U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-22-2010, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,131 posts, read 26,998,917 times
Reputation: 6824

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
CAVA1990 wrote:
You're not taking into account the coming wave of virtual workers who will move there because that's where they want to live, not where they have a job. They'll be the ones snapping up a lot of those second homes.
While this is certainly a possibility, it hasn't happened yet, so let's not count those chickens just yet.
It's coming big time. A lot of large companies are just now virtualizing a lot of their workers to cut facilities costs.

 
Old 01-22-2010, 12:31 PM
 
1,742 posts, read 2,688,937 times
Reputation: 1925
Not a pretty picture, I think the spin doctors want you to believe things are improving, stats however bear otherwise.
Denied:1up! Software () (http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=1826 5 - broken link)
RP
 
Old 01-22-2010, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,764 posts, read 16,828,014 times
Reputation: 9316
CAVA1990 wrote:
It's ( virtual workers who will move there because that's where they want to live ) coming big time.
Maybe...Maybe not. We'll see!
 
Old 01-23-2010, 05:05 AM
 
857 posts, read 1,406,423 times
Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn View Post
Much of this discussion seems negative, as in 'when are the jobs coming back?' The distinct positive is that this is exactly what Colorado needs. It does ideally need fewer residents, not more. It ideally should not have second homes scattered about every single acre, but less. It ideally should not have a bonanza economy, but a sound and balanced one.

If people are focused on the hardship involved in such downsizing, then they are correct. It is not easy, particularly on a personal level, and if you are the one involved. But it might be that much smoother if done sanely, with a big part of that equation not the assumption that we must get back to growing quickly as fast as possible. So much that is suffered right now is directly due such imbalanced thinking and action.

Growth will remain a four letter word in my lexicon as long as it only means more in a mindless fashion. ...
Speaking from Foreclosureville in Arizona, I don't agree that Colorado needs less growth since the evidence doesn't support this. Every state that has enacted a growth management act has a foreclosure crisis and consequential massive unemployment (i.e. WA, OR, NV, NJ, CT, etc.).
How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Colorado does not have much of a foreclosure crisis, and unemployment has remained constant ever since the stock market crash.

And, people have been immigrating to Colorado in high rates from 2000-2010. New construction continues, just as it does in Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta.

Colorado should keep growing and recruiting high-tech industries, as it has been doing. Colorado can become a nationwide leader on this, as can neighboring New Mexico w/ many of the same pro-business policies as Colorado.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Don't discount that very large homes could become multi-family dwellings, or group homes for single persons who share expenses. There are solutions out there for the taking. In the old days these were often called boarding houses. Many larger homes in older cities were often converted to multiple apartments.
That's exactly what happens in places where growth is restricted, and less people can move in ... like Boulder and many other liberal college towns (Santa Cruz, etc.), where several people rent a house ... It's unfortunate since there would never had been a housing bubble in the first place, if not for "smart growth" ...
 
Old 01-23-2010, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,734,360 times
Reputation: 1696
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
Speaking from Foreclosureville in Arizona, I don't agree that Colorado needs less growth since the evidence doesn't support this. Every state that has enacted a growth management act has a foreclosure crisis and consequential massive unemployment (i.e. WA, OR, NV, NJ, CT, etc.).
How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Colorado does not have much of a foreclosure crisis, and unemployment has remained constant ever since the stock market crash.
I read O'Toole's analysis, and I think it's deeply flawed. Certainly, urban planning restrictions limit the available supply of housing, and that can exacerbate price bubbles. But those price increases are completely unsupportable in absence of the sort of irresponsible lending that allowed...no encouraged...people to overextend themselves into debt they cannot service long-term. Without crazy lending, incomes in an area will naturally limit prices.

Colorado does indeed have a tremendous foreclosure crisis...it just doesn't look quite as horrible as it is when compared to the train wreck in the "sandbox" (AZ, NV, FL, and CA).

