Folks who move to Idaho and now want to leave

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Montguy

I've long had a strange feeling that Idahoans don't really care for Montana, but maybe I'd be wiser to just see it as a matter of indifference, which is probably a sentiment that many Montanans in turn reciprocate toward Idaho.

Regarding your contention that NOID has a stronger allure than Bozeman (and really Montana in general), I would have to agree completely. Economic development and urban expansion is much stronger there than it is here, no question about that, and a growing metropolis like Boise, in addition to the suburban atmosphere of Coeur d'Alene and its proximity to Spokane, gives Idaho a definite edge over Montana.

I'm perplexed when I ponder the future of Idaho, though; will I really appreciate it as much once it goes the way of Colorado entirely?

I don't know just how much Idahoans don't like Montana. I personally like Montana fine, and know a lot of folks who have moved both ways across the border. The states do have different personalities, even though they are very similar. I think Montana is wilder and woolier than Idaho, and less prudish.

Some of that must come from different pioneers. Montana was settled by a lot of stockmen who came up from Texas, Kansas, and the southwest, while a lot of Idaho pioneers were Mormons and in the north, Irish, Cornish, and Italian miners. The mines in Butte were always closely associated with the mines in the Silver Valley in Idaho.

Personally, I think Bozeman just got loved to death. That's happened in spots all over the west. C d'A and Sandpoint may be in danger of the same, but in a different way- C d'A really boomed when it became a popular retirement spot for cops all over the west, and for retirees who left Cali and Arizona for cheaper and more moderate climes.

I sure hope it doesn't happen to N. Idaho. There isn't much habitable room there as in Montana, or E. Washington and Oregon. It could become crowded there.

Either state is still pretty damned empty in comparison to most of the country. Both still have a lot of potential for growth of all kinds, especially now, when increasingly more workers don't need to travel to a central business office or facility.
A lot depends on what innovations pop up that are supported by the state. N. Dakota boomed long before tracking because it loosened up it's interest laws and regulations. All the big credit card companies moved there and set up headquarters as soon as that happened, and that industry is still booming along.

Similar things could happen just as easily in Montana and Idaho. i don't think either will become another Colorado, though- Colorado is unique in too many ways, including it's location. once outside the Denver metro, the rest of the state is just as varied as Idaho and Montana are.

And Colorado has a 100 year head start on anywhere in the intermountain west, except for Utah. Utah will become another Colorado by mid century or earlier if it keeps growing as it's done for the past 40 years. Only Salt Lake City rivals Denver as a hub city in the intermountain west.

Personally, I believe the entire idea of suburbs, homes on large lots, etc. will change drastically in this century. The concept of living outside a city and working inside the city is already failing, as is the idea of using a car as a vital part of living.
Kids are already abandoning the automobile altogether for alternatives. The highway gridlock will eventually become a thing of the past in all urban areas, and urbanity will become more compact, simply because it will be easier and happier to live in. since the U.S. is already maxed out on it's energy use, there will be many alternatives to stuff like heating and air conditioning, transportation, and everything.

Idaho and Montana might be more wide open and less populated than it is presently. Who knows? There are a ton of unpredictables in the future. The 19th century may become the example for living in the 21st century, not the 20th.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by Keim

North Idaho has a university of similar size to MSU.

I'd argue the significant difference is the Gallatin mountain range and nearby Yellowstone for Bozo.

I guess if you include Lewiston and Moscow you are correct. I wasn't thinking that way, but probably should have been.

It would be those towns that enjoy the cultural benefits of being college towns, and to your second point those towns are a little further away from some of the north Idaho outdoor recreational opportunities compared to Bozeman.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by TohobitPeak

The population of North Idaho along with the growth rates, especially the Coeur d'Alene area, would suggest to me more people are drawn to North Idaho rather then Bozeman and Montana.

I wasn't sure what I'd find, but here is the data on pop growth in a few places in ID and MT:

Gallatin County (Bozeman) - 1980: 42.9k, 2010: 89.5k, growth of 46k or 209%

Missoula County (Missoula) - 1980: 76k, 2010: 109.3k, growth of 33k or 144%

Ravalli County (Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula) - 1980: 22.5k, 2010: 40.2k, growth of 17.7k or 179%

Kootenai County (CdA) - 1980: 59.8k, 2010: 138.5k, growth of 94k or 232%

Bonner County (Sandpoint) - 1980: 24.1k, 2010: 40.9k, growth of 16.8k or 170%

I was somewhat surprised to see Kootenai county lead the pack among this group, but certainly the Montana locations have also been growing at a good clip over this 30 year period.

