U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana > Bozeman
 [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)
 
 
Old 02-11-2008, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
18,696 posts, read 38,320,406 times
Reputation: 2147483647

Advertisements

I wasn't meaning that you personally can't have it both ways. I was simply pointing out that people were complaining about what the city and county were doing but they refused to get envolved. Just set back and complain when decisions were made without giving their input. And when somebody said, "Get envolved", then they complained that an outsider was telling them what to do.

I understand about the local Gov. We have the same problems here. But letters to the editor about the upcoming election and how they're not going to have a job after the election, seem to take hold a little better. When they have a city council meeting and it's standing room only and everybody in the crowd is pissed, they start listening.

But people have to approach those meetings with a cool head and logic. Can't just go in spouting threats. That don't work.

A while back, some citizens got together the night before the meeting and planned exactly who was going to talk, what they were going to say, and everything. Next night, it come off great.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 02-11-2008, 01:32 PM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,973 posts, read 24,128,046 times
Reputation: 15586
What's funny to me is all the people complain and yet keep voting the same people back in. Same county supervisors, mayors and city councils. I think the message would be clear if we booted them all or at least started a recall.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-11-2008, 01:48 PM
 
Location: NW MT
1,436 posts, read 3,047,606 times
Reputation: 549
There is a very easy solution........run for local office !

If the majority of the community is against change, he who runs for office to protect the non change interest of the majority would be a shoe-in hands down, especially if the opposite were presently in office. It wouldn't even be a contest.

I just don't believe the majority of certain communities is in favor of non-change. If so there local gov's would not be letting it happen, the people of the community just wouldn't stand for it. Unless the people of the community just didn't care enough to speak their minds at meetings or "get involved".

Last I knew we lived in a democracy.......The smaller local gov's are more easily held in check with issues and remain closer to the true meaning of the word democracy in my opinion than higher level gov's.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-11-2008, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
1,368 posts, read 6,137,919 times
Reputation: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
What's funny to me is all the people complain and yet keep voting the same people back in. Same county supervisors, mayors and city councils. I think the message would be clear if we booted them all or at least started a recall.
Thats the issue, people continue to make money and thus things like this don't happen.

Apathy is in my opinion, more present than either foresight or greed in our society, and it takes a lot to convince people to actually do something to protect our interests.

One such example is 9/11. We didn't believe in a terrorist threat against the United States, until after the fact. Showing both apathy AND foresight.


My father just organized a group in Mukilteo to save some land that people use as walking/biking trails. And that group showed up to the City Council meeting, and the Council took notice.

furthmore, he is now part of the City Council having been appointed, and will now help to force the issue to be dealt with.


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-11-2008, 04:52 PM
 
Location: NW MT
1,436 posts, read 3,047,606 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek View Post
Thats the issue, people continue to make money and thus things like this don't happen.

Apathy is in my opinion, more present than either foresight or greed in our society, and it takes a lot to convince people to actually do something to protect our interests.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead
APATHY......That's the word I was looking for ! I agree. Most people have an opinion about something but do not display any enthusiasm to express it diplomatically when it matters. Things are taken for granted in that respect. Once it's too late everyone looks back and says "what happened" as if everything was supposed to go the way they were so apathetically thinking. Doesn't work that way..........

A small group of people can easily form an agenda and run for local office. Exactly how things got to where they are today !!! And apathy has a lot to do with it too. I think bad politics feeds on it.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 02-11-2008, 05:51 PM
 
495 posts, read 404,414 times
Reputation: 96
Elkhunter wrote:
Quote:
I understand about the local Gov. We have the same problems here. But letters to the editor about the upcoming election and how they're not going to have a job after the election, seem to take hold a little better. When they have a city council meeting and it's standing room only and everybody in the crowd is pissed, they start listening.
thanks for the response

