Idaho vs California (Boise, Nampa, Pocatello: relocation, real estate, housing)

[Sage of Sagle]

Originally Posted by Anchorless

You're so hung up on this sense of entitlement and un-American thing. I think it's more American to fight for your home and the things you love and value. And I do think a place being "home" gives one a sense of entitlement - we care about this place to our very souls. Most of us don't want to see it trashed. I really wonder why that doesn't resonate with you, Torrie.

I think this is where the real estate profession, while providing a valuable service in society in general terms, is part of the problem when urban invades rural.

For example...in the Sandpoint area...there are a LOT of real estate agencies. But 3-4 of them are spending a WAD teaming up with greedy developers to sell Sandpoint as "Jackson Hole on the Lake" and such. They're HAPPY to drive up property values as long as they make some serious bank.

Here's an example. Not 5 miles from here is a development with a catchy name. Paved roads to every building site, community well, shared sewage, etc. The big difference between their property and mine is that they'll pay double what I paid because they found it through some hip magazine and called some slick realtors, and apparently appraising for comps doesn't mean much when you're loaded.

It will be interesting to see how much these new "ranchers" enjoy their "country house" during bug hatching season, bee season, spider season, ice dams, and axle deep mud....huh? Funny how the ad never mentioned that, and somehow "full disclosure" only means "as required by law" versus telling a person about the area they're moving to...

Torrie...you know I like you...but in this area, being a real estate agent is like being a car salesman...guilty until proven innocent...sucks for honest realtors I know, but it's a strong local sentiment. So I don't envy you the uphill battle...

[Torrie]

Originally Posted by Anchorless

This is where you keep missing the point. I and others aren't saying you're directly trashing the state. We're saying that the aggregate - the influx of people, is trashing the state. It's making it so people can't go out and enjoy the mountains or lakes or rivers because everywhere you turn, there's a few dozen people already there (and that's not including the endless commute to actually get there now). The increased use of these areas has impact, and very soon our trails and campsites and rivers will necessarily be closed or limited because they can't handle the impact. A slight example of this is our own Camelback Park in Boise - the increasing use of the trails has caused serious wear and erosion, to the point where they were seriously considering closing off access.

This is what I mean by trashing the state - for the most part it isn't on an individual level, but in the aggregate, the mass number of people, that causes the impact and changes that no one really wants.

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. Technically I would be considered "the influx" because I'm not originally from Idaho.

I understand how difficult it must be for you to watch all these people move into your state and I think it's great that you want to dedicate your life to controlling the growth. As much as this will make you cringe, that is not my calling. It's not that I don't care, but I don't see it as a crisis situation that you like to portray. I think you need to get out into the world and see what it's like to live in other places. My feeling is from your comments, that you have never lived outside of Idaho. You paint the picture that traffic is terrible and everything is over-congested and there's no more room. I'm sorry but that just isn't true. Look at Twinkles comments in her post on her recent visit to Boise. She says:

"The traffic was totally reasonable to me. I realize y'all are having growth issues and unfortunately, I also know that means the traffic will increase, but after the traffic in this metro area, Boise (even at rush hour) seemed almost pleasant by comparison. Whatever the case, I'm not going to let the growth scare me away. It was just the lovliest place and I can't wait to get back there. People actually smiled!"

Yes in time, with more people moving in it will change, that's inevitable anywhere you go. I'm not going to be the one to tell people that they can no longer have children or no longer move into my state. Considering I moved from a different area, that would be very hypocritcal of me to impose that on others. Are you willing to tell people that? Have at it cause the idea won't be accepted.

What you have to accept is not everyone wants to make growth issues their lifetime career. They just want to live and enjoy life. I do not feel like making a career out of telling people not to move here or to quit having babies because Idahoans don't want anymore people in their state. All I can do is hopefully vote for the right people to make the best decisions on how Boise will handle growth and the future infrastructure of the city. Sorry if that's not good enough for you.

[Torrie]

Sage,

Keep in mind though, I'm not a developer nor do I have ties with a developer so I don't feel I'm responsible for urban sprawl, just want to be clear on that. I have no control over what other agents do.

