why are some people so mad? (Plains: bankrupt, restaurant, cost of)

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

It's the ex-urban, auto-dependent McRanch lifestyle that is the real problem; it's the worst of both worlds.

[huge snip]

Hope you don't mind if I steal your post and quote it far and wide. It's the best dissertation on the problem that I've seen yet.

My sister (who is an architect working in California, but just bought a 10 acre piece of a former ranch outside of Bozeman) had this to say about it:
================================================
That's one reason we like our spot....660 acres total, 330 acres permanent open space and 25 parcels on the remaining 330 acres. Then within each parcel there is a 150x300' buildable area that you have to locate all of your improvements within and that is the only area that can be fenced so there is lots of wildlife there. Deer. Elk. Mountain lion. Badger.bears and fox. Then of course the porcupiine, pocket gophers and skunks. No snakes. Grasses get waist high and there are a couple ponds and small creeks that are protected so they use our lot next to the creek as their corridor .

Biggest problem with his opinion above is that it does not take into account the folks like kurt and I who would have stayed here but after college in our day, there were no jobs so you had to move to a city. Lots of those folks are now moving back.
================================================

That misses the whole point. Why do they have to move back and buy a "mini-ranch" with 25 other yuppies' houses scattered all over what used to be *true* open space? If they're dead set on living out in a rural area, why not put all the houses into a small village area, thus destroying only a tiny percentage of the open space, instead of chunking it all up into 10 acre McRanches? Just because you're only allowed to build on 2 acres of your 10-acre McRanch doesn't mean the rest is still genuinely rural space... not if it's restricted from normal rural uses.

And it forgets that these folks bring their city attitudes with them -- which is why all of these mini-ranch developments are loaded with restrictive covenants. Where my sister's lot is (Jackson Creek, east of Bozeman) doesn't even allow horses -- how "rural" IS that, really??

And finally, it completely shuts out people who absolutely NEED a rural environment, such as real farmers. I know, I'm one of those who cannot find suitable land even well out from town, because all the available land is now under RESIDENTAL covenants that forbid real agricultural use.

If you don't think so, read the covenants for Ponderosa Pines, which gobbled up the entire valley between Three Forks and Clarkston, clear up to the very end of the road (miles beyond the power grid). Absolutely no ag-type businesses allowed. You call that "rural" ??!

.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Reziac

[huge snip]

Hope you don't mind if I steal your post and quote it far and wide. It's the best dissertation on the problem that I've seen yet.

My sister (who is an architect working in California, but just bought a 10 acre piece of a former ranch outside of Bozeman) had this to say about it:
================================================
That's one reason we like our spot....660 acres total, 330 acres permanent open space and 25 parcels on the remaining 330 acres. Then within each parcel there is a 150x300' buildable area that you have to locate all of your improvements within and that is the only area that can be fenced so there is lots of wildlife there. Deer. Elk. Mountain lion. Badger.bears and fox. Then of course the porcupiine, pocket gophers and skunks. No snakes. Grasses get waist high and there are a couple ponds and small creeks that are protected so they use our lot next to the creek as their corridor .

Biggest problem with his opinion above is that it does not take into account the folks like kurt and I who would have stayed here but after college in our day, there were no jobs so you had to move to a city. Lots of those folks are now moving back.
================================================

That misses the whole point. Why do they have to move back and buy a "mini-ranch" with 25 other yuppies' houses scattered all over what used to be *true* open space? If they're dead set on living out in a rural area, why not put all the houses into a small village area, thus destroying only a tiny percentage of the open space, instead of chunking it all up into 10 acre McRanches? Just because you're only allowed to build on 2 acres of your 10-acre McRanch doesn't mean the rest is still genuinely rural space... not if it's restricted from normal rural uses.

And it forgets that these folks bring their city attitudes with them -- which is why all of these mini-ranch developments are loaded with restrictive covenants. Where my sister's lot is (Jackson Creek, east of Bozeman) doesn't even allow horses -- how "rural" IS that, really??

And finally, it completely shuts out people who absolutely NEED a rural environment, such as real farmers. I know, I'm one of those who cannot find suitable land even well out from town, because all the available land is now under RESIDENTAL covenants that forbid real agricultural use.

If you don't think so, read the covenants for Ponderosa Pines, which gobbled up the entire valley between Three Forks and Clarkston, clear up to the very end of the road (miles beyond the power grid). Absolutely no ag-type businesses allowed. You call that "rural" ??!

.

