U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [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)
Thread summary:

Smart growth: neighborhood activists, good subdivision, high density, residential zoning

 
Old 08-30-2007, 03:14 PM
 
Location: I live in Ronan, MT but am stationed in Virginia Beach
290 posts, read 627,910 times
Reputation: 94

Advertisements

Getting the Growth You Want:
A Citizen's Guide to Subdivisions and Smart Growth
What to know more about how to help or halt a new subdivision? This guide is for you, whether you're a concerned citizen, neighborhood activist, planning board member or an elected official. Getting the Growth You Want (1.1 meg PDF file) covers the basics of how subdivisions in Montana are proposed (and either approved or denied); what makes a good subdivision; and how to get involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2007, 05:09 PM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,472,974 times
Reputation: 15493
Before you get all fired up reading this stuff you should look into who is behind these groups and the agenda that they have.... From the little digging I did it's some of our old friends of the "shut down the forest,stop fishing, no access to any states/federal land crowd.

This is more about high density, one house on top of the other CA type building or NO building at all (this means locals too) than trying to at least regulate it a little.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2007, 09:40 AM
 
1,001 posts, read 2,810,173 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
Before you get all fired up reading this stuff you should look into who is behind these groups and the agenda that they have.... From the little digging I did it's some of our old friends of the "shut down the forest,stop fishing, no access to any states/federal land crowd.

This is more about high density, one house on top of the other CA type building or NO building at all (this means locals too) than trying to at least regulate it a little.....
High density usually means smart growth (though they're not exactly synonymous) - it's about restricting residential zoning to smaller, confined areas closer to an urban center, and preventing leapfrog or infill sprawl.

Of course there's an agenda - keep people centralized in one urban area, keep natural and open spaces natural and open. That's pretty much it.

I'm not sure where you're pulling the "keep out" agenda - most of "these types" want to designate more wilderness area. What that means is that public lands are off limits to certain activity - sometimes recreational vehicle, but mostly to prevent building roads, and later homes in these areas. It doesn't mean they want to keep people out at all costs - it means they want to preserve these areas for as long as possible.

If the government sells these lands to private owners, or else allow for commercial or residential zoning in these areas, you'll see homes and roads and cabins pop up. It shouldn't be hard to see how ridiculous this is in wilderness areas.

I really wish people would see beyond politicizing this crap. They're really working for the best interest of everyone (except for those who want to develop and live in these places) - but the thought of standing next to these "dirty hippie activist types" makes peoples' skin crawl so much they'd rather see their homeland destroyed.

Ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:00 AM
 
495 posts, read 365,350 times
Reputation: 96
I'll stick by my guns - There is not such thing as good growth, and nothing good about 'controled growth',
There was a time and place for it in this country, but that time has come and gone. Ther is little if anything left to gain by continuing it. Growth should be seen as the 'old' economy, growth is a false economy, it's growth for the sake of growth. It really is time for change and that change is putting to rest this whole misguided notion of growth. It's like eating your tail, you can only do it for so long before it all catches up with you, but in the meantime - you're just destroying more of yourself.
I ask you this, What is better - controling a tumor or preventing it altogether ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:26 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,472,974 times
Reputation: 15493
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJoeMan View Post
I'll stick by my guns - There is not such thing as good growth, and nothing good about 'controled growth',
There was a time and place for it in this country, but that time has come and gone. Ther is little if anything left to gain by continuing it. Growth should be seen as the 'old' economy, growth is a false economy, it's growth for the sake of growth. It really is time for change and that change is putting to rest this whole misguided notion of growth. It's like eating your tail, you can only do it for so long before it all catches up with you, but in the meantime - you're just destroying more of yourself.
I ask you this, What is better - controling a tumor or preventing it altogether ?
So along this line of no growth, exactly what do you suggest we do with all the people in the U.S.? The population grows daily and unless we adopt China's way of dealing with population growth there's no real way to stop it so again, what do we do with our growing population? They will need jobs,food,housing,clothes etc....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:44 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,472,974 times
Reputation: 15493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorless View Post
High density usually means smart growth (though they're not exactly synonymous) - it's about restricting residential zoning to smaller, confined areas closer to an urban center, and preventing leapfrog or infill sprawl.
And that doesn't mean one house on top of the other? I'm sorry but there's no other way to fit a lot of housing into a confined area.