When we were in Bozeman this past summer a resident told us the county was planning for the population of Gallatin county to double in the next 20 years.

[ejay]

I knew that a lot of people had moved here. Kootenai County. It's traffic all day long rain or snow now. Summer tourist season more traffic. I am glad that I got to grow up here when it was a small town. I feel more like and outside observer here than a local. I can remember talking to locals in Front Royal VA and they told me the same things about the growth around Washington DC. Where shopping centers would be built and all the houses in and sold in a year. Whole farms swallowed up and now are sub divisions. The growth keeps coming. It' will continue into the future. With so many people retiring and wanting to retire here I can't see it stopping.

[jem22]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

I really doubt that most people who are moving to Idaho are doing so without having given it enough thought.

And yet untold thousands who don’t particularly like football mindlessly watched the Superbowl last Sunday because rich guys on Madison Avenue relentlessly promote the coolness of the sport to the unwitting masses. Football may not be the best analogy where this thread’s concerned, but my point is people do all manner of things without engaging conscious thought, including moving cross country.

A disturbing percentage of folks invest minimal time into examining their own lives, let alone their true motivations for moving anywhere; and if the unexamined life is not worth living, what does that does that say about those compelled to move from without?

As a species we are disturbingly vulnerable to conditioning and propaganda in it’s myriad forms, otherwise, corporations/politicians wouldn’t invest millions in their advertising campaigns to lead us this way or that. I would even posit that most people are simply other people. To illustrate on a very micro-level, I observed other members using words like “absurd,” “suggest,” and “my observation" only after I introduced them on this thread.

The traffic I experienced on 95 was the equivalent to anything I’d ever experienced on 1-5 or worse. It was raining and off season. No point blaming North Idaho’s traffic woes on tourists.

[KurtAngleDoesn'tSuck]

Here's my cynical definition of rural:
If you live less than twenty miles from a Walmart, you're not rural.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by jem22

And yet untold thousands who don’t particularly like football mindlessly watched the Superbowl last Sunday because rich guys on Madison Avenue relentlessly promote the coolness of the sport to the unwitting masses. Football may not be the best analogy where this thread’s concerned, but my point is people do all manner of things without engaging conscious thought, including moving cross country.

This is an absurd analogy. For one thing, the level of investment (personal, time, financial, etc.) to watch a football game is many orders of magnitude lower than moving to a new location, particularly when that new location is in a new state. Second, the potential repercussions of an unwise choice are also orders of magnitude lower for the football game. Both of those facts mean that there is no real need to put the same level of thought into "should I watch the Super Bowl" as there is into "should I move to Idaho."

Finally, there are many good and valid reasons to watch the Super Bowl that have little to do with football. Spending time with good friends being just one of them.

I still maintain that few people make a decision to move to another state without some serious consideration, and among those that do it's not at all surprising that a large percentage of them decide a short time later that they have made a mistake.

Originally Posted by jem22

A disturbing percentage of folks invest minimal time into examining their own lives, let alone their true motivations for moving anywhere; and if the unexamined life is not worth living, what does that does that say about those compelled to move from without?

As a species we are disturbingly vulnerable to conditioning and propaganda in it’s myriad forms, otherwise, corporations/politicians wouldn’t invest millions in their advertising campaigns to lead us this way or that. I would even posit that most people are simply other people. To illustrate on a very micro-level, I observed other members using words like “absurd,” “suggest,” and “my observation" only after I introduced them on this thread.

I have to observe that you seem to have a rather dour perspective on humanity. Based on those north Idaho residents I've met so far this doesn't seem to be an attitude that is typical of the area. I'd also suggest it's not typical of the attitude I would expect from people who really do embrace life in a rural area.

Originally Posted by jem22

The traffic I experienced on 95 was the equivalent to anything I’d ever experienced on 1-5 or worse. It was raining and off season. No point blaming North Idaho’s traffic woes on tourists.

Absent some extenuating circumstances that were present at that time on 95, my observation is that you and I must not drive on the same I-5.

[LionFamily]

Originally Posted by jem22

The traffic I experienced on 95 was the equivalent to anything I’d ever experienced on 1-5 or worse. It was raining and off season. No point blaming North Idaho’s traffic woes on tourists.

I must say that I'm not a fan of 95 through CDA in the summer, but I would not compare it to I-5 just about anywhere in CA except maybe the extreme north. Not even close, IMO.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by KurtAngleDoesn'tSuck

Here's my cynical definition of rural:
If you live less than twenty miles from a Walmart, you're not rural.

In a similar vein, some people have suggested that the distance to the nearest McDonalds be used as a measure of whether you are in a rural area. Someone even created a map that visualizes this: Distance to McDonalds