Why the "split" between "old" and "new" Coloradans . . . (Aspen: 2010, unemployment)

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by NewAgeRedneck

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.

As a fellow Pennsylvanian, I agree. I have seen what the above has done to Pittsburgh. It's far more challenging, in a good way, to try to figure out where to build the additional schools than which empty ones to close. Just one example.

[Chris19]

I see both in South Dakota. Sioux Falls and a good chunk of the I-29 corridor along with the Black Hills is like the Front Range where there is growth and there is good chunk of the state outside of the larger communities (over 5,000 people) that has been dying off due to older people dying off, younger people moving for more opportunites (to larger cities in SD and elsewhere), and not enough younger people born and sticking around to carry things on.

I would lilke to see stable to steady growth to avoid the problems of rapid growth and yet not stagnating and going backwards.

I see Colorado's growth rather impressive but feel that better municipal and regional planning is lacking. Comprehensive plans for cities, counties, and regions should have and needs to be used to manage land use and address the interests of communities who want to grow along with natural conservation, transportation needs, and agricultural interests. Comprehensive plans allow the cities to grow, but grow in a reasonable manner and allows for better planning in relations to land use, infrastructure, and handling different interests. Balancing many of these interests, although competing interests, is necessary and is the fairest for everyone.

[TaraMoon]

Jazz:

Thanks for responding. I appreciate it.

TaraMoon

[TaraMoon]

Originally Posted by Bagz

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.

Bagz: Thanks for your response. I'll do some research on those locations. However, almost all the Libertarians I've met turn out to be Republicans who want to smoke pot. They're essentially very conservative where everyone else is concerned but want to be free to do their own thing.

[TaraMoon]

I find it hard to believe that maids make $20 an hour anywhere. Are you sure about that?

[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.

Originally Posted by TaraMoon

Bagz: Thanks for your response. I'll do some research on those locations. However, almost all the Libertarians I've met turn out to be Republicans who want to smoke pot. They're essentially very conservative where everyone else is concerned but want to be free to do their own thing.

LOL I can see how you would think that. Some of my Libertarian friends are exactly that. However, some are converted Democrats that believe that the Democratic Party is becoming an advocacy group for Socialism. I have heard both Democrats and Republicans say that Libertarians will never become a dominant party because they are too individualistic. I think you can see why after reading your post criticizing liberal and conservative towns and claiming to be individualistic I would recommend Leadville. It's difficult to know exactly what you are looking for from a few paragraphs.

[Bob from down south]

I think, Tara-Moon, that you would be happy in any place with a very well-developed public library system. It's the only place I can think of where things are as labeled and neatly categorized as your characterizations of people and places seems to be.

I agree with Bagz, though, Leadville might be a good choice. There are tens of millions of gallons of toxic tailing-contaminated water trapped in mines above the town threatening to flood the place. So bring a raincoat...the republicans from Colorado Springs will only rescue people who are loudly thumping their Bibles as a rescue signal.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Chris19

I see both in South Dakota. Sioux Falls and a good chunk of the I-29 corridor along with the Black Hills is like the Front Range where there is growth and there is good chunk of the state outside of the larger communities (over 5,000 people) that has been dying off due to older people dying off, younger people moving for more opportunites (to larger cities in SD and elsewhere), and not enough younger people born and sticking around to carry things on.

I would lilke to see stable to steady growth to avoid the problems of rapid growth and yet not stagnating and going backwards.

I see Colorado's growth rather impressive but feel that better municipal and regional planning is lacking. Comprehensive plans for cities, counties, and regions should have and needs to be used to manage land use and address the interests of communities who want to grow along with natural conservation, transportation needs, and agricultural interests. Comprehensive plans allow the cities to grow, but grow in a reasonable manner and allows for better planning in relations to land use, infrastructure, and handling different interests. Balancing many of these interests, although competing interests, is necessary and is the fairest for everyone.

The city I live in, Louisville, has a comp plan and so does Boulder. I'd venture to say that most cities in Colorado have them. Comp plans do need to be revised every so often, b/c reality often intrudes. For example, Boulder has areas comped for agricultural that haven't been farmed for years, maybe decades.

[sterlinggirl]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

I agree with Bagz, though, Leadville might be a good choice. There are tens of millions of gallons of toxic tailing-contaminated water trapped in mines above the town threatening to flood the place. So bring a raincoat...the republicans from Colorado Springs will only rescue people who are loudly thumping their Bibles as a rescue signal.

Brilliant....

[sterlinggirl]

Originally Posted by Bagz

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.

Worker bees are the beneficiaries? You must mean the ones who live in Battlement Mesa and commute two hours each way to Aspen to make just enough money to pay for their rent every month. You see the same thing in LA with people spending four hours a day in their car to afford overpriced real estate, and after 9 hours at work, four hours in the car, spending time getting kids ready for school, and helping with a little homework at night, they don't live....they just work.