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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2010, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,915,728 times
Reputation: 2439

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
And it would be a catastrophe to the quality of life on the Western Slope. Why the hell don't you move to Japan or China so you can have all the people and big metro areas you want and leave Colorado for those of us who appreciate it WITHOUT another few hundred thousand or million clueless souls? Colorado with about 2 million LESS people would be a big improvement, in my opinion.
Selway-Bitterroot, Jazz. It's like how Colorado was 80 years ago
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2010, 11:59 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,125,069 times
Reputation: 9066
To project what Grand Junction will look like 20 years from now, one has to understand where it has been and where it is now. For a lot of years, it had a more balanced economy based on agriculture, some energy production, some regional trade, some "retirement", and quite a bit of government. The railroad was also a major employer. That started changing in the late 1970's. Since then, every facet of the Grand Junction economy has been diminishing, except for the "retirement," regional trade, and energy component. Those have sustained and even expanded the economy.

Unfortunately, those industries are going to become much more mutually exclusive, and how Grand Junction goes in the future will rest on which industry becomes dominant. The "retirement" industry--that is, influx of retirees and people with money from elsewhere looks the most tenuous. That relies on people being able to cash equity out somewhere else or have substantial pension or transfer income to be able to live in Grand Junction. Given the horrid state of the rest of the US economy and its long-term structural problems, the supply of those kind of people is likely to thin substantially. Also, those people who can relocate tend to gravitate to places with a good quality of life, which brings us to the second issue.

Grand Junction has become heavily dependent on the gas industry and the potential for oil shale development. The latter is the real wild card. My opinion is that it will never be economically viable, but may come to fruition through massive taxpayer subsidies (Hey, taxpayers, BOHICA!--if you know what I mean). A massive development of oil shale would indeed stimulate the economy and population growth the added employment would bring in the Grand Junction/Rifle corridor--but it would do so with massive environmental degradation and diminishment in quality of life that would likely lead to a wholesale exodus from the Grand Valley by people who moved there for the quality of life it now offers. The question will be whether or not the nation and Colorado will permit west-central and northwest Colorado to become an environmental sacrifice zone at the altar of "petroleum production at whatever cost." I consider that a very real possibility. Personally, I would, without hesitation, relocate out of western Colorado--and probably Colorado, altogether--if that were to happen. I have too few years left to spend them living in an environmental cesspool.

The best outcome for Grand Junction would be if its population essentially stablized (or even shrunk some) and its economy diversified away from near total dependence on government, energy, and retirees. A resurgence of Grand Junction as an agricultural and rail transportation center would help that diversification greatly. Unfortunately, I don't see the area's business and political leaders embracing that philosophy--they have too much to gain personally from seeing the place wrecked just to make a buck or to justify the current bureaucracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,915,728 times
Reputation: 2439
ummm .... what he said ^^^
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Bend, OR
3,296 posts, read 8,207,692 times
Reputation: 3316
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Delta...if you consider Grand Junction to be a hick town, then you have apparently never been in some of the samll towns in the eastern and/or southern USA. Compared to some of those places, Grand Junction is downright cosmopolitan.
Like I said, the definition is different for everyone. Actually, I've lived in some real hick towns, Fairplay, CO for one!

And yes, I've been to the country of Appalachia....those are definitely hick towns, but in a different way. I don't necessarily mean hick to be a derogatory, especially in regards to GJ. I just mean that it's more blue jeans, blue collar, good ole boys, rather than citified. Not in a bad way, just the way it is!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,104 posts, read 20,372,219 times
Reputation: 4132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
To project what Grand Junction will look like 20 years from now, one has to understand where it has been and where it is now. For a lot of years, it had a more balanced economy based on agriculture, some energy production, some regional trade, some "retirement", and quite a bit of government. The railroad was also a major employer. That started changing in the late 1970's. Since then, every facet of the Grand Junction economy has been diminishing, except for the "retirement," regional trade, and energy component. Those have sustained and even expanded the economy.

