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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-01-2014, 04:05 PM
 
Location: 406
1,423 posts, read 1,535,718 times
Reputation: 1407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingcat2k View Post
This is the type of thinking that ensures that Montana will be a park for rich people. Cordon it off with velvet rope and charge 2000 a week for the opportunity to look at scenery. It's sad. I'm not in favor of bringing in large retail or business service corporations just simply because they always BBD (bigger better deal) communities. Shutting down natural resource jobs in the state basically leaves everyone else selling to out of state interests (tourism, real estate, ect.) or praying some movie star comes into their restaurant to drop a couple of thousand in the cash register that day.
The comment from Julian, a former resident of Helena who now appears to be living in close proximity to the Philadelphia metro, is rather interesting, isn't it? Living in Montana proved so conducive to his economic betterment that he accepted a job transfer to an urban area on the other side of the country rather than seeking new employment and maintaining residence in the state. He comes to the Montana forums and calls the state an "enigma to the rest of the country" (huh???) and encourages the very attitude that promotes a grassroots hostility toward what he himself had presumably agreed to go elsewhere for, and that would seem to boil down to economic security (and damn it all, that kind of thing should be kept away from Montana ). Montana should be "left alone" so that it can be what, an overpriced fun-park when or if he decides to return with his retirement funds?

Now I understand that I'm being rather speculative about Julian (who surely means well and might even be from Montana for all I know), but there's a reason for that, which is, frankly, that it's an all-too-common situation of Montana's most ardent cheerleaders for the status-quo, who tend to be one of three kinds of people:

1. Romanticizers for the homesteader days; immediately sees apparitions of the Robber Barons at the mere notion of outside industry establishing itself in Montana; believes that the agriculture, mining, tourism, travel and timber industries are economically viable by themselves (or doesn't care even if they know better); anti-growth.
2. Disillusioned suburbanites from this or that metropolitan area outside of the state who like our scenery and can afford to live in close eyeshot to it because they made their money elsewhere and can easily return to that place if need be; retiree or corporate telecommuter; anti-growth.
3. Granola Eco-fetishists who show up to one of the college towns from Boston, LA, Seattle, Chicago, etc., etc., to frolic about the national forests until they either complete grad school or start missing world-class urbanity and leave; transient voters and retail workforce members; anti-growth.

You notice the common denominator? These people, much like the blackrobes who hold the state hostage via the judiciary (I'm referring primarily to the elected state Supreme Court, by the way), are content with unnecessary mediocrity and, in fact, seem to relish in it. Montanans had the chance to eliminate--or at least discuss eliminating--many of their legal hurdles to prosperity simply by voting in favor of a second constitutional convention in 2010. Over 70% of the voters rejected it, and it was the best, if not only opportunity we had to quickly create clear new paths to the sort of improvements our elected leaders promise, yet consistently fail to deliver (some of their constituents don't seem to mind, though).

Montanans, if I may, we're our own worst enemy, plain and simple.

But hell, let's blame the Feds anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2014, 06:59 PM
 
Location: 406
1,423 posts, read 1,535,718 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
Now I understand that I'm being rather speculative about Julian (who surely means well and might even be from Montana for all I know), but there's a reason for that, which is, frankly, that it's an all-too-common situation of Montana's most ardent cheerleaders for the status-quo, who tend to be one of three kinds of people...
Never mind...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Where the mountains touch the sky
4,882 posts, read 5,763,319 times
Reputation: 8243
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Those who would give up their Homeland and Values
to purchase a little Temporary Financial Security,
deserve neither the benefits of their Homeland nor Financial Security.

MtSilvertip

The fact that Montana doesn't have a heavy industrial base, high paying jobs, lots of amenities is offset by the fact that we have a good standard of living not predicated on your bank balance. I have had to live in places where the only value is placed on money, (larger cities), the crime, the garbage, the lack of privacy, the prejudice, the anger, the crowded streets and stores, the lack of any contact with the natural world, not my cup of tea.

I'll take my poor job, and great life with people I care about over a kitzy restaraunt and large bank account every time. Montana does have oil, and lots of it, the Bakken comes all the way across the state to the Rocky Mountain front. Leases are being signed, the drilling will commence, but not on the boom town scale of North Dakota. Our standards to protect the people and land of the state are much higher. All you have to do is travel to Williston and see the destroyed roads, the man camps, the open sewer lagoons, the burgoning crime rate to see they didn't do it right.

I saw the "improvements" of development destroy the Gallatin Valley, (Bozeman) where good cropland was paved over by McMansions, the death of the culture, I don't want to see that happen to the rest of the state like it did in Colorado.

My perception, My opinion, and apparently it is shared by about 70% of the rest of the population to get back to the OP.

