Best Town to move to in Idaho? (Boise, Moscow: transplants, real estate)

[Xa'at]

Wow, this thread might be getting a little out of hand. "Eat my shorts?" It's original, I'll give you that.
Nevertheless...
Jfreuden, I think you will like Idaho, no matter what the negative comments are. Californians worry about being ostracized in Idaho, which, given the rumors, is probably a fairly valid worry. However, MaryMomof4 and other naysayers may have slightly misinterpreted our qualms with California...
I have found that Idahoans don't necessarily like what effect California and Californians have on our state, but we don't "hate" Californians any more than we hate Oregonians or Montanans. At least in N. Idaho, we dislike people if they are individually dislikable...
As for the "Idaho for Idahoans", think about it. It makes sense. Shouldn't the people who live in a state have more power in its government than people from another state?
Let me give you an example...
In Sandpoint we get all our power from hydroelectric dams. The closest is Albeni Falls, down the river. Without any intervention, Albeni falls could produce all the power Bonner County needs. So, someone had the bright idea that if we lower the lake level in the fall via the dam, more electricity can be generated and we can sell the excess to... you guessed it... California! That in itself is not a bad idea- we get more money for the state and it helps prevent floods when the snow pack starts melting come spring. Unfortunately, there's a downside, which no one has cared to take into account thus far. Lake Pend Oreille is home to a very endangered species of Salmon, the Kokanee. (which is actually a freshwater variety of the legendary (and tasty) Sockeye) Kokanee lay their eggs in nests called redds on the shoreline in the fall. So, when they draw the lake down the redds are left high and dry, and voilà- endangered fish made even more endangered... Even though California isn't exactly to blame, Idahoans are really kind of justified in being upset at California for it anyway, right?
Are you starting to see why this whole "Idaho for Idahoans" thing actually kind of makes sense? Besides, once you move to Idaho, you're an Idahoan!


p.s.
Make sure to check out North Idaho too!!

[Torrie]

Originally Posted by Xa'at

Even though California isn't exactly to blame, Idahoans are really kind of justified in being upset at California for it anyway, right?
Are you starting to see why this whole "Idaho for Idahoans" thing actually kind of makes sense? Besides, once you move to Idaho, you're an Idahoan!

Just another perspective, when I read what you say here, what comes to mind is Idahoans should be mad at Idahoans. Californians can't buy what's not for sale. So no, this part of what you are saying doesn't make sense and doesn't seem justified. It sounds like another example of placing blame on the wrong party and not taking responsibility for your own actions.

[Syringaloid]

I have never really heard about this whole California/Idaho thing until I started reading this forum and it almost seems blown out of proportion in some of the posts here IMO. I am not a native, but did not move here from California. I know many people from California who have moved to Boise and I asked them about what has been mentioned in some of the threads. They said that they never experienced any negative looks, actions, feelings, or anything for that matter. They said they are very happy with Boise and feel like they chose the right city and state to raise their families. They said that Boise is almost a Mayberry compared to most places in CA they left behind. They also said that if some Californians feel like they are singled out and picked on then they probably deserve it if they say things like this: "Well, back in California we do it this way, or Back in California we have this and that".....
So, maybe some of the people who post here have had isolated experiences and they are trying to label the whole populace of Boise as being anti Californian, which is a lie. That is just absurd because so many people here are from CA.
I think some people are just downers, negative, and breed unhappiness.
If you are disgruntled then go downtown, walk around, say hi to your fellow Boiseans, get coffee at Dawsons on 8th Street. Check out all of the new shops and restaurants downtown has. Go to Julia Davis, Ann Morrison or the many other parks. Get out and enjoy, since there aren't many other cities like Boise

[Torrie]

I agree Syringaloid. I'm from CA and it's never been an issue for me. I've always felt that it seems blown out of proportion here on this forum. I've never heard anyone discuss it outside of this forum or complain about it being a problem here except for on this forum. Not to say others could possibly have had a bad experience, but I don't find it to be the norm if at all.

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by Torrie

Just another perspective, when I read what you say here, what comes to mind is Idahoans should be mad at Idahoans. Californians can't buy what's not for sale. So no, this part of what you are saying doesn't make sense and doesn't seem justified. It sounds like another example of placing blame on the wrong party and not taking responsibility for your own actions.

Completely short-sighted.

There are many reasons people sell that isn't just to make money - they may not be able to afford the taxes, they may be pressured out through gov't takings, political pressure, reduced income, loss of job, taking a new job, reducing a commute, sickness, loss of water rights, pressure to sell water rights, etc.

Some do sell because they're "cashing in," but as a realtor you should know this is very seldom the sole motivation. If people sell they have to buy somewhere else - if they're simply cashing in but not increasing their yearly income, they're probably not improving their home choice, because the market will have become more expensive. Most people don't "cash in" and then move somewhere cheaper just because they're capitalizing on their equity - they're making a lifestyle choice, usually because they can no longer afford where they're living now.

