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.
The idea here is that without some sort of shared public property or shared public goods and lack of ability to farm or extract, private property is essentially a chokehold strangling out any sort of development rather than a enabler of it.
Costilla County in Colorado is the prime example of this. The potential here is great - it's got better weather than Colorado Springs or Denver (cause no hail or wack plains storm systems), a 14er right out the back door, enough water to have say over 100,000 people easy...
What it in actuality is one of the most impoverished, lowest income, least visited counties in the state. Even some of the godforsaken plains counties in east CO fare better. And it's not a factor of being geography, distance, being far away etc... every other county that borders it has markedly higher home prices, better income, and are much more visited. Basically, there's no reason to be here, because there's no ability to access any of the assets.
Looking at the satellite view of the county, it's been carved to pieces by developers back in the 60s and 70s who were going to sell 'homesteads'. Probably over 90% of these are set up but vacant. So even from an environmental perspective it's a fail as well, slicing up the habitat with nobody using it. Taos County has a bunch of homestead sites without water, trees, or utilities - basically everything west of the Rio Grande Gorge bridge. But these are occupied, there's quite a few people out there, and there's more and more moving in every day. The reason Taos is taking off and Costilla county is not is there's public land in Taos County and the town is alive instead of San Luis, which is almost a ghost town.
All this is to say that for prosperity, there has to be a marriage and balance of public and private property. Libertarians constantly harp on examples of lack of private property, but fail to ever mention examples where lack of public property creates wastelands.
The idea here is that without some sort of shared public property or shared public goods and lack of ability to farm or extract, private property is essentially a chokehold strangling out any sort of development rather than a enabler of it.
Costilla County in Colorado is the prime example of this. The potential here is great - it's got better weather than Colorado Springs or Denver (cause no hail or wack plains storm systems), a 14er right out the back door, enough water to have say over 100,000 people easy...
What it in actuality is one of the most impoverished, lowest income, least visited counties in the state. Even some of the godforsaken plains counties in east CO fare better. And it's not a factor of being geography, distance, being far away etc... every other county that borders it has markedly higher home prices, better income, and are much more visited. Basically, there's no reason to be here, because there's no ability to access any of the assets.
Looking at the satellite view of the county, it's been carved to pieces by developers back in the 60s and 70s who were going to sell 'homesteads'. Probably over 90% of these are set up but vacant. So even from an environmental perspective it's a fail as well, slicing up the habitat with nobody using it. Taos County has a bunch of homestead sites without water, trees, or utilities - basically everything west of the Rio Grande Gorge bridge. But these are occupied, there's quite a few people out there, and there's more and more moving in every day. The reason Taos is taking off and Costilla county is not is there's public land in Taos County and the town is alive instead of San Luis, which is almost a ghost town.
All this is to say that for prosperity, there has to be a marriage and balance of public and private property. Libertarians constantly harp on examples of lack of private property, but fail to ever mention examples where lack of public property creates wastelands.
There is very little public land in Texas and Texas has a sensational economy and strong population growth.
Yes, but Texas has the means to extract resources locally. When the reason to be somewhere is scenery and surroundings rather than extraction, you rely more on public benefits. West Texas, outside of the oil fields, isn't in the best of shape population or economy wise.
The Forest Service research arm has spent years and years trying to find out what makes successful rural communities.
Reading the science literature indicates that the science is driven more by values and social expectations on this question.
I spent 20 years doing economic reports on rural areas and actually have developed some characteristics that DO in my opinion help create successful communities.
However, since you mentioned Casitilla County, Colorado. I assume you read this book on the county and your thoughts are driven by it.
I am very familiar with this county in Washington state. The Forest Service and virtually everyone else in the "ruling" classes view this county as a "very successful" rural county. One that the Forest Service and rich folks everywhere will like to emulate everywhere in the rural west.
Read both books. I would appreciate hearing your comments after reading BOTH books.
The problems with rural economic development are really difficult. Viewing the Forest Service documents on rural economic development that were published decades ago provides a viewpoint of people, just as convinced as we are of the correctness of their positions. BUT some of those successful communities cited in those documents are pretty much ghost towns today. Just as I suspect, in the future, today's successful rural communities will likewise become ghost towns a shell of their former self.
Anyway, read both books and I would really appreciate your thoughts.
Yes, but Texas has the means to extract resources locally. When the reason to be somewhere is scenery and surroundings rather than extraction, you rely more on public benefits. West Texas, outside of the oil fields, isn't in the best of shape population or economy wise.
Your second sentence is mostly sophistry.
The overall economy in West Texas/rural Texas is far better than your CO county.
Midland has the highest per capita GDP contribution of any sizable city in the US and has for years. Places like Loving County, Reeves County and many others over contribute as well.
The Forest Service research arm has spent years and years trying to find out what makes successful rural communities.
Reading the science literature indicates that the science is driven more by values and social expectations on this question.
I spent 20 years doing economic reports on rural areas and actually have developed some characteristics that DO in my opinion help create successful communities.
However, since you mentioned Casitilla County, Colorado. I assume you read this book on the county and your thoughts are driven by it.
