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.
Many contentious posts as of late have prompted me to start this thread and ponder this question.
While there can be positives to population growth in Idaho, it seems that a majority of folks think that overall it is bad for Idaho.
Do you think that efforts to curtail this growth via "tall tale" type of perspectives and attitudes on these forums is wrong?
I can understand why those with financial motives might want to do the opposite and crush such types of efforts for their own financial gain, and if you are one of those please identify yourself as you state your opinion in this thread.
I don't get the "tall tale" type of perspectives comment. Some of us have actually witnesses and experienced this first hand, and aren't exaggerating to simply scare people away.
On the other hand, those who try to belittle the "anti-growth" perspectives have their own reasons and experiences, too, that shouldn't be overtly discounted.
It is fascinating how people can see some of the same things so very differently. Sometimes these can be vetted with evidence, but most of the time it's purely a difference in opinion and experience.
You should go back and read through the annuls of this (and the Boise) forum. You'll see that people have been complaining (and fighting) about growth (and Californians) for as long as this forum has been around.
Growth is a double edged sword. More people often means more jobs, higher income, more opportunities but it also means more density, more traffic, more crime, higher prices, loss of or at least over use of, natural resources, loss of culture or identity. It's inevitable as the population grows from people moving in vs natural growth. The no-longer-small town I live in an hour (non rush hour) from Seattle has seen it as the population has doubled. The annual city parade is a shadow of what it was 15 years ago, new people are constantly pushing for more density, more government services, this or that, that they had where they lived before - and always expect someone else to pay for it.
I'm sure most Idaho residents don't want Boise to turn into anther San Francisco like has happened to Seattle. Many people who live in the Seattle are now don't see a problem with that, but people who've lived in the area for 20,30,50+ years do and that spreads across the entire area and can impact the entire state.
Thanks for starting this thread, Sam. I want to preface the following opinions by saying that I have no financial gain - it's just my opinion. My family has been from the Inland Northwest for 5 generations. Their primary location was Eastern Washington and many of them were farmers. Many others took up professions and moved either short distances to Coeur d'Alene or long, across the country like my father did when he moved to Texas in the 80s. Some of my relatives went to Washington schools (Gonzaga and WSU mostly) while others would attend U of I. I don't currently live in Washington or Idaho but I'm very familiar with North Idaho as my grandparents had a cabin on Lake Couer d'Alene that we would visit in the summer every chance we could and we stay in close contact with most of my father's family who are either local or close enough it doesn't matter. I can also only really speak to the far Northern areas of Idaho. I've been to/through Boise a few times but never even been to the Eastern part of the state.
Quote:
While there can be positives to population growth in Idaho, it seems that a majority of folks think that overall it is bad for Idaho.
That seems a hypocritical perspective for a lot of Idahoans to have, considering so much of the population is first generation themselves. The three most populous counties in Idaho, Ada, Canyon, and Kootenai have all more than doubled in population in the past 25 years. Together they are almost half the population of the state. The Boise and CDA metros are chock full of people that weren't born there. It's really bad form, IMO, to move to an area and then try to discourage growth as the person moving is causing the exact same congestion/real estate prices/attitude change/etc. that they are complaining about and probably moved there to escape from.
Growth is inevitable. Trying to fight it almost always leads to simply dealing with growth poorly, making life more miserable for everyone because local governments tried to fight the wave of immigration to the area instead of accepting the fact that it was happening and building out the proper infrastructure, issue building permits for more housing, etc. to deal with it. People can wish it wouldn't happen, but actively fighting it is pointless, IMO. And while people who retire or set themselves up to move to a place generally have the disposable income or assets from their previous location to live well in an area, a lot of natives are okay with the increased growth, tourism, etc. in order to make a living. Someone who retires to a place can afford to say "not in my back yard!" whereas a local to that same place might appreciate the increase the population brings to their business, along with the associated headaches.
I get not wanting to advertise, but being out-and-out hostile seems like shooting yourself in the foot.
Quote:
Do you think that efforts to curtail this growth via "tall tale" type of perspectives and attitudes on these forums is wrong?
