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.
Montanaguy,
I gotta' ya beat by a couple years.....
Actually you can stop it, or at least discourage it, afterall many people go to great lengths to encourage growth, by stopping encouraging it would go along way in slowing it down.
I don't beleive in 'controled' growth, it's like saying you want to control a tumor......you don't want it (the tumor) saying you want to manage it will not stop it from growing.
>>> ...He never learned Math or Science in his youth. His "public" school government mandated background was too busy teaching him how to "feel." The faculty are required to push them through for a Federally Funded head counts. Won't expound but, look at the "special programs" because Johnnie is too stressed to take a test with his peers. There are programs where he isn't required to be in a stressful situation, like a scheduled exam! Imagine that.... <<<
So I guess we all need to join that one particular "spacial program"..... heh heh.. .. because life itself is all about stress...
Little Johnnie needs to grow up, plain and simple. Quit coat tailing on all of the rest of us that really have the nads to live.
I think sometimes that our public schools just need to concentrate on teaching, and leave all of this other nonsense alone.
Well, I'm always glad to hear that someone's older than me. I'm 57 but I don't look a day less than 75.
Speaking of growth JJM, I just don't know how you could really stop it. You can't make it illegal for American citizens to move wherever they want so if you have a bunch of them moving to your town you can't just let it spiral out of control until you're in traffic gridlock and it takes forever to just drive across town. When I say controlled growth what I'm really saying is that someone needs to actually plan a growing city. It's just common sense. Ok, if we're getting bigger don't we need to think about traffic patterns, commuting times, how to zone the growing areas, etc. Of course we do. On my earlier post when I talked about population density it probably sounded like I was just talking about big cities but the same principle can be applied to a smaller city. Missoula is kind of squeezed into a small area because it's surrounded by mountains and it's in a little valley. That has to be taken into account when you're trying to plan growth. I mentioned before the idea of condominiums, especially hi-rise condos. Of course they wouldn't be skyscrapers in a town the size of Missoula but there's a big chunk of the population who are attracted to a home that's situated right downtown. Usually it's young people who are just getting started and want to be close to downtown where there's things to do but it's also older people who don't want to deal with yard work and maintenance. This is very popular in most cities and it helps the traffic situation. These possibilities need to be looked at as well as anything else that will make the growth happen in a predictable manner.
More houses in the urban forest interface and more problems, fire crews now are increasingly more diverted to protecting homes, homes that many think should not have been built there for that very reason, or they should be better protected and the responsibilty of the owner not the fire crews who should be concerned with fighting the wildfire not saving some yuppie house.
I happened to catch Fox News....either they have pulse on our thread....Are we famous YET?, or everyone is catching on to the problems with the, beat the chest, new mountain men....
USFS and other supressors of fire because of "housing" wants to start charging states for the protection. Daing Right !! Then the State may be less "exhuberant" about allowing subdividers sell off the fields and steams in the mountains.
It was on the news just 45 minutes ago. Pretty interesting...they talked about the supression of fires because of too much building in the mountains. They talked about fining "homeowners" for not keeping brush and trees away from their home. I don't like the fining part. Sounds alittle too much like Big Brother...but if someone doesn't keep pine trees and brush away from their home, I don't think a firefighter has to protect the place.
We keep the grasses short near the house, have a plowed fire break up front, our trees (decidious) have their branches above 6'. And we water closer to the house to keep it green. Maintenance takes time. Sometimes when I go to a city I think to myself....gee, no wonder these people have time to go out to eat and all the other stuff they do...Their yard is .14 of an acre.
I'm going to give you a link. This is a place about 3 miles east of Billings. This place was a quiet settlement about 20 years ago. Very few homes, cistern, septic...and the people pretty much "maintained" their small acerage. Now, 20 years later people moved in because there were no restrictions on subdividing these small parcels into smaller parcels. The newbees kept their grounds "natural"....long grasses, deadfall and cedar shake roofs. We almost had a catastrophe. Only a one home was sacrificed to save the village.
I hadn't driven the area for about 15 years and drove down and around after the fire. I could not believe how many homes were in there. It used to be a very pretty place. Now there are homes stacked on top of each other...all on cistern. Cistern means there is NO WATER and people haul their water.
This place was fine when there were 20 homes or so in there...but to try and protect the village of, I bet +150 homes, I don't know how the firefighters saved it. I have no idea how they saved it. They do good work. Hats off and Hurah to the Firefighters for that one.
This link isn't bad....it shows all of the 2006 fires out here in the plains...well, those in near Yellowstone Valley. Anyway, the Emerald Hills fire pictures are in the list of photo galleries on the right.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/specialreport/?s/2006fires (broken link)
That has to be taken into account when you're trying to plan growth. I mentioned before the idea of condominiums, especially hi-rise condos.
I'm the spring chicken, LOL. Or maybe I am...let me see I'll have to pull out the old calculator and subtract. What year is it? I guess its how you live life rather than how long you've had life...How long I have life is all the longer I want to live.
Anyway, getting to the high rise and common wall complexes...HeeBeeGeeBeez....After the law they just passed or are attempting to pass in some suburb of San Fran .... I don't want to live with a common wall ...
