Why is New Mexico not growing as fast as Arizona? (Albuquerque: foreclosures, house)

[rruff]

Originally Posted by SeanAaron

Both had near enough the same populations up untill the 70's, then in the 80's Arizona's population boomed to over 6 million today where as New Mexico's population is still in the 1 million zone and has been since the 70's.

Check your facts. Population Change and Distribution: 1990 to 2000

This is only 1990-2000, but is probably close to more recent trends. NM increased 20% compared to a national avg of 13%. Arizona increased 40%. So you are comparing high growth to insane growth.

The more disturbing thing for me is this trend:

The national increase in the 80s was 9.8%, and in the 90s it jumped to 13.2%... !!! What is the cause of this?

[GregW]

As a potential retiree living in NM during the winter I appreciate a slower growth economy. My town in New Hampshire grew from 8 k to 24 k in 20 years. IMHO it has become just too damn crowded. I mean do I really need the Saturday traffic jam just because there are three large grocery stores within a mile of each other? One is good enough IMHO. The lower growth in NM outside of Albuquerque is a positive.

I have been, as many on this forum realize, researching this move (even as the spousal unit objects) for years. So far Socorro is the leading candidate mostly because of reasonable housing costs and the NMT College. Funny aside - This morning the temperature was 47 deg in Londonderry NH and 27 in Socorro, NM.
So why am I considering this place to avoid the winter's cold. Easy answer - it is not the cold but the snow, sleet and freezing rain I want to avoid.

So I will continue to watch and wait.

[caydriver]

Water and available jobs.

[Santa Fe]

Originally Posted by GregW

Funny aside - This morning the temperature was 47 deg in Londonderry NH and 27 in Socorro, NM.
So why am I considering this place to avoid the winter's cold. Easy answer - it is not the cold but the snow, sleet and freezing rain I want to avoid.

So I will continue to watch and wait.

I came here from Wisconsin and Vermont. You need also to remember that morning temperature means less around here. Twenty-seven in the morning often ends up 57 and sunny in the afternoon.

[catman]

New Mexico is farther from California and doesn't have Phoenix with all the associated retirement communities. Personally, I'm glad that NM isn't growing as rapidly as AZ. I hope to move there before it gets too crowded.

Fort Worth grew 34% in the last 9 years! That's way too much.

[Santa Fe]

I love the low population density of New Mexico, and I fear that we're next for the boom. Places like Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado are all higher density, and Arizona and Nevada gotten their images tarnished. When the economy recovers people are coming here. Santa Fe won't have the growth of other places but prices will accelerate and becoming even more out-of-line with the rest of the state -- was it Forbes that listed Santa Fe as number eight for housing appreciation over the next ten years?

[Zoidberg]

After having spent several days in Arizona, here are the reasons as I see them:

*Climate (in the populated areas). There's nothing even close in NM. Climate isn't just important for retirees but people who have wealth. They live in places they want to live, and warm climates tend to be preferred. With these people follow jobs, because they tend to own the companies that offer them.

*Available land. If you think Phoenix is running out of space, guess again. A bounty of flat, purchasable land is still available at prices people will afford. The foreclosure crisis people refer to is a passing phenomenon and nothing worth worrying too much about; there will never be that many more homes built than people to live in them.

Until you can wear flipflops in the winter here, the population growth will lag Arizona's.

[Steve97415]

Traditionally, Arizona's economy was based on "the three C's": copper, cattle and cotton. Then in the 1960's, Barry Goldwater proclaimed that, "development is the business of Arizona." And so it was. Local government was often in bed with developers and the citizens ended up underwriting much of the cost for new development. The seeds for Arizona's explosive growth were deliberately planted by conservative policymakers four decades ago. Arizona is now reaping the bitter harvest of what that has wrought.

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

Bitter harvest? I think many Arizonans would beg to differ. What's bitter about it?

With increasing population, the quality of life in Arizona has plummeted. Crime is sky high. Water quality has become undrinkable in most cities in the past two decades. Traffic congestion has become insufferable. And all through this, the cost of living has simply soared because increased density brings increased costs per capita. I know this well, I lived in Tucson for 15 years and loved it, but finally had to move as the conditions in Pima County can no longer offer a good quality of life. Maricopa County is even worse.

The point I brought up is about are people good, irrespective of their impact on the planet.

Are people "good?" In the self-assessment of other humans, I suppose so. But if you could ask the mountain lion or the whooping crane if humans are good, you'd get a different opinion. It's the philosophical sophistry of trying reason through excess by assigning an inherent quality of "good" to something that is already in superabundance that is crazy. Either that or it stems from the dogma of religious extremism.
Is food "good?" Well...if you're starving, it's great. If you already weigh 450 lbs...then not so much. For a rational person, it's not whether or not any one organism in the ecosystem assigns itself a quality of being "good," but whether or not the whole system is in balance.

No population of living things in the history of the planet has ever gone into an overshoot trajectory without collapsing. I don't think Homo sapiens will be the first to pull that off. Whatever one's personal philosophy or religious commitment, mathematics will always have its way.

[Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Steve97415

Crime is sky high. Water quality has become undrinkable in most cities in the past two decades.

Sources, please?

According to my sources, United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia puts Phoenix at on par with or slightly better than Albuquerque for crime, and suburbs like Glendale, Chandler and Mesa significantly better. Tucson was also better.

For water quality, 50 Cleanest (Dirtiest) Cities in America | Your America | Reader's Digest we show that Phoenix is hardly undrinkable.

Traffic congestion has become insufferable.

You need to get out more. Maybe spend a week driving the beltway around D.C. to get it out of your system. I prefer Phoenix's neat tight grid and excellent freeways to almost every other metro in the country.

And all through this, the cost of living has simply soared because increased density brings increased costs per capita.

How exactly does that work? Does a house sell for more if it's packed in tighter to its neighbors? Maybe it costs more to drive if you are closer to your destination?

Costs per capita are far more related to the desirability of a place to live. I imagine it's extremely cheap to live in Detroit right now, even though parts of it are still quite dense. The fact is, present company excluded, Arizona is a very desirable place to live, and this is what makes it expensive.

I know this well, I lived in Tucson for 15 years and loved it, but finally had to move as the conditions in Pima County can no longer offer a good quality of life. Maricopa County is even worse.

Couldn't hack it, eh? Well, you know what they say about if you can't stand the heat..

It's the philosophical sophistry of trying reason through excess by assigning an inherent quality of "good" to something that is already in superabundance that is crazy.

It is your assertion that mankind is in superabundance, and that's not a generally agreed fact.

Either that or it stems from the dogma of religious extremism.

So, I'm crazy or I'm a religious extremist. Brilliant piece of deductive reasoning there. So what does the jury think?

Is food "good?" Well...if you're starving, it's great. If you already weigh 450 lbs...then not so much. For a rational person, it's not whether or not any one organism in the ecosystem assigns itself a quality of being "good," but whether or not the whole system is in balance.

The discussion was the use of "good" in the context of "good in the balance".

No population of living things in the history of the planet has ever gone into an overshoot trajectory without collapsing. I don't think Homo sapiens will be the first to pull that off. Whatever one's personal philosophy or religious commitment, mathematics will always have its way.

But it's not mathematics you're asserting; you're asserting your philosophy that we've overshot our ideal population (I'd guess for that of Arizona, anyway). And that's been far from proven.