why are some people so mad? (city hall, fences, club)

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Gman2007

I personally don't know anyone or have friends/family that have been in the situation you describe. That's because I don't live in a place where that is happening yet.

Now, I can read about it and hear about it but since I don't live in a part of Montana that has experienced the "McRanches" yet my comments weren't directed specifically at ranches/farms. My comments were directed at people selling their houses in the smaller towns - since that is where I live. House prices had stayed pretty low until people got wind of new comers to the area and then all of a sudden those prices sky-rocketed. Why not? I can't blame them and any of us would have done the same thing, but I don't think they raised their prices to pay for past taxes or the economy. They raised their prices because they knew people were coming in that could pay more. Does this hurt the local person who is trying to buy a house? Sure it does. They aren't making anymore than they were but now they only have higher priced houses on the market to choose from.

The people moving into the area would have gladly paid less for their house but that's not what the market was demanding. My point was that it was the local people who were selling that raised the prices. I'm sure the case is different with the selling of farms/ranches but like I said, that's not where I'm coming from since I'm not as familiar with that situation.

All true, but that would never have happened without the catalyst of the McRanch situation. Outsiders rarely, in fact almost never look for "used" houses -- the nice older houses that the same people have owned for decades, the very houses of which you speak. Those only become desirable to newcomers when they realise that they can't afford the McRanchettes or McMansions either, and start looking in a lower-priced market. Meanwhile the homeowner's realtor is eyeing the commissions for those McWhatevers and thinking how nice it would be to make several times the commission he could on normal local single-family home prices, and naturally he suggests to the homeowner that he can get a price well above local means. (Nearly always, the realtor, NOT the homeowner, suggests the asking price.)

So ... there's a lot of factors to blame, but yeah, it all comes down to everyone making the most they can in the short term, and bedamned to long-term consequences.

Hell, I'll make an example of my own SoCal property. When I bought it, before the boom, the realtors made a total commission of about $5000. At peak boom prices, the realtors' commission would have been over $75,000. That's a lot of incentive to max out prices, no matter what it does to the market in the future, when these miraculously inflated prices will permanently shut out the entire middle-and-below income classes.

[GLS]

The Sacramento Bee printed an article today by Karl Vick who writes for the Washington Post. It was entitled, "Plan to Expand McMansions Miffs Montana"

Apparently the Bush administration is preparing to ease the way for Plum Creek Timber Co., a former logging company turned real estate investment trust, to pave logging roads that cross public land to access 1.2 million acres in Montana. The deal was struck by Mark Rey, the former timber lobbyist who oversees the U.S. Forest Service.

The article goes on to describe Paul Gurinas, a Chicago hedge fund partner, who bought 200 acres and has had the contractor mount cameras near an owl's nest so he could have pictures sent to him on his Blackberry while vacationing in France. Apparently he is concerned about the area becoming "kind of a housing subdivision". Mr Gurinas was quoted as saying, "If I would have known that, I guess I wish I would have bought the whole thing up, and then I wouldn't have to worry about it".

I don't see much we can do if the government is going to cut a backroom deal with the nation's largest landowner. I also don't know about the rest of you, but I can't compete with people like Mr. Gurinas. I wonder if there's some vacant land on MARS that is affordable?

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by GLS

The Sacramento Bee printed an article today by Karl Vick who writes for the Washington Post. It was entitled, "Plan to Expand McMansions Miffs Montana"

Apparently the Bush administration is preparing to ease the way for Plum Creek Timber Co., a former logging company turned real estate investment trust, to pave logging roads that cross public land to access 1.2 million acres in Montana. The deal was struck by Mark Rey, the former timber lobbyist who oversees the U.S. Forest Service.

As a Plum Creek shareholder, this ticks me off, but my few voting shares sure aren't enough to make a difference (assuming it's a voting issue, which it probably is not). And I see this as part of an exit strategy, and it probably explains the spike in their share price.

[JulieBrown]

I've been out of Montana for 10 long years and I still miss the Big Sky Country. I'd move back in a heartbeat if I could. There's just a very different frame of mind in Montana that can't be duplicated. *sigh*

[Timberwolf232]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Where your relative wealth stays the same, rather than becoming inflated just because you moved to somewhere with smaller absolute numbers. Yep, it'd be more fair to the local folks, tho the new imports would scream bloody murder.

And it really does become a form of inflation for the local folks, cuz once the imports run prices up (which means nothing to them because they can still pay), the locals' money doesn't go as far and even if you have enough of it, it won't buy as much as it did before. Which means that now you've got a new poor class that didn't exist before the imports brought in all that new money.

I think our plan would work, but in my little dream world things would be fair, locals would be able to afford homes and land, and outsiders would no longer have the financial advantage.

Greed would be punishable by community service and the liquidation of assets obtained by such greed.

[Ankhharu]

Originally Posted by halliwellalien

i have been reading the posts here, and most of what i have been reading makes it seem like some of you just dont want ANYONE to move to montana. you blame everything on the 'outsiders'. have you ever thought that some of us want to go to a place where we can live and survive?

where i live now, a 3bd 1 ba house with a very small yard (if any) will cost you about 700k. i have lived here most of my life and i am already sad about having to leave. but, i am not bitter toward anyone who moves here. whether they have money or not. change will happen whether you like it or not.

please stop blaming everyone for the bad things. good and bad are everywhere. some of us really do want to move to montana because of the beauty we see. not to make it worse.

I'm late to this discussion but seeing how it's still going, i'll throw in my 2 cents.
I don't think anyone goes to Montana to intentionally destroy it. The problem is usually one of 2 things I think. People go to Montana, realize it doesn't have many of the things they are accustomed to and they try to change it. Or they arrive bringing their destructive habits with them thus destroying Montana. If you were born and raised in Montana, watching this scenario replay over and over again would be frustrating and aggravating.
I am not or ever been a Montana resident. I was born a country boy who loves the city. I have friends in Butte, so when I need a break from the rat race, I visit Montana. It's a beautiful state, but I could never call it home because of my need of the concrete jungle.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf232

I think our plan would work, but in my little dream world things would be fair, locals would be able to afford homes and land, and outsiders would no longer have the financial advantage.

Greed would be punishable by community service and the liquidation of assets obtained by such greed.

I like it

This sort of thing has been a problem any time it's happened throughout history. Someone with more means comes in, buys cheap, sells high, and over time this process displaces the locals, whose income doesn't change but they are now in relative poverty, and no longer have any prospect of bettering themselves.

Somehow I'm reminded of the Norman conquest of England....

[Timberwolf232]

Originally Posted by Reziac

I like it

This sort of thing has been a problem any time it's happened throughout history. Someone with more means comes in, buys cheap, sells high, and over time this process displaces the locals, whose income doesn't change but they are now in relative poverty, and no longer have any prospect of bettering themselves.

Somehow I'm reminded of the Norman conquest of England....

Heh heh... Maybe not quite that bad, but close.

The ones coming in aren't exactly William the Conquerer, but more like the invasion of the soccer moms!

Maybe with the housing prices falling in other areas it'll slow down a bit.

[crazyladi]

I thought Montana was prettier than Oregon and Washington and I have lived in Oregon most of my life. What I know for fact is that people that have illegal pasts use the tribal lands that are public (Hot Springs) to evade the law. There is one police officer and in a town of 500, people know everything. The drinking was extremely heavy because everyone walks home or the police let you drive. I just don't think our Native American heritage ought to be used to help criminals and crooks. This isn't Australia!

[Huckleberry3911948]

i love montana. but why is it no matter where i go, i am always one of them and never one of us.