I wonder how many "complaints" about someone smoking in the apartment next door will come through the 911...where these same people listen to wife beatings and child abuse from their common wall abodes and don't dial 911.
Leave it up to California....SEE why Californians have a bad reputation..??
I do understand your point MontanaGuy. When I visited a bro in Portland they are creating "loft" apts. out of old factory buildings for a lot of those whom like city dwelling. Its sheak...or sheek or whatever. My bro used to "develop" these for families. When I tried to turn him on to an old brick building in Butte....now retired, he said...I've had enough of decaying brick.
I wonder if these people moving into these fancy lofts understand clay does break down. Are these people being sold a bill of goods just like people moving to Montana to a subdivided piece of dirt? The Pacific Rim has Earthquakes...will these sheek apartments survive?
I wonder how many "complaints" about someone smoking in the apartment next door will come through the 911...where these same people listen to wife beatings and child abuse from their common wall abodes and don't dial 911.
I've just read about the smoking ordinance that's being discussed in California. I've never smoked but I think this is going too far because they're talking about banning smoking in a private residence if it's a multi-unit apartment. It wouldn't be a 911 call but a complaint would have the smoke police paying you a visit if your neighbor complained. That's really too much.
Anyway, back to the hi-rise idea. Modern hi-rise condos are built with reinforced concrete which is basically soundproof and will survive an earthquake. I think it would be really nice to be right in the middle of a city where you can go outside and have restaurants, bars, and all sorts of things to do within walking distance. It also reduces driving and suburban sprawl which has got to be a good thing. And besides that, you don't have to mow the lawn.
In short, a firefighter told me how he and other firefighters aren't really happy about having to protect homes in the forest, they kinda feel like "hey rich guy you wanna build your place out here......you protect, we got forestfires to fight, I didin't sign up to protect your rich A** !...". I'm paraphrasing of course, but that was his attitude.
As far as "Controled" growth, I'm sorry I just don't buy into the idea even though I appaul growth. Let me see if I can explain why, first of all I beleive that it is based on a false premise, that is that growth it ok if it can be controled, I don't beleive growth is any good whether you control it or not. First and foremost you should try and stop it (growth) completely. Part of any growth plan should include a provision that promotes 'stopping' growth.....here it's simple....developers, etc. have programs, they advertise, to encourage growth, so do towns and states, they promote people to moving into their area, STOP doing that, and you'll go along way in slowing down if not stopping growth.
Second Controled growth or grow plans, are for the most part written by the people in favor or growth, and so they just become passifiers for the opposition, and basical work in favor of the developer, as such growth can be excellerated, it's as if they are saying........."it's ok, we got it under control, so full speed ahead"..........
I could say more, but enough for now.....
They tried some 'controled' growth in/around Missoula, it seemed to have backfired, they called it "in fill"...........the town started looking like a 3rd world country with everone putting appartments in their backyards....
I've just read about the smoking ordinance that's being discussed in California. I've never smoked but I think this is going too far because they're talking about banning smoking in a private residence if it's a multi-unit apartment,
They don't want to stop at just multi-unit places.....they are also trying to ban it in your own private vehicle!!@%$*&((*!
I, too, am a non-smoker, but enough is enough! I feel like my state is getting so picky against MY constitutional rights and freedoms I want to choke all the do-gooders. Smoke doesn't bother me as much as their perfumes, body lotions and hair products. LET'S BAN THOSE while we are at it so us asthmatics can go to the store without wheezing. Let's ban ugly people, fat people, pimply people from the side walks in the daylight...the appearance may scare children. :0
First and foremost you should try and stop it (growth) completely. Part of any growth plan should include a provision that promotes 'stopping' growth.....here it's simple....developers, etc. have programs, they advertise, to encourage growth, so do towns and states, they promote people to moving into their area, STOP doing that, and you'll go along way in slowing down if not stopping growth.
I can understand your frustration JJM but I'm not sure how you could totally stop growth. You're absolutely right about the developers and how they promote new housing. The difficulty you're facing is that what they're doing is completely legal. Also, landowners who have property on the outskirts of town are anxious to sell to these developers because they're going to make a big profit. The only way to really stop that would be to have all of this land zoned by the city or county so that it can't be used for residential housing. You'd have to convince these city and county officials that this is in the best interests of the community and it would be an incredibly tough sell. You'd also be looking at lawsuits from developers and landowners who would oppose you. The one area that might have a chance of rezoning would be in the forested areas due to the fire dangers and unhealthy forests we've been talking about. Other than that the choices seem to be controlled growth or uncontrolled growth which is even worse. To make things even more difficult is the fact that many city planners and officials are pro growth so you wouldn't stand a chance of promoting any meaningful action that would slow down growth let alone stopping it altogether.
JJM,
Just a followup on growth. Check out the website: mtsmartgrowth.org for information about growth and what to do about it. I think alot of people feel the way that you do and sometimes when people get organized they can become more informed about what is going on and actively get involved in trying to resolve some of the problems. I can tell you're frustrated with what's happening to Montana but there's many others who feel the same way. Anyway, check it out and see if there's anything that might interest you.
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.
by a couple years.....
.. because life itself is all about stress...
smoking, oh my