Rural development and "McRanches" are a latter-day scourge all across the Rocky Mountain West. The real-estate and construction lackeys in many rural towns don't dare speak against it because their livelihood may depend on the cutting up of ranches into rural subdivisions. County governments often don't have the guts to say "no" because they think (usually incorrectly) that such developments produce more tax revenue than they consume (a University of Wyoming study a few years ago pretty much refutes that). Often, environmentalists are silent on the issue because some of their own people and financial supporters live in such developments. So, this latter-day raping of the region continues--nor is such development socially benign. It usually leads to a large disparity in wealth between wealthy, often-retired residents of such subdivisions and a poor underclass of "worker bees" that actually have to rely on the local area for a living.

I call people's attention to this thread over on the Colorado forum ( http://www.city-data.com/forum/color...al-sprawl.html ) where I discuss a book written by two University of Wyoming professors that talks about impacts of rural development in southwestern Colorado. While the book is specific to that area, most of the issues it discusses would be equally applicable to much of Montana--or anywhere else in the Rocky Mountain West--the book is some pretty interesting reading.

[GiftShoppeGuy]

Here's an interesting bit on a Montana weblog;

http://www.dareddconstruction.com/weblog/?p=108 (broken link)

[jimj]

Originally Posted by GiftShoppeGuy

Here's an interesting bit on a Montana weblog;

http://www.dareddconstruction.com/weblog/?p=108 (broken link)

Nice reading! Thanks Giftshoppe...

[Irishtom29]

Interesting thread. Maybe the Montanans will eventually reach a boiling over point, rebel, and attack and pillage the "Californians", kind'a like the Sioux rebellion in Minnesota in 18and62. I picture fellas in seed-caps armed with Marlin deer rifles careening around the countryside in 4WD trucks cutting fences, burning down McRanches and shooting any North Face jacket wearing latte sippers who don't skedaddle in time.

[Timberwolf232]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Interesting thread. Maybe the Montanans will eventually reach a boiling over point, rebel, and attack and pillage the "Californians", kind'a like the Sioux rebellion in Minnesota in 18and62. I picture fellas in seed-caps armed with Marlin deer rifles careening around the countryside in 4WD trucks cutting fences, burning down McRanches and shooting any North Face jacket wearing latte sippers who don't skedaddle in time.

Sign me up!

[Timberwolf232]

It's funny...
I stopped this morning to help out a guy in an SUV that had a flat. He was a 40 something year old guy pulled off the road. I walked up to the window and asked if he needed a hand and he goes "Yeah, could you change my tire for me?" I told him I'd help him change it and he got all ticked off worried about his frickin khakis getting dirty before work. This guy actually gave me this attitude like I was his employee or something. My shirt doesn't say AAA on it, although if it did at least I could have billed him!!

I just rolled my eyes at him and got back in my truck and took off..
It's people like that, that answer the question by the OP of this thread.

[Irishtom29]

LOL Timberwolf, LOL!!!

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf232

It's funny...
I stopped this morning to help out a guy in an SUV that had a flat. He was a 40 something year old guy pulled off the road. I walked up to the window and asked if he needed a hand and he goes "Yeah, could you change my tire for me?" I told him I'd help him change it and he got all ticked off worried about his frickin khakis getting dirty before work. This guy actually gave me this attitude like I was his employee or something. My shirt doesn't say AAA on it, although if it did at least I could have billed him!!

I just rolled my eyes at him and got back in my truck and took off..
It's people like that, that answer the question by the OP of this thread.

A fellow in a town I used to live in down in western Colorado ran into a similar situation about 10 years ago or so. A guy was pulled off the road in an expensive sedan with Telluride (yes, super-expensive Telluride ski resort) license plates. This fellow from my town stopped and the guy in the sedan asked him if he had a jack or any tools to change the tire. This fellow had a sheepherder's jack in his pickup--and being a good Samaritan, he helped the guy get his tire changed. During the changing of the tire, the guy in the expensive sedan asked this fellow his name and what town he lived in. When they finished changing the tire, the guy in the sedan thanked the fellow in the pickup and they both drove off.

Now, the "rest of the story." The guy from Telluride called the fellow's bank in my town a couple of days later AND PAID OFF THE FELLOW'S HOME MORTGAGE. Just for helping him change a tire. Yeah, the odds of that are probably about as much as winning the lottery, but--hey--this was one of those times where a good deed sure did pay off.

[TypicalCalifornian]

Now those are some great stories, good stuff and thank you because those stories are drakly funny and reveal stuff zbout our world.

One from my life, several years ago the gal I was dating asked me to help her girlfriend move her stuff in with her new boyfriend. Reluctantly I agreed and so one Saturday morning I was moving stuff out of the kitchen and living room and when it was all empty I asked about the bedroom stuff? The gal responded we couldn't move that stuff now because her boyfriend was in there sleeping grrrrrrr.

Now this would be a better story is someone was from Montana and another from California but the moral of the story is probably never assume you're not gonna be totally sorry for lending a hand.