Small town living in Colorado? (Denver, Evergreen: schools, pine, friendly)

[suzco]

Originally Posted by gmm_24

They want a small town feel and some acreage, Broomfield fits neither of those needs. You cannot even get a house with 2 acres in Broomfield. It is a large suburb with tons of houses, stores, street lights and etc no small town feel there.
I do agree about Flatirons though

Agreed that Broomfield is not a small town, it is suburbia, and there is no small town feel - Broomfield, unlike many other Denver suburbs, does not even have an "old town, downtown" area. It grew from a more rural area.

It's not true though that you cannot get a home with acreage; there are properties, both older and newly developed, that have more land. Some are expensive, some are, perhaps surprisingly, not so.

As one example, of a relatively less expensive one, is this listing at realtor.com:

1554 W 150th Pl Broomfield, CO 80023

$299,900
3 Bed, 2 Bath 1,428 Sq Ft
1.5 acres

An example of an expensive one (same "neighborhood" as above):

2190 W 149th Ave Broomfield, CO 80023

$1,200,000
3 Bed, 2 Bath 2,380 Sq Ft
16.18 Acre Lot

[xkitten]

Originally Posted by Lugnuts

Be careful about Canon City. The ground water (and who knows what else) is contaminated by the old Uranium mill. You can read about it here:

Cancer-causing chemical spreading from Cotter uranium mill site near Cañon City - The Denver Post

Also, as previously stated, Colorado is a high desert climate. If you don't like the dryness, it may not be a good fit for you.

I was not aware of this. I appreciate your honesty!

I'm doing a bunch of research on the places you guys have mentioned, hoping to narrow down a specific list for my next visit. I appreciate all the responses so much!

[Idunn]

"We wish the health department and the EPA would take the initiative to do more of their own sampling, as quality assurance, to make sure we're getting correct analysis. Our community has asked and complained about that for years," Cunningham said.' [1]


At least to me this seems something anyone anyone considering a move to Cañon City may wish to, uh, consider. Some key points from the article formerly mentioned:

• "The cancer-causing chemical trichloroethene has been detected spreading from Cotter Corp.'s defunct Colorado uranium mill, contaminating groundwater at concentrations up to 360 times the federal health limit."

• "Starting in 1958, Cotter processed uranium for weapons and fuel at the mill. Liquid waste laced with radioactive material and heavy metals was discharged into 11 unlined ponds from 1958 to 1978."

• "The chemical trichloroethene is known to cause damage to the liver, kidneys, nerves and circulatory systems if ingested or inhaled in large quantities."

• "Cotter documents show that samples collected from four wells north of the mill in October, analyzed at outside labs, indicated trichloroethene concentrations of 1,800 parts per billion, 1,200 ppb, 490 ppb and 386 ppb. The EPA standard is 5 ppb."

• "Vapors can seep up through the soil and get into homes. Then you have not only a drinking issue but an inhalation risk," EPA spokeswoman Sonya Pennock said.'

I'm not sure about anybody else, but personally I'm rather partial to clean water.

1) 'Cancer-causing chemical spreading from Cotter uranium mill site near Cañon City,' The Denver Post
Cancer-causing chemical spreading from Cotter uranium mill site near Cañon City - The Denver Post

[sesamekid]

Originally Posted by Idunn

"We wish the health department and the EPA would take the initiative to do more of their own sampling, as quality assurance, to make sure we're getting correct analysis. Our community has asked and complained about that for years," Cunningham said.' [1]


At least to me this seems something anyone anyone considering a move to Cañon City may wish to, uh, consider. Some key points from the article formerly mentioned:

• "The cancer-causing chemical trichloroethene has been detected spreading from Cotter Corp.'s defunct Colorado uranium mill, contaminating groundwater at concentrations up to 360 times the federal health limit."

• "Starting in 1958, Cotter processed uranium for weapons and fuel at the mill. Liquid waste laced with radioactive material and heavy metals was discharged into 11 unlined ponds from 1958 to 1978."

• "The chemical trichloroethene is known to cause damage to the liver, kidneys, nerves and circulatory systems if ingested or inhaled in large quantities."

• "Cotter documents show that samples collected from four wells north of the mill in October, analyzed at outside labs, indicated trichloroethene concentrations of 1,800 parts per billion, 1,200 ppb, 490 ppb and 386 ppb. The EPA standard is 5 ppb."

• "Vapors can seep up through the soil and get into homes. Then you have not only a drinking issue but an inhalation risk," EPA spokeswoman Sonya Pennock said.'

I'm not sure about anybody else, but personally I'm rather partial to clean water.

1) 'Cancer-causing chemical spreading from Cotter uranium mill site near Cañon City,' The Denver Post
Cancer-causing chemical spreading from Cotter uranium mill site near Cañon City - The Denver Post

Now I am NO fan of Cotter Corporation, but I do take issue with people coming on here and posting things as scare tactics that attack (and single-out) ONE unfortunate community.

