Big Sky or Big Sprawl? (home, school, casino)

[JoeJoeMan]

Speaking of property rights - "the horse is already out of the barn" so to say. The government(some people) has already removed most if not all of your most important property rights, to mention just a few....who you rent your house to, who you have to hire, how you can/can't raise your children, should I go on ?................So for you folks talking about losing any kind of property rights is a mute point at this stage of the game, you already lost 90 percent of you rights along time ago. And if you don't realize that, what's the point of trying to act and say intellectual stuff on here, it's obvious you're blind to what has already happened to you.
About the only freedom left in america is your right to acquire lots of cheap crap made in china.
As a side thought, if this is the greatest country with the best economy, then way do we need 12 million illegal people here filling jobs and driving down our wages ? While our own kids have to spend half their life and a small fortune on an education just to make the same money your grandfather made with no education......so much for the greatest economy in the world and freedom....tell it do some other numb-skull.
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are a bunch of idiots - we are. And I'll bet you a dollar to a donut hole people in communist russia and most 3rd world contries have more say in raising their own kids then we do in america - land of the free, yea right.... Long live G Bush, to bad the family doesn't have a grandson we could elect him next.....but next best thing, we can elect Slick Willy's wife, just to keep things in the family.....what a blind bunch of sheep americans have turned into............but at least Joe can marry Bob now, and Mary can marry Sue.....yup american superior intellect at work again.
But I've digress..............
So what's a little bit a sprawl in the overall picture anyway...........?

[DanielRead]

This author doesn't even live in the area so what's the big deal, she was only doing a very realistic proclamation of what we have been tying to tell everyone who was wondering why our internet masked attitudes were so negative towards people who are interested in a possibility of relocating to our beloved state.

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by DanielRead

This author doesn't even live in the area so what's the big deal, she was only doing a very realistic proclamation of what we have been tying to tell everyone who was wondering why our internet masked attitudes were so negative towards people who are interested in a possibility of relocating to our beloved state.

She did her graduate work at the University of Montana.

[GLS]

Moderator cut: off topicI would like to thank you for sharing some interesting attitudes that it appears I will encounter in building a home in Montana. You see, I am a "newbie", with primary residence in California, and would be considered by some to be "equity-rich", although I would have to debate this latter characterization. With that introduction, based upon some of these posts, let the hate mail begin.

In the interim, I would like to offer a few comments. First, I bought 23 acres outside of Ronan in April on my first visit to Montana. I won't bore you with my personal reasons, but I found the property with the aid of a very friendly and professional realtor who is a native Montanan. I purchased the property from another Montanan whose family has a long history in, and is well respected in the community. He purchased it only one year previously as an investment, clearly with the intent of turning it for a profit (which incidentally I have no philosophical problem with because it was his decision). Interestingly enough, he purchased the property from a rancher whose family had been in the valley for several generations. He divided 80 acres into four twenties and sold them as part of a "mini-subdivision". I also just drilled a well and the fees helped the welldriller pay to repair the roof that the summer tornado tore off his barn.

So here is my point. Am I the bad guy because I wanted to experience life in Montana?, or do any of these native Montanans bear any responsibility in your eyes for selling off Montana. I don't try to second guess the rationale behind each Montanan in making their personal decisions to do what they feel is right with their own assets. I also empathize with your desire to maintain a rural lifestyle surrounded by great natural beauty. However, I also don't feel I need to apologize for contributing to the livelihood of the local realtor, or helping the rancher increase his cash reserves.

Here's another perspective. I just received my Montana tax bill. There is a list of levies a mile long for services most of which I do not use. So what! I'm not going to complain that I don't want to pay school taxes because I don't have any children in school. I knew that paying taxes was part of the accountability in purchasing the property. This is just part of being a responsible citizen. At the same time, the taxes I pay help subsidize services for all the Montanans in Ronan. Although this does not merit me an award, you might consider this small contribution before you play "kick-the-newbie".

I have a lot more questions, but I'll wait until I get a response to this post.

PS One post lambasts newcomers for wanting "at least 5 acres of paradise", while
another rails against "high density" housing like California. If native Montanans
can't agree on a reasonable development plan how do you expect people moving in
to respect your wishes?