Quote:
Of course there's an agenda - keep people centralized in one urban area, keep natural and open spaces natural and open. That's pretty much it.
Exactly, and in the "open space natural" jargon that generally means keep people out!

Quote:
I'm not sure where you're pulling the "keep out" agenda - most of "these types" want to designate more wilderness area. What that means is that public lands are off limits to certain activity - sometimes recreational vehicle, but mostly to prevent building roads, and later homes in these areas.
Show me one place that this didn't mean gate off everything, walking only (if you're allowed in at all) and NO multiple use. Just by going up the road from my house I can show you 10 where it did. Everyone pays for state and federal land, not just "open space" activists so there has to be a balance for all.

Quote:
If the government sells these lands to private owners, or else allow for commercial or residential zoning in these areas, you'll see homes and roads and cabins pop up. It shouldn't be hard to see how ridiculous this is in wilderness areas.
I absolutely agree, they shouldn't be able to sell off what we ALL own without at least a vote.

Quote:
I really wish people would see beyond politicizing this crap. They're really working for the best interest of everyone (except for those who want to develop and live in these places) - but the thought of standing next to these "dirty hippie activist types" makes peoples' skin crawl so much they'd rather see their homeland destroyed.
While I agree it's "political crap" the only "best interest" they're working for is the small group that agree with THEM. How do you think the logging industry was killed off? Those were some of the highest paying jobs in this state and the loss of those and other high paying jobs has put this state in the service economy that it's in now. Not to mention lawsuit after lawsuit if anyone even TRIES to enter a forest for salvage logging or thining, and who pays for these lawsuits? You and I!
If you will do some digging, most of these "wonderful" groups are funded by out of state groups and those groups are funded by certain groups that do not have our (the U.S.) best interests at heart. Follow the money and you will see.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:56 AM
 
1,001 posts, read 2,810,173 times
Reputation: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
And that doesn't mean one house on top of the other? I'm sorry but there's no other way to fit a lot of housing into a confined area.
Exactly. What's the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
Exactly, and in the "open space natural" jargon that generally means keep people out!

Show me one place that this didn't mean gate off everything, walking only (if you're allowed in at all) and NO multiple use. Just by going up the road from my house I can show you 10 where it did. Everyone pays for state and federal land, not just "open space" activists so there has to be a balance for all.
Idaho. Everywhere in Idaho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
I absolutely agree, they shouldn't be able to sell off what we ALL own without at least a vote.
They do it all of the time. And surprisingly, they do it a lot with a vote, too, with cleverly titled bills (with obscure riders). Google CIEDRA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
While I agree it's "political crap" the only "best interest" they're working for is the small group that agree with THEM. How do you think the logging industry was killed off? Those were some of the highest paying jobs in this state and the loss of those and other high paying jobs has put this state in the service economy that it's in now. Not to mention lawsuit after lawsuit if anyone even TRIES to enter a forest for salvage logging or thining, and who pays for these lawsuits? You and I!
If you will do some digging, most of these "wonderful" groups are funded by out of state groups and those groups are funded by certain groups that do not have our (the U.S.) best interests at heart. Follow the money and you will see.....
I do have a problem with out-of-state interest groups. Often smaller, local groups go to these larger out of state groups for support, but it still stinks.

As for the logging, I don't disagree with you necessarily. But sometimes views conflict, and you have to decide what's more important - logging or supporting people working to protect land from development.

To me logging seems like a non-issue when you clear-cut forests to put up vacation homes, ski resorts, and other ranchettes - don't you?
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 > Montana
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 · Bug Bounty

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