Why don't we be totally truthful here? there are MANY communities in Colorado that have some sort of contamination from various types of mining and hazardous material processing and/or storage. This is not unique to Canon City.
Check it out here if you think I am full of BS:
Colorado Superfund sites

So quit picking on Canon City!

[Lugnuts]

Originally Posted by sesamekid

Now I am NO fan of Cotter Corporation, but I do take issue with people coming on here and posting things as scare tactics that attack (and single-out) ONE unfortunate community.

Why don't we be totally truthful here? there are MANY communities in Colorado that have some sort of contamination from various types of mining and hazardous material processing and/or storage. This is not unique to Canon City.
Check it out here if you think I am full of BS:
Colorado Superfund sites

So quit picking on Canon City!

I sure hope you don't think I'm picking on CC. I just wish I had access to this forum when I moved to Colorado. If I did, I never would have bought into Leadville which is a toxic waste dump with houses on it. This forum is a great resource for all of us and a great way to disseminate information. Colorado simply has a mining past and as you point out, a lot of contaminated sites.

[sesamekid]

Originally Posted by Lugnuts

I sure hope you don't think I'm picking on CC. I just wish I had access to this forum when I moved to Colorado. If I did, I never would have bought into Leadville which is a toxic waste dump with houses on it. This forum is a great resource for all of us and a great way to disseminate information. Colorado simply has a mining past and as you point out, a lot of contaminated sites.

Sharing of information is a good thing, I agree.

Stigmatizing an entire community because there is a Superfund site nearby just doesn't seem fair to me. I mean, look at some of the areas listed as Superfund Sites: Boulder, Aspen, Denver, Salida. These are widely regarded as desirable places to live. Yet, it is Canon City that always gets pounded on this forum. Like we are glowing green aliens here or something.

If it's not the Cotter issue, then it is the prisons.

And yes, those two items can make this town less than desirable as a place for relocation.

However, as with all the other Superfund site communites, there are many positive and redeeming qualities about Canon City as well.

Canon City is not for everybody. But the OP was asking for suggestions based on a specific list of criteria and Canon City fit that list better than most other places in Colorado. So I suggested Canon City.

If the OP decides to bypass even considering Canon City because of what he/she reads on this thread, oh well. That is what keeps the real estate so dang cheap around here, I suppose. And uncrowded and peaceful.

One might make the choice to buy some acreage in the more pricey & pristine area, of say... Evergreen, and move there and then a month later have one's house burn down to the ground in a forest fire. There are pros and cons about every little utopia in Colorado. No place is perfect.

I just get steamed when poor little CC becomes a punching bag for people's disdain or a catch-all for other's cu-ca.

Give us a little respect, will ya

[sesamekid]

btw, Leadville is not a bad little town either. Cold in the winter but rather charming Victorian architecture and close in to ski areas.

I have friends there who LOVE it, despite the serious environmental & health threats.

[DOUBLE H]

Originally Posted by sesamekid

btw, Leadville is not a bad little town either. Cold in the winter but rather charming Victorian architecture and close in to ski areas.

I have friends there who LOVE it, despite the serious environmental & health threats.

Sesamekid is right. I couldn't live in Leadville because of health issues, but it is a unique community with a storied history.

Other small towns that get derided, especially among the hoity toity set are the communities of Nucla and Naturita, in the southwest corner of the state. These towns were down the road from Uravan, which basically was a company town set up for uranium operations that was owned and operated by Union Carbide. When that plant closed in the early 1980's, IMO the area never really recovered. Those towns experienced double digit unemployment for years. If you go there now you would probably be of the belief that they are being held together by gray duct tape, tie wire, chewing gum, and wishful thinking. But the folks who live there are a hardy lot. I have friends who live there and they do ok. They just live simply. Just a couple days ago Nucla received a storm the likes they've never experienced. A good size microburst done quite a bit of damage to the town. Chances are good however that no one on the front range heard anything about it. In fact, a good portion of those folks have never heard of those towns much less been to them.

Getting back to Canon City, I understand Sesamekid's opinion on the area. Before I bought real estate on the cheap in the Grand Junction area in the late 80's I thought long and hard about other communities, Canon City being one of them. I love the little towns west of Canon City that doesn't get mentioned a lot on City Data; Texas Creek, Coaldale, Cotopaxi, etc. If I wasn't nailed down to where I'm at these days the Canon City area would work for me.

[Lugnuts]

Risk, whether it's economic risk or environmental risk, is a pretty subjective thing. Different people have different comfort levels and different notions about what is acceptable. I think people can make up their own minds but I think that they should be made aware of the hazards.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by suzco

Agreed that Broomfield is not a small town, it is suburbia, and there is no small town feel - Broomfield, unlike many other Denver suburbs, does not even have an "old town, downtown" area. It grew from a more rural area.

While Broomfield does not have a "downtown" area, there seems to be a good sense of community there. My kids did gymnastics for Broomfield High School, 7 years total, and I noted a nice community feel.