Last, the places with unchecked urban growth are going to see large lingering problems with the overhang of excess inventory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
And, people have been immigrating to Colorado in high rates from 2000-2010. New construction continues, just as it does in Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta.
New construction has slowed to a crawl here. And there's still new construction in CA, AZ, NV, and FL too...just not much of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
Colorado should keep growing and recruiting high-tech industries, as it has been doing. Colorado can become a nationwide leader on this, as can neighboring New Mexico w/ many of the same pro-business policies as Colorado.
I don't want to see Colorado be a nationwide leader on growth. Inviting industry in does not entail growth...we have a sizeable and growing gap between the population we already have the jobs to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
That's exactly what happens in places where growth is restricted, and less people can move in ... like Boulder and many other liberal college towns (Santa Cruz, etc.), where several people rent a house ... It's unfortunate since there would never had been a housing bubble in the first place, if not for "smart growth" ...
"Smart growth" makes as much sense to me as "good cancer." I vote for NO growth until we can sustain what we already have.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 12:45 AM
 
857 posts, read 1,406,423 times
Reputation: 186
Default Colorado Growth Or Not ?

[quote=Bob from down south;12574921]I read O'Toole's analysis, and I think it's deeply flawed. Certainly, urban planning restrictions limit the available supply of housing, and that can exacerbate price bubbles. But those price increases are completely unsupportable in absence of the sort of irresponsible lending that allowed...no encouraged...people to overextend themselves into debt they cannot service long-term. Without crazy lending, incomes in an area will naturally limit prices.

CCCV IN BLUE ----- That is not according to Mr. O'Toole's research, since the same lending practices occurred in Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta where there are no urban growth caps.

Colorado does indeed have a tremendous foreclosure crisis...it just doesn't look quite as horrible as it is when compared to the train wreck in the "sandbox" (AZ, NV, FL, and CA).

Tremendous is only a general term. However, there isn't much of a housing bubble. Areas with large home values because they're tourist towns (such as Durango, Vail) DO NOT count. Denver and Boulder have urban growth boundaries, but the rest of the state according to Randal's article does not.


Last, the places with unchecked urban growth are going to see large lingering problems with the overhang of excess inventory.

Doubtful. Generally speaking, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. are all thriving areas w/ low unemployment and business friendly tax policies.

And, most of the country had unchecked Urban Growth until these growth management acts came along, and there were no significant housing bubbles - except in places like California that passed a growth management act in the 1970's - CA has see several bubbles (I'd have to read the article again).

I don't want to see Colorado be a nationwide leader on growth. Inviting industry in does not entail growth...we have a sizeable and growing gap between the population we already have the jobs to support it.

"Smart growth" makes as much sense to me as "good cancer." I vote for NO growth until we can sustain what we already have.

If you have no growth, that means no innovation, no technology, loss of construction jobs, loss of landscape jobs - translation = higher unemployment. And, it seems that posts on these threads are all crying that 6.5% unemployment is too high.

Well, if you want to see double that at 13% then continue to block Colorado's construction, timber, and mining, like they do in Arizona, Nevada, and the West Coast.
This nation was founded on agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. We can't survive with a "white collar" economy based on high-tech and IT as happens in Boulder.
Colorado has the resources to grow, with plenty of untapped minerals, energy resources, and dead timber. There are political battles over what to do that go beyond the general statements I'm making here about a natural resource based economy.
We have to keep looking for natural resources. Theoretically, there is never an endless supply of any given natural resources. We must keep surveying to avoid hyperfocusing on doomsday predictions. "Peak Oil" has some relevance, however, new oil is always discovered. But don't get me wrong - of course, we need alternative energy, too!
Seems that most posters on City-Data are far left on environmental issues, leaving us Libertarians as the minority. But that's OK; freedom of speech, and I'll rep you for providing an opposing view!

Last edited by CCCVDUR; 01-24-2010 at 12:47 AM.. Reason: Yes
 
Old 01-24-2010, 02:49 AM
 
16,438 posts, read 19,073,283 times
Reputation: 9512
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
But that's OK; freedom of speech, and I'll rep you for providing an opposing view!
My opposing view is that there will be no growth and that we are going into a depression worldwide.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 03:08 AM
 
857 posts, read 1,406,423 times
Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
My opposing view is that there will be no growth and that we are going into a depression worldwide.
Under the current policies including "smart growth" and "infilling," you're right, there will be no growth. However, Boulder maintains low unemployment w/ "smart growth," because they recruit high-tech businesses that always do well. I don't know about the depression part, except that I'm very depressed about the economy.
 
Old 01-24-2010, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,627 posts, read 3,708,143 times
Reputation: 1778
Regarding Randal O'Toole, the man is obsessed with the notion that public transit and urban development interests form a much larger and more powerful lobby than the highway and suburban development lobby that has dominated American politics since the 1950s. It's kind of like blaming the minority party for a supermajority's inability to accomplish anything. The Emperor has no clothes.