Unfortunately, those industries are going to become much more mutually exclusive, and how Grand Junction goes in the future will rest on which industry becomes dominant. The "retirement" industry--that is, influx of retirees and people with money from elsewhere looks the most tenuous. That relies on people being able to cash equity out somewhere else or have substantial pension or transfer income to be able to live in Grand Junction. Given the horrid state of the rest of the US economy and its long-term structural problems, the supply of those kind of people is likely to thin substantially. Also, those people who can relocate tend to gravitate to places with a good quality of life, which brings us to the second issue.

Grand Junction has become heavily dependent on the gas industry and the potential for oil shale development. The latter is the real wild card. My opinion is that it will never be economically viable, but may come to fruition through massive taxpayer subsidies (Hey, taxpayers, BOHICA!--if you know what I mean). A massive development of oil shale would indeed stimulate the economy and population growth the added employment would bring in the Grand Junction/Rifle corridor--but it would do so with massive environmental degradation and diminishment in quality of life that would likely lead to a wholesale exodus from the Grand Valley by people who moved there for the quality of life it now offers. The question will be whether or not the nation and Colorado will permit west-central and northwest Colorado to become an environmental sacrifice zone at the altar of "petroleum production at whatever cost." I consider that a very real possibility. Personally, I would, without hesitation, relocate out of western Colorado--and probably Colorado, altogether--if that were to happen. I have too few years left to spend them living in an environmental cesspool.

The best outcome for Grand Junction would be if its population essentially stablized (or even shrunk some) and its economy diversified away from near total dependence on government, energy, and retirees. A resurgence of Grand Junction as an agricultural and rail transportation center would help that diversification greatly. Unfortunately, I don't see the area's business and political leaders embracing that philosophy--they have too much to gain personally from seeing the place wrecked just to make a buck or to justify the current bureaucracy.
That does not surprise me that you think GJ's population should stay the same or drop. That is about as surprising as me saying I want a city to grow. That being said I would like to hear if some current residents think it will grow or be stagnant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,467,757 times
Reputation: 9292
Over the coming years, I think it is more likely to grow than shrink, even though GJ is currently losing population due to the really bad economy here. But this too shall pass. GJ has been discovered and people from other parts of the USA are likely to keep coming here for a better quality of life. It is nowhere close to being an environmental sacrifice zone, and wether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen. It certainly could happen, but I don't think it will, mostly because I've experienced so many unexpected positive outcomes in my 60 years on the planet, that I just don't buy the doom and gloom bs no matter how plausable it may seem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,104 posts, read 20,372,219 times
Reputation: 4132
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Over the coming years, I think it is more likely to grow than shrink, even though GJ is currently losing population due to the really bad economy here. But this too shall pass. GJ has been discovered and people from other parts of the USA are likely to keep coming here for a better quality of life. It is nowhere close to being an environmental sacrifice zone, and wether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen. It certainly could happen, but I don't think it will, mostly because I've experienced so many unexpected positive outcomes in my 60 years on the planet, that I just don't buy the doom and gloom bs no matter how plausable it may seem.
That sounds reasonable. I don't think it will be a huge city but 250,000 seems like a decent size msa for the largest city on the western slope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,467,757 times
Reputation: 9292
Well personally, I hope it grows nowhere close to 250K. My concept of growth is a couple hundred people a year. I don't want to see GJ become a city of a quarter million people. IMO, that would be a negative change. Rather than a cancerous growth of that nature, I actually prefer jazzlovers scenario of a steady population....or even a loss of population.

Last edited by CosmicWizard; 05-26-2010 at 02:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 02:53 PM
 
3,460 posts, read 4,796,820 times
Reputation: 6677
History of the word hick:

Quote:
in a pre-1700 dictionary hick is defined as "any Person of whom any Prey can be made ...; also a silly Country Fellow."
Throw Grammar from the Train: Mencken and the history of 'hick'

If a hick is defined as "any Person of whom any Prey can be made", I'd say the land developers have proven conclusively that both COS and GJ are full of hicks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2010, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,467,757 times
Reputation: 9292
sterlinggirl wrote:
If a hick is defined as "any Person of whom any Prey can be made", I'd say the land developers have proven conclusively that both COS and GJ are full of hicks.
This definition applies to much of the planet! Using that definition, we're all a bunch of hicks when it comes to standing up to the developers and bankers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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