Again you're being disingenuous with this blame - as a realtor you should and do know these things. As an ex-Californian you know that the decision to sell and to move elsewhere isn't solely motivated by money.

You're arguing to a point that Californian's simply aren't cashing in on their equity and buying into a cheaper market, but rather that they're looking for a better quality of life in a place they can afford to live (because California has become too expensive for them). Why would it be different for Idahoans? Perhaps Idaho is becoming too expensive, too busy for them, and they're "cashing in" because they can no longer afford to live here, and seek a better quality of life elsewhere.

Either way your argument has tremendous flaws in it.

[eyetech]

Thanks all for following up with positive, encouraging comments. (Torrie, you're a rock on this forum! I can always count on you to be level-headed and civil!) We're all really in very similar "boats"--most of us aren't in "yachts!" But we do synthesize things differently. Whether we see things in a positive or negative light is our business, I guess. BUT (and this is the proverbial very big...) we should all be accountable to a degree of maturity and civility.
I won't give up on Idaho because of a few posts I might not agree with. I'm glad we have this forum to openly discuss our opinions and questions about locales.
Thanks again for calming me down!

[eyetech]

Anchorless, in Torrie's defense, I don't think she was really making a blanket accusation against Idahoans who sell to Californians. She has always been very supportive of Idaho, California and the folks who choose to live in either place. I think her comment had more to do with a previous post that DID imply placing blame. She was suggesting that we look at our own selves FIRST. At least that's how I read the comment.

[Syringaloid]

Originally Posted by eyetech

Anchorless, in Torrie's defense, I don't think she was really making a blanket accusation against Idahoans who sell to Californians. She has always been very supportive of Idaho, California and the folks who choose to live in either place. I think her comment had more to do with a previous post that DID imply placing blame. She was suggesting that we look at our own selves FIRST. At least that's how I read the comment.

I agree too. Torrie was not out of line at all.

[Anchorless]

I very much agree that people everywhere need to look at themselves first, and that they need to control the things they can control. That said...

It's no secret that T and I are virtually diametrically opposed on most viewpoints. I'll be the yin to her yang, and readers can decide accordingly. I feel that I'm well versed in growth issues in Idaho, and offer a legitimate perspective. So I'm not just being argumentative, but I'm trying to balance these perspectives. It makes for a more complete picture.

While she has been very supportive of Idaho - to the point of absolutely endorsing it for everyone and all to come - I do think she is at times disingenuous when it comes to this discussion, perhaps because it is a bit more personal for her (she is from California). I don't fault her for this at all.

I'll walk right in line with her if we're going to argue the "Californians are evil, drug using, materialistic, liberal, narcissists" line. I disagree with that as well, and my opposition to Californians is never towards them as people. Nor do I think anyone has a legitimate argument to that effect. I almost think its a straw man or red herring.

The real issue, and I think the point of contention in the ID v. CA debate, is simply that people are coming here, and most of them seem to be from CA. And because people are coming here in huge numbers, it stirs up a lot of emotional responses from people who are watching their home change, and these responses are often manifested in personal attacks or attacks to these people's character. If with more people you see an increase in crime, its perhaps natural to blame the increase in crime on the new people (though completely wrong).

I think we need to shift the debate from the character of incoming people, which for the most part isn't a problem, if you ask me, to the implications of the people coming in. If Torrie wants to make a point as to why people are coming in, in the buy v. sell debate, I just think she needs to be a bit more accurate. While it may to an extent simply be about "cashing in," anyone who has ever sold their home and moved knows that is only a small part of the equation, and only in rare situations is the money gained an overwhelming force.

Simplifying the issue is a reason why Cali's are labeled as they are, and its not a fair approach to the subject. I feel the same towards the buy/sell issue.

[eyetech]

Thanks, Anchorless, for clarifying. You absolutely have not only a legitimate perspective, but a truly valuable one. You are indeed well versed on Idaho growth issues (that alone can be intimidating to those of us who are not!) I would question, though, the legitimacy of your assessment of Torrie as being at times disingenuous. That would require an ability we humans don't possess!
I would love to learn more about Idaho from someone who, like you, has taken it upon themselves to research and share important matters such as water, environment, traffic, etc. But it's hard for me to glean the facts from an emotional delivery.
Since I value both your and Torrie's posts, I would also tend to question the origin of this "diametrically opposed" stance. Maybe (just maybe!) you two aren't as opposed on the issues as you suggest. Is it possible that this has been more of an avenue to drive home your point(s)?
It's obvious that Idaho is a precious territory, and people like you should be applauded for speaking up to keep it so. You and Torrie have a unique opportunity to find that elusive "key" to solving the issues of people/growth vs. land/stability. I hope you can make headway.