[Torrie]

Originally Posted by Sage of Sagle

I think this is where the real estate profession, while providing a valuable service in society in general terms, is part of the problem when urban invades rural.

For example...in the Sandpoint area...there are a LOT of real estate agencies. But 3-4 of them are spending a WAD teaming up with greedy developers to sell Sandpoint as "Jackson Hole on the Lake" and such. They're HAPPY to drive up property values as long as they make some serious bank.

Here's an example. Not 5 miles from here is a development with a catchy name. Paved roads to every building site, community well, shared sewage, etc. The big difference between their property and mine is that they'll pay double what I paid because they found it through some hip magazine and called some slick realtors, and apparently appraising for comps doesn't mean much when you're loaded.

I'm sure I'll get shot for saying this but, I don't feel it's the real estate industy's responsibility to control the growth issues. If you think about it, that becomes a conflict of interest for anyone in that industry who sells property. Do you get where I'm going with this? It's not our function. That function should belong to planning and zoning, that's their role- so if anyone should have complaints it should fall back on them.

If planning and zoning doesn't allow it then it's not going to happen, period.

I don't want to get off topic here, I'm just responding to the above comments.

[Sage of Sagle]

Originally Posted by Torrie

Sage,

Keep in mind though, I'm not a developer nor do I have ties with a developer so I don't feel I'm responsible for urban sprawl, just want to be clear on that. I have no control over what other agents do.

I understand. People are going to move to Boise whether or not you're selling them properties. And I don't think you should be expected to start crusading to stop people from moving there to prove your morality.

Quite frankly I think it comes to P&Z rules to control growth rates. Here in Bonner County, the minimum you can subdivide to is 5 acres. That REALLY helps. And they just raised the minimum size for developed subdivisions I think too, I just don't recall the number. But it's a way to have the growth that DOES happen something that will go slow enough that the infrastructure can keep up. Heck...traffic on the "Long Bridge" is already bad enough...

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by lainie

The real reason that Californians are leaving the state in droves is the invasion from the south. Our culture and language are being decimated, and Californians see Idaho as one of the last vestiges of true America.

The real reason people are leaving California has very little to do with the "invasion from the south." The primary reason is the cost of housing and the demise of the middle class. I was in law enforcement for 35-years. I was VERY fortunate in that I bought a house well before prices went insane; unfortunately, the new cops are in a bad position. Few can afford to live in the community. Some were commuting well over 100 miles each way, and I know of a few who were living in small trailers or splitting the cost on a small apartment and flying out of state on the weekends to be with their families. It’s not just the cops. It’s also the firefighters, nurses, teachers, and others critical to the public infrastructure.

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by Anchorless

Can we not learn from California's past and present, and try to stop those same things from happening in Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah (read those other forums, and you'll find the same type of threads there as well)

OK, you bring up a good point, so I would ask the following:

1. How do you propose to stop the influx?
2. What specific and constitutionally supportable legislation would you propose?
3. How will you compensate California for contributing to its ruin since folks from Idaho, Utah, Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming moved to California for the jobs?

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by SergeantL

OK, you bring up a good point, so I would ask the following:

1. How do you propose to stop the influx?
2. What specific and constitutionally supportable legislation would you propose?
3. How will you compensate California for contributing to its ruin since folks from Idaho, Utah, Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming moved to California for the jobs?

It's a tough question I haven't figured out quite yet. If you strictly zone everything and reduce the number of houses built, prices skyrocket and the middle and lower class are squeezed out anyway. I think you can create disincentives for people moving here, though - severely increased property taxes on new home ownership, perhaps, while capping or limiting property taxes of those who have own a dwelling for more than X years. Perhaps you can adjust these taxes if a person has been a full time Idaho resident for X amount of years.

I also think we need to start containing growth. Restrict it to urban areas and centers, and keep up from creeping up in our mountains and rural areas. It you keep new housing abutted to existing urban areas, and make it high density, perhaps you dissuade those looking to buy huge chunks of land and either subdivide or put up a McRanch. Keep people to the urban centers, much like Oregon tried to do in the '70's and '80's.