I'm also fascinated that the implication here is that growth and business development have to a) go hand in hand and b) require expansion rather than infill. Colorado does need high tech industry but also needs some kind of manufacturing or "real goods" production if it's going to weather the storm. All of this also fails to take into account the fact that Colorado's economy does not exist in a vacuum, but as one small piece in a much larger global economy, both for good and for ill.

It seems the state is at a crossroads where it has to decide if it wants to become some sort of economic powerhouse (and due to restrictions of natural resources and supply chain management, I'm not sure that's even possible), or wants to be a stable economy able to sustain it's current population.

Stability in a free market system does not demand persistent growth - only continued exchange of goods and services. We've created this illusion where the pie must always get bigger (kind of like a bubble) in order for our economic system to work, but it simply isn't true - it's a fiction created by financiers. As long as population growth is stabilized, and as long as the goods and services being exchanged are still in demand, then there need not be "growth" to sustain it.
 
Old 01-25-2010, 02:56 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,734,360 times
Reputation: 1696
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
CCCV IN BLUE ----- That is not according to Mr. O'Toole's research, since the same lending practices occurred in Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta where there are no urban growth caps.
Yes, and one good reason why Georgia has had more bank failures in the last 18 months than any other state. If you're suggesting that those places don't have big trouble in their housing markets...lots of borrowers underwater, foreclosure rates shooting up...you're sadly mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
Tremendous is only a general term. However, there isn't much of a housing bubble. Areas with large home values because they're tourist towns (such as Durango, Vail) DO NOT count. Denver and Boulder have urban growth boundaries, but the rest of the state according to Randal's article does not.
OK, how about this term: foreclosures were at record breaking levels in 2009 here in El Paso county. Isn't much of a housing bubble? Tell that to the owners of thousands of houses that have been on and off the market for 2-3 years here without selling. Tell that to the bank that took a 35% bath on the house I bought last year following a foreclosure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
Doubtful. Generally speaking, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. are all thriving areas w/ low unemployment and business friendly tax policies.
Yeah, well good luck finding yourself a job there then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
If you have no growth, that means no innovation, no technology, loss of construction jobs, loss of landscape jobs - translation = higher unemployment. And, it seems that posts on these threads are all crying that 6.5% unemployment is too high.
Says who? It's only the Ponzi financiers that have the lemming brigade sitting on their haunches panting "growth is good, growth is necessary, no growth means certain death, etc etc." It is not only possible for a population to thrive at zero growth, at some point in the near future it will become unavoidable as a result of resource competition and depletion. Exponential growth in a finite world is a mathematical impossibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
Well, if you want to see double that at 13% then continue to block Colorado's construction, timber, and mining, like they do in Arizona, Nevada, and the West Coast.
This nation was founded on agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. We can't survive with a "white collar" economy based on high-tech and IT as happens in Boulder.
Colorado has the resources to grow, with plenty of untapped minerals, energy resources, and dead timber. There are political battles over what to do that go beyond the general statements I'm making here about a natural resource based economy.
Hate to break it to you, but we're already over 13% when you use a more historically consistent measure like the U-6 figures. And it's ludicrous to suggest that with the insane amount of overbuilding that just occurred and is blowing up all across the looted plains, that we need to ramp up the construction industry here again anytime soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCVDUR View Post
We have to keep looking for natural resources. Theoretically, there is never an endless supply of any given natural resources. We must keep surveying to avoid hyperfocusing on doomsday predictions. "Peak Oil" has some relevance, however, new oil is always discovered. But don't get me wrong - of course, we need alternative energy, too!
Seems that most posters on City-Data are far left on environmental issues, leaving us Libertarians as the minority. But that's OK; freedom of speech, and I'll rep you for providing an opposing view!
Limits on the supply of natural resources aren't theoretical at all. Unfortunately, this is the typical American response to a shortage--"WE'RE RUNNING OUT SO WE HAVE TO FIND MORE SO WE CAN CONSUME THAT TOO!!" The desire to consume less and, in the process not turn our entire landscape into a patchwork of open-pit mines and sprawling unsustainable urban wastelands isn't left, right, or libertarian in nature.


Unlimited growth is the ideology of the cancer cell
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top