Last edited by MTSilvertip; 06-02-2014 at 08:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 07:14 PM
 
Location: 406
1,423 posts, read 1,535,718 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Those who would give up their Homeland and Values
to purchase a little Temporary Financial Security,
deserve neither the benefits of their Homeland nor Financial Security.

MtSilvertip
Might you at least spare me the egotism if you're going to continue with these purposely indirect responses to my perfectly legitimate criticisms?

Now if you happen to have found yourself wondering why I would throw out the word 'egotism' here, then refer specifically to your paraphrased statement concerning the "Homeland" and it's apparently unique and absolute blanket of "Values". Correct me if I'm wrong, Silvertip, but nobody who resides in Montana has been bound by some sacred, unwritten oath to adhere to any code of ethics as established by self-appointed authorities of a special set of "Montana Values".

Would you consider it your place to decide what my values are or what they ought to be by mere incident of me (or anyone else) being a resident of the state (that's 'state', not "Homeland")? Your persistent tendency to proselytize forum members about what a Montanan is, what a Montanan does and what a Montanan believes makes it very hard to think that you don't consider it your place to do so.

Alas, I find it patently offensive that you would tell me what I do and don't deserve in terms of my personal security because I've dared to identify what are, in my view, important problems with the place where I live and the foolishness of people who prefer not to see them alleviated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
The fact that Montana doesn't have a heavy industrial base, high paying jobs, lots of amenities is offset by the fact that we have a good standard of living not predicated on your bank balance. I have had to live in places where the only value is placed on money, (larger cities), the crime, the garbage, the lack of privacy, the prejudice, the anger, the crowded streets and stores, the lack of any contact with the natural world, not my cup of tea.

I'll take my poor job, and great life with people I care about over a kitzy restaraunt and large bank account every time. Montana does have oil, and lots of it, the Bakken comes all the way across the state to the Rocky Mountain front. Leases are being signed, the drilling will commence, but not on the boom town scale of North Dakota. Our standards to protect the people and land of the state are much higher. All you have to do is travel to Williston and see the destroyed roads, the man camps, the open sewer lagoons, the burgoning crime rate to see they didn't do it right.
And here we go again: A veiled, righteous accusation of selfishness, materialism and some unrealized desire to foist total mayhem on the citizens of Montana for thinking that our industrial presence could be increased, that we could possibly begin to retain young, educated members of the workforce (you know, those who are exiting the state in droves), and that we could first consider eliminating our archaic anti-business laws that were created to protect a corrupt power structure in the first place.

But, what can I say, fear-mongering thrives on falsehoods...

Rest assured, though, that it's also my view that you have every right to your isolation and a perceived sense of superiority regarding your experiences, but please, tear a page out of your own supposed rule-book and cease from promoting the idea that your lifestyle choices must be emulated by all of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
I saw the "improvements" of development destroy the Gallatin Valley, (Bozeman) where good cropland was paved over by McMansions, the death of the culture, I don't want to see that happen to the rest of the state like it did in Colorado.
I think the Gallatin could accommodate another 100k, easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
My perception, My opinion, and apparently it is shared by about 70% of the rest of the population to get back to the OP.
I don't bow to mob-mentality, Silvertip.

Nope, not even here in "liberty" country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,568,785 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
I think the Gallatin could accommodate another 100k, easily.
It could probably accommodate a couple million, but what would that do to our quality of life??

And even another mere 100k would have to live somewhere. Where do you propose to build those houses? Apartments? Where do you propose they earn a living?? We've already had that situation, it's called Detroit.

Per one estimate (a university study, not pulled outta someone's nether regions) from about 25 years ago, half of the most productive farmland (the fertile bottomlands like surround Bozeman) in the U.S. had already been built over and lost forever... and that was before the boom hit places like Montana. Once we finish destroying our best farmland, what do you propose we eat?

As to Utah's prosperity -- as I put it in that other post, you need industry and jobs first. THEN you can have growth. If you have growth first, you wind up with a primarily welfare and service economy. Utah hadn't chased away its industry, so it could afford a population boom when it came... and then it could expand its industry (no doubt helped along when other states killed theirs)...which in turn provides jobs for that growth.

If you think the opposite can work -- that if you bring in enough people the jobs will follow -- we've already had that situation too. It's called California.

BTW word came today that Sony's entertainment division is abandoning Hollywood for Vancouver. Why? California's business-hostile climate finally got too expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 10:36 PM
 
323 posts, read 254,496 times
Reputation: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
Ah, yes, I've seen that one, too.