Make the process for moving here more expensive, more time-consuming, more frustrating, and perhaps you dissuade some more people. Perhaps different rates and procedures for new residents (vs. those who have been an Idaho resident for X years) for things like registering a car, college tuition (much like Oregon - if they move to go to school as a non-resident, they remain a non-resident through the duration of school).

Make it tougher for non-residents and out of state groups to buy land and especially water rights. Let Idaho water be owned and controlled by Idahoans.

I think these things may be a start. I'd be interested in hearing reactions, and possible additions to these thoughts.

Also...retroactive reparations for California for those who moved there from other states? Hey, go for it, so long as we do the same for Idaho and those who've moved here in the last ten years. However, I've not once called for reparations for those who have already moved here - which seems to be what you're suggesting we do for California. If Cali (or Idaho or anywhere else) wants to penalize people for moving there now or in the future, go for it. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking...

[SergeantL]

Originally Posted by Anchorless

I think you can create disincentives for people moving here, though - severely increased property taxes on new home ownership, perhaps, while capping or limiting property taxes of those who have own a dwelling for more than X years. Perhaps you can adjust these taxes if a person has been a full time Idaho resident for X amount of years.

California has in effect done this under Proposition 13. It has done nothing to curb growth. New buyers pay substantially more taxes than long time residents. It is also one of the reasons my son had to move to Idaho. You end up penalizing your children when they want to buy.

Originally Posted by Anchorless

I also think we need to start containing growth. Restrict it to urban areas and centers, and keep up from creeping up in our mountains and rural areas. It you keep new housing abutted to existing urban areas, and make it high density, perhaps you dissuade those looking to buy huge chunks of land and either subdivide or put up a McRanch. Keep people to the urban centers, much like Oregon tried to do in the '70's and '80's.

This type of zoning has been attempted in California also. It only leads to 1.2 million dollar tract homes and million dollar condos.

Originally Posted by Anchorless

Make the process for moving here more expensive, more time-consuming, more frustrating, and perhaps you dissuade some more people. Perhaps different rates and procedures for new residents (vs. those who have been an Idaho resident for X years) for things like registering a car, college tuition (much like Oregon - if they move to go to school as a non-resident, they remain a non-resident through the duration of school).

Most of what you propose here, with the exception of higher college tuition and school classification for non-residents, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It is similar to the very reasons we had a Boston Tea Party.

Originally Posted by Anchorless

Make it tougher for non-residents and out of state groups to buy land and especially water rights. Let Idaho water be owned and controlled by Idahoans.

You might be successful with this, but the current land owners looking to cash in will fight you tooth and nail. As in California, farmers and ranchers view their property as retirement capital. If you start threatening their ability to sell and use the cash in their retirement years, you will have a gunfight on your hands.

Originally Posted by Anchorless

Also...retroactive reparations for California for those who moved there from other states? Hey, go for it, so long as we do the same for Idaho and those who've moved here in the last ten years. However, I've not once called for reparations for those who have already moved here - which seems to be what you're suggesting we do for California. If Cali (or Idaho or anywhere else) wants to penalize people for moving there now or in the future, go for it. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking...

My point is that many Idaho residents moved to California and helped to deplete the quality of life in that state. Idaho did nothing to create an economic base to entice its residents to stay. It depended on California to provide jobs for its children. Idaho has a responsibility to compensate California if it wants to force these residents to stay in California to ensure its own quality of life. In other words, all of the states you mention have no problem allowing their residents to immigrate to California, but they don’t want to shoulder the responsibility when they and/or their many descendants want to return.

[California Carl]

Well put Sarge, Torrie, I also agree with you! I guess some people just don't get it. They have no idea what the average Californian has endured for the last 20-30 years or so.
The big problem is our population and how fast it is growing. There are way too many people in the world and it is not slowing down. I have always been nice to other folks who came here for jobs and more money. I never treated any of them badly. We have seen more than our fair share of growth.
If everyone that was'nt born in California were to leave, I'd probably still like it here. But then, I would not have met a lot of people that I truely like and respect.
I really get a kick out of the "change your licence plate as fast as you can thing". I have a neighbor from Idaho that happens to be a CHP officer. It took them 6-7 months to get around to registering their vehicle here and nobody gave them any flack. Go figure. We Californians are just so mean.