Yes, I believe exaggerating or being dishonest to discourage people you don't agree with from moving to your location is wrong. The point of the city-data forums is for local people - both old time natives and new transplants - to give their impressions, experiences, and information about a location to help other people make decisions that affect the rest of their lives. Trying to purposefully give people the wrong impression because you don't agree with them politically is wrong, IMO.
It's also a waste of time. Idaho added more than 600k people since 1990 - or roughly 26,000 people a year. Even if half of those were transplants (13k) and 10% of them used city data and you managed to scare away 10% of the ones that came on here, you've only managed to curtail growth by 130 people a year, out of 26,000. And those numbers are inflated way beyond reason, so why bother?
Sam, I obviously don't think there's anything wrong with sharing your opinion. In fact it's the quintessentially American thing to do. I'm sure you represent a portion of the population that moved to Idaho for similar reasons and have similar outlooks as you. And anyone moving to Idaho should know that you and yours are present. If that's a factor for their relocation, then that information is helpful to them and lets them to know join up or stay away because of that element. I just think you should represent yourself instead of pretending to represent the state as a whole with hyperbolic "we all redneck racists up here!" comments. Because it isn't representative of the community as a whole as my family and I have been a part of it or encountered it.
I think growth is OK, as long as it's measured. Bonner County has minimum sub-dividable lot size of 5 acres. This alone goes a long way to control overcrowding in the county area. However, since most of Sagle, Dover, Kootenai, and Ponderay and surrounding areas use Sandpoint as a center of commerce, the traffic and crowding of public spaces and even shopping areas got dramatically worse during the early-mid 2000's.
I don't think SP has lost its small-town appeal...but I can see how residents who lived here in the 90's would see a problem with it. What I would love to see is most newcomers try to purchase established homes or buildable land that had some dwellers there who are moving out, which only replaces population instead of increasing it. We bought our acreage in 2006, but there were retirees living in a trailer on it, who left the area, so we didn't "add" to the local population dramatically (their children had grown up and moved out, so in essence we replaced a "family with a family", albeit at different stages). Now our kids have grown up and are moving out, and not moving to new construction but buying existing homes, thus again not creating a growth issue.
What I see, and have issues with, is a lot of real estate places that advertise nationally and try to sell a "piece of paradise" by creating these 5-20 parcel ostentatiously-named subdivisions that are usually badly overpriced and draws in yuppies who have no attitude of "becoming an Idahoan" but instead bring that "California/New York/Denver/etc" attitude that we so disdain here.
I know this recession hurt a lot of people here...but a silver lining was that for 3-4 years we had negative growth in Bonner County...or nearly-flat growth which is almost as good. And the lack of well-paying jobs here is also a limiting factor.
I worry about CDA and Post Falls...the traffic there is already terrible (relative to what it was here) and the infrastructure can't really expand to handle a lot more or it's going to be really awful...like South Orange County CA awful...with way too many residents for arterial routes to get anywhere in under 20-30 minutes...
So if I had ONE wish for northern Idaho, it wouldn't be that people stop moving here...but that 95-98% of those moving here only "replace" those moving out of the area.
I think growth is OK, as long as it's measured. Bonner County has minimum sub-dividable lot size of 5 acres. This alone goes a long way to control overcrowding in the county area. However, since most of Sagle, Dover, Kootenai, and Ponderay and surrounding areas use Sandpoint as a center of commerce, the traffic and crowding of public spaces and even shopping areas got dramatically worse during the early-mid 2000's.
I don't think SP has lost its small-town appeal...but I can see how residents who lived here in the 90's would see a problem with it. What I would love to see is most newcomers try to purchase established homes or buildable land that had some dwellers there who are moving out, which only replaces population instead of increasing it. We bought our acreage in 2006, but there were retirees living in a trailer on it, who left the area, so we didn't "add" to the local population dramatically (their children had grown up and moved out, so in essence we replaced a "family with a family", albeit at different stages). Now our kids have grown up and are moving out, and not moving to new construction but buying existing homes, thus again not creating a growth issue.
What I see, and have issues with, is a lot of real estate places that advertise nationally and try to sell a "piece of paradise" by creating these 5-20 parcel ostentatiously-named subdivisions that are usually badly overpriced and draws in yuppies who have no attitude of "becoming an Idahoan" but instead bring that "California/New York/Denver/etc" attitude that we so disdain here.