I am very familiar with this county in Washington state. The Forest Service and virtually everyone else in the "ruling" classes view this county as a "very successful" rural county. One that the Forest Service and rich folks everywhere will like to emulate everywhere in the rural west.
Read both books. I would appreciate hearing your comments after reading BOTH books.
The problems with rural economic development are really difficult. Viewing the Forest Service documents on rural economic development that were published decades ago provides a viewpoint of people, just as convinced as we are of the correctness of their positions. BUT some of those successful communities cited in those documents are pretty much ghost towns today. Just as I suspect, in the future, today's successful rural communities will likewise become ghost towns a shell of their former self.
Anyway, read both books and I would really appreciate your thoughts.
I think rural vs. suburban vs. city development growth is fairly easy to pinpoint, note I said easy not popular.
Other than ranchers and farmers most smart goal oriented people go where the jobs pay the best and their kids may enjoy better educational opportunities with better healthcare as a big kicker. From this perspective big urban centers win by a mile. All of this in the background that worldwide cities are growing and rural areas shrinking in population.
I grew up on a ranch. Today my wife and I own several farms and ranches across a number of states either in bits and pieces or whole-cloth. If up to my gut I'd move immediately to one of our places in West Texas, Oklahoma or Colorado and rarely leave.
Reality is our kid's educations were critical drivers for our family. Secondly my wife for career purposes needed to be in a big city etc.etc.
However, my feeling is that since 1985 governmental programs and policies at both the state and Federal level were designed to decimate rural areas.
Not that politicians did it deliberately they just never thought about the effect of their policies on rural areas. To this day, last week, in my city. Another example.
I always thought that Earth First went over the deep end with their re-wilding of the American west. However, it was the politicians of both parties that really put it into high gear.
full disclosure....my comments pertain to the American west, I don't know much about rural areas in the mid-west and eastern states, unless they have similar effects due to governmental policies,
However, my feeling is that since 1985 governmental programs and policies at both the state and Federal level were designed to decimate rural areas.
Not that politicians did it deliberately they just never thought about the effect of their policies on rural areas. To this day, last week, in my city. Another example.
I always thought that Earth First went over the deep end with their re-wilding of the American west. However, it was the politicians of both parties that really put it into high gear.
full disclosure....my comments pertain to the American west, I don't know much about rural areas in the mid-west and eastern states, unless they have similar effects due to governmental policies,
Which I suspect they do.
I need to think about that for a while but for sure federal and state spending tends to be centered towards larger population areas.
I need to think about that for a while but for sure federal and state spending tends to be centered towards larger population areas.
It is NOT the spending.
It is the state and Federal governmental policies towards the rural areas. The governments are fine with spending money in rural areas, they just don't want them to be successful.
I will give you a example.
In the 1930's, the county I live in asked the Seattle based electric company to extend electrical lines into rural areas of the county.
They said NO. We will NEVER do it.
The County said, fine and promptly condemned the privately held dam and set up a local Public Utility District(PUD) to provide electricity to ALL county residents. Yeah, there was WAY MORE electricity generated by that dam than the local residents could use.
The County then sold the "excess" electricity back to Seattle utility.
Fast forward 60 years. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) told the County PUD that they had to provide fiber optic lines from the now THREE county owned dams, and other facilities to Portland, Oregon.
That was fine. The PUD then noticed that it was running fiber past county offices and schools and said hey, we will just give our schools and county offices HIGH SPEED INTERNET.
Then somebody at the PUD said, "well, we are providing electricity to our county residents, how about we throw in high speed internet, telephone service, and cable TV for really cheap prices"
In rural areas, it is the local government that has the capital resources for major projects. There are very few very rich businesses that can raise significant amounts of capital. In this case, the fiber project was funded by electricity sales to Seattle, Portland, Eugene, and California.
Then it hit the fan.
The Democrat Socialist Governor of the state of Washington went ballistic. He invoked the mantle of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE and loudly "proclaimed throughout Washington state that there were certain things a GOVERNMENT should NEVER DO and high speed internet was the most important thing that should be kept in private hands."
The very conservative Republican Speaker of the House in Wenatchee thundered back "that it is OUR GOVERNMENT and we can do whatever we want with it to provide services to our citizens".
The whole thing was both serious and funny.
But clearly, the Socialist Governor was NOT interested in rural economic development if it hindered his political contributors namely the telecommunication companies.
Twenty-five years later, the County provides my internet, cable TV, and telephone service through a locally owned company operating on the County fiber optic network. Just this year, a Seattle company bought out a local company and is also operating on the fiber network.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,690 posts, read 57,994,855 times
Reputation: 46166
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
There is very little public land in Texas and Texas has a sensational economy and strong population growth.
Texans public land is in Colorado and NM. They ran us (locals) out of those states in the 1970s.
There were no AG tax deferrals for our ranch, we had to leave Colorado. (As did all our neighbors).
It happens a lot within the freedom of the USA ownership laws.
Millions of seniors get displaced from their lifelong homes every year.
It's freedom!
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.
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.