I was watching the Missoula council meeting when they were debating building the new baseball stadium a few years back It was pretty interesting to stay the least, the way they (mayor and councilmen) minipulated and screwed the public, it would have been funny if it was so reprehensible, the public was 100 to 1 against putting in the stadium. When it finally came down to the finally vote, after months of meetings, the councilman in the ward where the stadium was to be build, if I can paraphrase, actually said........."I know that the public is completely against putting in this stadium and that I will get voted out of office....put I'm voting yes to the stadium"............Watching it I was simply amazed, but then again I've seen some REALLY stupid and ballsy things done at these meetings by the officials. It's not surprising that back in the 80s half the town officials got bust in a local pot (marijuiana) ring. Today this day they are bunch of stoned old hippies, and I'm dead serious about that. I wouldn't get involved in a game of mother goose with these people - let alone in any type of local public involment group.
They town had gotten 800K in government grants to study the 'malfunction junction' problem several years ago, I watched the town meeting when someone asked if now that they had taken and SPENT the 800k federal money to study the problem if they were now obligated to implement a solution or if they'd have to give back the already spent federal money - NO ONE THERE KNEW - including the town attorney - what a bunch of fools - It was a joke to watch, councilmen were saying they were infavor of redoing the 'malfunction junction" even if the solution (costing the town millions or their own money) didn't do anything, because they had to do something or give the federal money back, and the meeting when on like that, one idiot after the other. Some wanted to spend town money on bike lanes that had nothing to do with the problem because they thought that that would qualify as satisfing the fed requirement for taking the grant money - oh I had to laugh, smoke up another guys - They actually did put in some speradic and badly designed bike lanes that go nowhere and run for a block here and there and disappear and never get repainted - what a bunch of fools. These people are setting new standards for operating outside the limits of common sense........Get involved in this town growth politics - NOT on your life !
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-13-2008, 07:58 AM
 
13 posts, read 25,703 times
Reputation: 14
First, those screaming about prices being "ridiculous" should A) read the actual numbers provided by City-Data.com to realize that Bozeman is a pretty typical city as far as real estate prices go (in any area of the country, the more desirable and populated areas will have higher prices than surrounding areas), and B) realize that prices are by definition where they should be... they are set purely by supply and demand.

JoeJoe has one thing right... if fewer people want to move to Bozeman and more people want to move away, that will lessen demand and lessen prices. It will also result in less being built, less traffic, etc. It will also result in less economic activity, fewer companies (and therefore fewer jobs), lower incomes, etc. I love living here because of the booming business, the fact my home has increased in value (over the years, not in the past year... again, look at the data), and the safe and beautiful environment. Sure - I could move somewhere with cheaper homes and less to offer, or to an average US city where a home of the same size I have here would cost twice as much, but I love Bozeman.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-13-2008, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,930,368 times
Reputation: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeburt View Post
First, those screaming about prices being "ridiculous" should A) read the actual numbers provided by City-Data.com to realize that Bozeman is a pretty typical city as far as real estate prices go (in any area of the country, the more desirable and populated areas will have higher prices than surrounding areas), and B) realize that prices are by definition where they should be... they are set purely by supply and demand.

JoeJoe has one thing right... if fewer people want to move to Bozeman and more people want to move away, that will lessen demand and lessen prices. It will also result in less being built, less traffic, etc. It will also result in less economic activity, fewer companies (and therefore fewer jobs), lower incomes, etc. I love living here because of the booming business, the fact my home has increased in value (over the years, not in the past year... again, look at the data), and the safe and beautiful environment. Sure - I could move somewhere with cheaper homes and less to offer, or to an average US city where a home of the same size I have here would cost twice as much, but I love Bozeman.
Prices are ridiculous for people that have lived here for all or most of their lives, working for established companies when their wages have not been adjusted to compensate for all the new growth, cost of living etc...

It might be easy for a city slicker to move out to a new area and with a wad of cash start a business, because their loyalty is to themselves, and they have probably moved around or bounced from job to job for most of their lives.