I know this recession hurt a lot of people here...but a silver lining was that for 3-4 years we had negative growth in Bonner County...or nearly-flat growth which is almost as good. And the lack of well-paying jobs here is also a limiting factor.
I worry about CDA and Post Falls...the traffic there is already terrible (relative to what it was here) and the infrastructure can't really expand to handle a lot more or it's going to be really awful...like South Orange County CA awful...with way too many residents for arterial routes to get anywhere in under 20-30 minutes...
So if I had ONE wish for northern Idaho, it wouldn't be that people stop moving here...but that 95-98% of those moving here only "replace" those moving out of the area.
Another solution is to allow the urban areas to concentrate, rather than to spread out.
Very much of what has become most sour in California is due, I believe, to the high suburban areas, which were once everyone's little piece of heaven 50 years ago, but are not everyone's little piece of hell.
Suburbia has created severe problems all its own, everywhere in the country, and it's still happening.
I think what people really want is a sense of belonging to a community. Suburbia has taken that sense of belonging away from a lot of us by allowing anyone a lot of very private space. Space is more isolating the it is encouraging for a community.
We all have to work harder than ever to get to know our neighbors now. This makes running with 'our' herd harder, and running with any herd harder at the same time. It's a lot easier to get to know they guy next door, when next door is only a few feet away than when next door is a half-mile away. No one every knows beforehand if your neighbor will become a friend or not, but all face to face human interaction causes more lasting impact on others than the isolation we all tend to have now, nesting in our homes instead of getting out and talking to our neighbors.
I've yet to see any effective growth measures here in the US, and I studied this at university. Different nations have done well, but they also bring different expectations and assumptions.
Some places (Oregon, Montana) have tried to limit density by mandating minimum lot sizes and subdividable property restrictions; this has only resulted in sprawl, McMansions, and is a borderline taking. Read up on Oregon's Measure 37.
Other places (Boulder in particular) have tried to encourage density by restricting sprawl. This has only inflated property values to the point only the rich can live inside the community borders, and outside county and communities grow up to those borders anyway.
Much of the western US is not particular suited for growth, given the property limitations, natural resource challenges, water and aridity, and that much of our urban areas were long built around the automobile, sprawl, and suburban growth. Naturally, most people here reject density.
You'll see as Idaho adds more and more population that people will become less and less friendly. While Banjo argues that people want a sense of community, I'll counter by saying that people in Idaho, including those moving here (maybe especially so), simply want to be left alone. When more people = more people on the roads, less parking, less camping spots, less hunting and fishing spots, crowding on the rivers, trailheads, mountains, lifts, and then you get government trying to regulate all that more and more.... you get more testy and unfriendly people.
So I also disagree with the notion made earlier that trying to fight growth is a waste of time and that being hostile is "shooting yourself in the foot." Being hostile, feisty, testy, and sour is very much a hallmark of Idaho's personality. While that might be masked by the newcomers, it is certainly always there ready to bear its teeth. That isn't to say that Idahoans wouldn't help someone out in a pickle or give the shirt off their back...
I will add that this does tend to be very different whether we're talking about urban areas like Boise, CdA, Idaho Falls, and attractions like Sandpoint, McCall, etc... versus most small towns in Idaho that are either just sustaining, or are dying.
I've yet to see any effective growth measures here in the US, and I studied this at university. Different nations have done well, but they also bring different expectations and assumptions.
Some places (Oregon, Montana) have tried to limit density by mandating minimum lot sizes and subdividable property restrictions; this has only resulted in sprawl, McMansions, and is a borderline taking. Read up on Oregon's Measure 37.
Other places (Boulder in particular) have tried to encourage density by restricting sprawl. This has only inflated property values to the point only the rich can live inside the community borders, and outside county and communities grow up to those borders anyway.
Much of the western US is not particular suited for growth, given the property limitations, natural resource challenges, water and aridity, and that much of our urban areas were long built around the automobile, sprawl, and suburban growth. Naturally, most people here reject density.