[Mattie Jo]

If native Montanans can't agree on a reasonable development plan how do you expect people moving in to respect your wishes?

or do any of these native Montanans bear any responsibility in your eyes for selling off Montana. I don't try to second guess the rationale behind each Montanan in making their personal decisions to do what they feel is right with their own assets.

Thank you so much for your great post. Put the blame where it belongs.

[GLS]

Originally Posted by jessaka

Thank you so much for your great post. Put the blame where it belongs.

Apologies for being "off topic". I am new to this and inadvertently coalesced topics from multiple threads.

One personal point on semantics. It was not my intent to "put the blame where it belongs", but rather to promote some introspection vs blame-throwing. When I get to Montana my preference is to work constructively with locals to prevent any further Big Sprawl. The foundation for this starts with getting to know the outsider before yelling "get a rope".

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by GLS

Apologies for being "off topic". I am new to this and inadvertently coalesced topics from multiple threads.

One personal point on semantics. It was not my intent to "put the blame where it belongs", but rather to promote some introspection vs blame-throwing. When I get to Montana my preference is to work constructively with locals to prevent any further Big Sprawl. The foundation for this starts with getting to know the outsider before yelling "get a rope".

How does this work, though? You can buy a chunk of land, do what you want with it, but then you're going to try to prevent other people from doing the same?

I mean, from the inside you're just another outsider with money coming in to build their "dream home." I realize that's absolutely shortsighted, but 'tis the general sentiment.

Look, there is no easy answer to your question, or solution to the problem at hand. It becomes an issue of individual property rights vs. regional/social planning, and on how best to control growth - moratoriums, high density, or sprawl. They both seem to be dual edged swords.

It's interesting to watch this happen, in a sense, because a lot of the inter-mountain areas are becoming retirement and/or second home havens, which tend to drive up the cost of living dramatically while keeping living wages stagnant. And at the same time many retirees squabble about having to pay for things they don't feel they use, and typically vote down school bonds and other similar projects, unless it's getting their roads paved or their Walmarts put in.

You realize the problems Montana faces, and I think its good that the people coming in have the attitude that you have (as fundamentally hypocritical as it really is). And it's important to realize that this isn't about blame (because as you've pointed out, there is plenty to go around), but about diagnosing problems and creating solutions.

Do I have a solution? Yeah, but most people disagree with it. I'm in favor of instituting draconian zoning and land-use policies (voted on by the public, of course) that restrict where and how people can build outside of urban impact areas. Designate more land public land, or forest/farm/etc. land that cannot be built on. Zone for only one residential dwelling per X amount of acres. Prevent subdividing. Prevent building near or on certain geographical or geological features (lakes, forests, mountains, whatever).

I mean, for this to happen people would have to be willing to limit their property rights a lot (which would affect the large rural property owners the most, who seem to hold land for speculative or nest egg purposes only). It would also create more high density development (though at least it would be controlled), so again Montanans would have to agree to that (which again doesn't seem to fit with the current ethos). It would also drastically increase the cost of living, though hopefully it would deter people and businesses from coming in.

It's not perfect, but there are plenty of places to learn from (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, for example) and to put together a model that would be most effective.

I never see it happening, though.

[jimj]

Anchor, you're right, it won't happen. Too many don't want their rights restricted but they'll be darned if you want to do the same thing!
Just look at family transfers, the county wanted to restrict them by saying that you had to hold the transferred land for a few years before you could resell it. Well, THAT was an unacceptable violation of their property rights! So people do this shell game of breaking up large sections, transfering it to their shirt tail relatives who then sell it therby avoiding the subdivison regs since it is now a minor subdivision. Is this right? NO it's not but it's legal...Now in the next breath they moan and grown about how land is being subdivided without any planning input or fire/septic review.
This is still the wild west when it comes to planning and until some "sheriff" gets it under some sort of control people will run rampant and everyone will blame others for the damage and it will be too late.

[Anchorless]

Agreed.

...

[montanahogrider]

I really hate to point out the obvious but, darn near ever single home in Montana has been built where there were never any homes before! And... none of those bare pieces of land had "services". As familys have built in both rural and town the services were extended to supply them. School bus lines, power lines, phone lines, sewer garbage, transit etc. You get my point. Someone would start a town, soon a stage line would appear and then the train or road, yet get it. So for those of you NIMBY folks. Even your home had to have "services" extended to it at one time. SHEESH