Some of us have worked together for so long that our coworkers are like family and its pretty hard to move on just for money's sake. The prices here may now be typical for the rest of the nation, 10-15 years ago you could make a pretty decent living, with a home, maybe some property and even some toys on 13-15 bucks an hour. People with degrees made that kind of money, labor jobs were good if you made 8-12 bucks an hour. Of course that was when the cost of living was way down compared to other places. Now that it's "cool" to move to Montana, it's fallen to the same money game as everywhere else.. To you it may seem normal, to us it seems crooked. Take it for what you will.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-13-2008, 08:55 PM
 
13 posts, read 25,703 times
Reputation: 14
You still aren't getting it... prices are what the market (peoples wants interacting) says they are. If prices are ridiculous, then all people are ridiculous, which itself is ridiculous! If someone does not have their wage rise over the years, despite the fact that wage growth (both in Bozeman and in general) have kept up with (and actually slightly exceeded) the cost of living increases, then it means that you are failing to compete with others sufficiently. Unless you believe in perfect socialism where everyone has the same standard of living regardless of what they produce, then those who fall behind shouldnt have as much and might need to move if their locale becomes more desired and price increases outstrip their earning power. As noted before, one thing they have going for them is that thier home will go up in value as the local economy booms, providing them with more assets to purchase a home when they move somewhere cheaper. The alternative to this scenario is to increase your earning power as you progress through your career. Some people, through hard work (and sometimes luck) accomplish this, some people don't. I believe that those who succeed and earn more should be able to buy more - you seem to differ. Those who do make more as they age don't have to be "city slickers". I'm a pretty good example. I saw opportunity and I boosted my skills in areas where I thought they would help me. Now I use them to earn more. If I insisted on sticking with my previous career path, I would have been making less and would have needed to move somewhere cheaper. That is the choice for some people, but when they make it, they shouldn't complain.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-14-2008, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,930,368 times
Reputation: 687
Default Perfect example

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeburt View Post
You still aren't getting it... prices are what the market (peoples wants interacting) says they are. If prices are ridiculous, then all people are ridiculous, which itself is ridiculous! If someone does not have their wage rise over the years, despite the fact that wage growth (both in Bozeman and in general) have kept up with (and actually slightly exceeded) the cost of living increases, then it means that you are failing to compete with others sufficiently. Unless you believe in perfect socialism where everyone has the same standard of living regardless of what they produce, then those who fall behind shouldnt have as much and might need to move if their locale becomes more desired and price increases outstrip their earning power. As noted before, one thing they have going for them is that thier home will go up in value as the local economy booms, providing them with more assets to purchase a home when they move somewhere cheaper. The alternative to this scenario is to increase your earning power as you progress through your career. Some people, through hard work (and sometimes luck) accomplish this, some people don't. I believe that those who succeed and earn more should be able to buy more - you seem to differ. Those who do make more as they age don't have to be "city slickers". I'm a pretty good example. I saw opportunity and I boosted my skills in areas where I thought they would help me. Now I use them to earn more. If I insisted on sticking with my previous career path, I would have been making less and would have needed to move somewhere cheaper. That is the choice for some people, but when they make it, they shouldn't complain.
This is exactly the attitude that a lot of locals loathe. You are a slave to the market. Everything is about economics huh?.. Why can't you people see the simplicity of the way things could be? It doesn't have to be about money markets and stocks, but more about the quality of life. It's not right for people to move in to an area to inflate it's market. I'd rather be out for an early afternoon fishing with my son than checking my blackberry for stock moves and trying to think of ways to gouge other people to make more money.

I am so sick and tired of the "get on the right side of the money movement" mentality. What you say implies that people who have lived in an area for generations should accept it the way people like you see it, or move. I disagree.

Sure I've had to make changes in order to afford to stay put, but it's based on the influx of outsiders trying to make a quick buck. And it's a needless pain in the ass.

You people could have much more out of the area also! Instead you buy and sell and buy and sell and build and build and pass all of the debt onto the local consumer. I don't think you "get" what Montana really is.

Sad to say I don't think you ever will, but I am hopeful and wish for the best.
Rate this post positively
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.


 

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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 > Bozeman
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top