You'll see as Idaho adds more and more population that people will become less and less friendly. While Banjo argues that people want a sense of community, I'll counter by saying that people in Idaho, including those moving here (maybe especially so), simply want to be left alone. When more people = more people on the roads, less parking, less camping spots, less hunting and fishing spots, crowding on the rivers, trailheads, mountains, lifts, and then you get government trying to regulate all that more and more.... you get more testy and unfriendly people.
So I also disagree with the notion made earlier that trying to fight growth is a waste of time and that being hostile is "shooting yourself in the foot." Being hostile, feisty, testy, and sour is very much a hallmark of Idaho's personality. While that might be masked by the newcomers, it is certainly always there ready to bear its teeth. That isn't to say that Idahoans wouldn't help someone out in a pickle or give the shirt off their back...
I will add that this does tend to be very different whether we're talking about urban areas like Boise, CdA, Idaho Falls, and attractions like Sandpoint, McCall, etc... versus most small towns in Idaho that are either just sustaining, or are dying.
I could well be wrong, and I agree with most of your thoughts.
I have no answers, that's for sure.
I just hope that this century will address some of the many complicated problems that linger on from the past century, but nothing at all is certain.
I could well be wrong, and I agree with most of your thoughts.
I have no answers, that's for sure.
I just hope that this century will address some of the many complicated problems that linger on from the past century, but nothing at all is certain.
Yeah...to second this...I'm great at pointing out problems but a bit...lacking...in coming up with brilliant solutions.
If I understand northern Idaho's history (at least what I've both read and been told by people here) the decline of logging in the mid-1990's and to need to convert much of the economy to tourism would also naturally lead people to want to relocate here. When I look at most tourist places (my family used to have a home in Park City, UT) I recall that at the same time Park City was booming, some nice small towns not too far away that didn't rely on tourism were doing fine and not being overrun. It wasn't until the Park City area got too crowded that everything spilled over into the surrounding small towns, etc.
Apply this to northern Idaho, the tourism draw of Pend Oreille/Sandpoint and Coeur d'Alene are going to naturally draw people here with relocation dreams or second (or third) homes. And I think as metro area economies start booming around the country, we'll see another influx of people to this area, which is unfortunate, but somewhat inevitable.
Yeah...to second this...I'm great at pointing out problems but a bit...lacking...in coming up with brilliant solutions.
If I understand northern Idaho's history (at least what I've both read and been told by people here) the decline of logging in the mid-1990's and to need to convert much of the economy to tourism would also naturally lead people to want to relocate here. When I look at most tourist places (my family used to have a home in Park City, UT) I recall that at the same time Park City was booming, some nice small towns not too far away that didn't rely on tourism were doing fine and not being overrun. It wasn't until the Park City area got too crowded that everything spilled over into the surrounding small towns, etc.
Apply this to northern Idaho, the tourism draw of Pend Oreille/Sandpoint and Coeur d'Alene are going to naturally draw people here with relocation dreams or second (or third) homes. And I think as metro area economies start booming around the country, we'll see another influx of people to this area, which is unfortunate, but somewhat inevitable.
Yup. its happening here in the south as well. Driggs is presently a lot like Sandpoint was 30 years ago, and Swan Valley is very similar to Sagle right now. One has the prettiest mountains in the country and a superb ski hill, the other has a lake. and mountains.
The entire S.E. corner of the state- Bear Lake, Preston, Montpelier, Soda Springs- are all ripe for exactly the same influx as the panhandle received. The areas are almost identical in all respects except for elevation.
This area has already begun to attract those who moved out of Park City after they could sell out and make a big profit. The biggest difference is the proximity of a ski hill- Pebble Creek is about 35 miles away, close to Pocatello, the area's equivalent of Coeur d'Alene. This area is dotted with lakes, though all are smaller than those in the north, and the landscape is very similar. It's the same sportsman's paradise that the upper panhandle once was as well.
It's only a matter of time. Only the newcomers may vary from place to place here.
I'm not sure any answers, brilliant or not, even exist. Modern answers always require a lot of resources small communities don't have and/or can't afford. Building the golden egg may be hard, but building the goose is even harder.
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.