The layer of irony in knocking ole' North Dakota is pretty great, yeah? North Dakota is in a position to be laughing its figurative a*s off at Montana, and most people on our side of the border don't even know why. Unfortunately for us, NoDak is way too busy being productive and sizing up its future to give us any grief (but for those of you who may know what I'm getting at, this is your cue to hype the downfalls of a booming economy that isn't facing any sort of natural bust for three decades--plenty of time to create mitigations, but whatever).
Except all it takes is a stroke of a pen at the EPA or in the White House, and all those jobs and all that productivity is gone tomorrow. I don't trust those clowns in the District of Corruption to NOT screw everything up.

My job took me to NoDak last year. This year, I made sure that I didn't put in for crews that would be going to NoDak.That place is like living in OH again, only without....uh....the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Cedar Point, King's Island, a couple nice zoos, the party/club scene, and proximity to Kentucky. Oh and less lakes and rivers, too.

But I really dislike flat land. Being in NE Montana is bad enough. Though I will admit, there are times I'd rather be working in NoDak again than anywhere between Havre and the MT-ND state line. At least the areas I worked in NoDak, you didn't risk being carried away by biting gnats and mosquitoes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 10:40 PM
 
Location: 406
1,423 posts, read 1,535,718 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
It could probably accommodate a couple million, but what would that do to our quality of life??

And even another mere 100k would have to live somewhere. Where do you propose to build those houses? Apartments? Where do you propose they earn a living?? We've already had that situation, it's called Detroit.

Per one estimate (a university study, not pulled outta someone's nether regions) from about 25 years ago, half of the most productive farmland (the fertile bottomlands like surround Bozeman) in the U.S. had already been built over and lost forever... and that was before the boom hit places like Montana. Once we finish destroying our best farmland, what do you propose we eat?

As to Utah's prosperity -- as I put it in that other post, you need industry and jobs first. THEN you can have growth. If you have growth first, you wind up with a primarily welfare and service economy. Utah hadn't chased away its industry, so it could afford a population boom when it came... and then it could expand its industry (no doubt helped along when other states killed theirs)...which in turn provides jobs for that growth.

If you think the opposite can work -- that if you bring in enough people the jobs will follow -- we've already had that situation too. It's called California.

BTW word came today that Sony's entertainment division is abandoning Hollywood for Vancouver. Why? California's business-hostile climate finally got too expensive.
Reziac, as much as I appreciate your feedback, you've made a very crucial flaw here, that being your baseless assumption that I think some kind of massive population boom ought to precede industrial development (I'm not stupid, thanks). Nowhere have I suggested this, thus negating whatever relevance your Detroit and California analogies were supposed to have.

(But you know, thinking again about California, what's really quite funny is that Montana's business climate is almost as California-esque as California's, and what's even funnier, believe it or not, is that this situation was caused by a century of Montana-grown paranoia, not Californians showing up to "change the way of life".)

The focal points of my arguments have been, in case you've missed them, reforming state business regulations (enormous insurance costs related to the state's worker's comp payouts, complete elimination of the business equipment tax, shrinking the state's public sector and the union influence associated with it, constitutional reforms, tort reforms, etc.), enable a legal climate friendly to local industry and attractive to outside industry, put Montana's residents to work at high-tech and manufacturing jobs with living wages, and then let population growth from net-migration occur as the job market allows. Makes sense to me.

As for the impact that population growth will have on agriculture, I can't offer you many assurances other than that agricultural lands can be protected by local zoning ordinances; however, I don't see this as being in issue in the Gallatin, much less in Montana as a whole. Agricultural acreage as it exists now won't be reduced by even half in the lifetime of any single one of us posting on this thread. No one is starving because Gallatin County is growing. Non-issues.

And it seems reasonable that Sony's entertainment division would be locating to Washington State. It sure makes you wonder what would make it so attractive to a tech company, doesn't it...?

Last edited by Montguy; 06-02-2014 at 10:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Where the mountains touch the sky
4,882 posts, read 5,763,319 times
Reputation: 8243
Montguy, aside from your snide remarks and distain for what other people value, there is always the option of moving to an existing megatropolis, you don't have to stay in our backwater, backwards little corner of the world.

Lots of people both that come here and have stayed here do so because of exactly what you indicate so little reguard for, the space, the remoteness, the natural surroundings.

Our greatest export is our young people who move to make big money somewhere else. Most of my high school class live outside the state or nation. One friend of mine that moved to the SEA/TAC area says that the Montana Day picnic is huge every year, because even when they leave, they are still Montanan's.

Would I like to see more jobs and good paying jobs? Sure, but not at the price of our souls.

I have had to live all over the world, Montana has a special mystique in people's minds that is so different from anywhere else. People dream of coming here, and if they get a chance to visit, it stays with them the rest of their lives.
People that live here are willing to sacrifice to stay here.

