussion. I want to bring up one point here-- I do not believe that you can generalize about "Coloradans." The Front Range, where the majority of Coloradans live, has almost nothing in common with the West Slope, the mountain communities, or the eastern plains. They might as well be three completely separate states. What we call "Colorado" is an artificial political entity, a completely rectangular box that has nothing to do with natural, cultural, or economic boundaries. The issues that affect the three different "thirds" of the state are totally different, too. Sure, each region of Colorado fights with one another for water rights-- but so do other states, both the upper basin and lower basin states. State pride and everything is great, but I think you have to take a step back and look at the entire region, and the whole world, really, not just the World of Colorado.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

Man, this thread just never goes away! But that's fine-- good discussion. I want to bring up one point here-- I do not believe that you can generalize about "Coloradans." The Front Range, where the majority of Coloradans live, has almost nothing in common with the West Slope, the mountain communities, or the eastern plains. They might as well be three completely separate states. What we call "Colorado" is an artificial political entity, a completely rectangular box that has nothing to do with natural, cultural, or economic boundaries. The issues that affect the three different "thirds" of the state are totally different, too. Sure, each region of Colorado fights with one another for water rights-- but so do other states, both the upper basin and lower basin states. State pride and everything is great, but I think you have to take a step back and look at the entire region, and the whole world, really, not just the World of Colorado.

How quite true. Unfortunately, the economics and politics of the Front Range DO dominate the rest of the state because of the population and power concentrated on the Front Range. It is the "tyranny of the majority" that is far too common in most of the Rocky Mountain states because--in most of the Rocky Mountain states--one or two metro areas contain most of the population in any given state. My rural Colorado friends disparagingly refer to Denver as "The Known Center of the Universe" for that very reason.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

When it comes to preserving open space, a modern mega-ski area is pretty much the anti-Christ in my book.

Population growth is inevitable. There are 2 ways for it to happen - sprawl and concentrated growth. You must admit that ski areas concentrate tourists and development into small areas adjacent to them - keeping vast expanses of land relatively untouched. It is politically practically impossible to open a new ski area and we are seeing that the development around them is going up not out. Since many of your posts are against sprawl, I would think you would like this type of development. Personally it doesn't matter to me whether the development is up or out. People should be able to do whatever they want with their land. I just don't like the idea of people complaining about what other people do with their property in an effort to have it regulated in some way. The point I was making is that there are really cool people doing really cool things in these towns and for someone moving here, they should be considered. In the resort towns, no job is minimum wage. The maids make at least $20 an hour. The construction workers make double that. The real worker bees are the true beneficiaries of the mega developers.