Area wise, Great Falls has more area than New York City, and the state of Montana is about the same size as Germany, so there could be 30 million people here, there's room, but the quality of life is about more than just a bank account.

The loss of freedoms you have when population grows, the loss of the natural beauty of the state, the loss of opportunity to hunt and fish, to hike or camp, to live on your own terms, when those are gone they can't be replaced just as farm land can't be replaced.

You have an opinion, which is fine. My opinion is very different from yours as I found nothing noteworthy about living cheek to jowl with millions of other people in a city.

People live here for a specific reason, they come here or stay here because it fits the life they want. I know there isn't the economic opportunity to make billions of dollars and have your palacial estate on the hill like you would in Hollywood, but this isn't Hollywood.

Yes, people romantasize Montana, but that's because it's easy to do and it is deserving of their dreams.
Places like New York and California aren't dreamed about because of their natural splendor or what people think those places represent, but the fact they want wealth and fame.

It's a different mindset.

This debate is pointless anyway as neither your opinion or mine will change what is or what could be. The OP poll showed only that most people like us just the way we are.

Backwards redneck cowboys, miners, loggers and farmers, smallholder and homesteaders that don't realize the joys of higher taxes, fewer freedoms, more government control, having someone telling you what to do every hour of every day, never having a place where you don't have someone looking over your shoulder, never knowing your neighbor, high crime, oh the joys of urban living.

I don't see that changing anytime soon do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,568,785 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
(But you know, thinking again about California, what's really quite funny is that Montana's business climate is almost as California-esque as California's, and what's even funnier, believe it or not, is that this situation was caused by a century of Montana-grown paranoia, not Californians showing up to "change the way of life".)
I grew up in MT, but I've lived about equal time in MT and in SoCal, and speaking as a small business owner, that's about the strangest statement I've ever heard. In CA, about 70% of the cost of each employee is gov't-mandated overhead (this, not that they'll work for less, explains the popularity of illegal labor). CA has the highest business taxes in the world, outside of NYC. I know someone in the Bay area who tried to open a teen-friendly dance club, and the contradictory requirements and paperwork took over two years and closing on seven figures in fees just to get to the "maybe we'll allow it" stage (he had a prior fortune from the dot-bomb era, or he could never have done it). The cost of permits before you can build a house runs from $38k in Los Angeles County (a neighbor of mine built a $14k barn that cost him another $18k just for the building permit!) to over $125k before you ever break ground in the Bay area. Etc, etc, etc.

See, that's what happens when you expand government to the level demanded by such population levels (and nowadays gov't expands much faster than does the population), and expand the NIMBYism and OMGwhatifohnoes and Don't-do-anything-I-don't-like that comes with more people who didn't grow up in our culture and don't want to assimilate. Do we need more of that here? Really??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
And it seems reasonable that Sony's entertainment division would be locating to Washington State. It sure makes you wonder what would make it so attractive to a tech company, doesn't it...?
Vancouver, as in British Columbia, Canada. What makes it attractive is the much lower cost of doing business, because gov't doesn't stick their fingers into and tax every aspect of your business as CA is wont to do.

Last edited by Reziac; 06-03-2014 at 11:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,568,785 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
Area wise, Great Falls has more area than New York City, and the state of Montana is about the same size as Germany, so there could be 30 million people here, there's room, but the quality of life is about more than just a bank account.
That's a scary comparison!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
The loss of freedoms you have when population grows, the loss of the natural beauty of the state, the loss of opportunity to hunt and fish, to hike or camp, to live on your own terms, when those are gone they can't be replaced just as farm land can't be replaced.
Having seen both sides -- you're absolutely dead on. What's lost will never come back, barring some civilization-ending cataclysm. And once a generation grows up having never known any different... then what?? We're already seeing that with anti-agriculture movements, shouted on by people who have no knowledge of farming or ranching (not even secondhand from parents and grandparents) and have no idea where their food comes from.*** Do we want that ignorance to engulf our entire way of life??

If we want to experience the urban megaplex, we can go there. We don't need it to come here. But if it does... where do we go when we want to experience something other than the urban megaplex??

*** All too literally. In SoCal, I met two nominal grow'd-ups, born and raised Americans, who did not know beef comes from cows. The condensed conversation went like this:

Them (munching hamburger): Killing cows is wrong!
Me: Then where did you get that burger?
Them: McDonalds.
Me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
Backwards redneck cowboys, miners, loggers and farmers, smallholder and homesteaders that don't realize the joys of higher taxes, fewer freedoms, more government control, having someone telling you what to do every hour of every day, never having a place where you don't have someone looking over your shoulder, never knowing your neighbor, high crime, oh the joys of urban living.
Gimme the joyless life, then.
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. The time now is 07:40 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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