Montana relocation: resentment toward newcomers (Great Falls, Kalispell: contractors, camp, utilities)

[JoeJoeMan]

IdaClare Wrote:

I recall working the grave shift in Missoula at a Mini Mart, cleaning hotel rooms, and working at a dry cleaner outfit while I lived there. In Bozeman, I worked in food service. I had a college degree I was still paying for and was making minimum wage with no benefits. Though I wasn't a native, it still ticked me off to see these fabulously wealthy Californians plow into town, buy expensive mini-ranches, and appear to want to run the town themselves, while I was barely able to put food on the table. So yes, I do understand the sentiment. My solution was to leave Montana and go to grad school out of state. I've settled in the Triangle area of North Carolina and hubby and I are actually doing well, financially, but the other option might have been to stick it out and struggle, I suppose. I can't say what might have happened if we decided to stay, but I appreciate living closer to my aging parents and can't imagine moving further away from them at this point.

I couldn't begin to count the number of people/friends I have known over the years that have eventually just bagged Montana and move away because of finaincial reason, just the other day I had another friend tell me he was leaving to - he's selling his small house here (for a pretty penny) and is pretty much going to triple his salary and the size of his house moving to very nice small and prosperous town in rural Indiana.
But many of us here in Montana really don't have much choice about leaving we have to many ties here, friends family. It's to late in life or whatever so we just stay and suck it up as best we can.

[chevylover]

//www.city-data.com/forum/washi...ifornians.html

Check out this one from Washington. It's every where. Most people don't want to see their areas change. I have seen the area I grew up in go from farms and fields to Casino's and strip malls. We all tried to fight it, but it did no good. Home prices doubled in less than 2 years. And all the other "great" stuff that came with it. More traffic, high crime..etc. It's happening every where. And it doesn't seem to matter who we elect, because it seems like the minute they are elected they go in the other direction. All we can hope for is that it will eventually stop.

[jenzebel]

Let's see....if the government would stop rewarding people for having children, maybe there would be less sprawl to get away from in the first place.

Instead, people should get a tax break for NOT having children and thereby conserving resources.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by jenzebel

Let's see....if the government would stop rewarding people for having children, maybe there would be less sprawl to get away from in the first place.

Instead, people should get a tax break for NOT having children and thereby conserving resources.

And if this idea were followed earlier guess who also wouldn't be here? You got it US.
Think about that one......

[orygun]

Originally Posted by jenzebel

Let's see....if the government would stop rewarding people for having children, maybe there would be less sprawl to get away from in the first place.

Instead, people should get a tax break for NOT having children and thereby conserving resources.

I have NEVER been rewarded for having more children despite having received government assistance. Where does this myth come from anyway? And the myth of living well on welfare. Good grief. Never in my life.

[JoeJoeMan]

jenzebel wrote:

Let's see....if the government would stop rewarding people for having children, maybe there would be less sprawl to get away from in the first place.

Instead, people should get a tax break for NOT having children and thereby conserving resources.

Actually jenzebel the problem is that we didn't have enough children - when I say we I mostly mean the hippy-baby-bummers generation. I think when you exclude imigrants our population growth rate is zero to nill. Huh you say ?

I won't go into detail but I'll try and explain very breifly. Our economy is based on growth, it needs to expand and have an ever expanding money supply (read up on feit money systems), if it doesn't expand it's go into serious trouble. Most people don't realize this about our economy. Missoula is a perfect example in micro, if it wasn't for construction (new building) and government money there would be no economy to speak of.
Our government knows this, but never really comes out and says it, it's kind of the dirtly little secrect, because an economy built on 'growth' is kind of a phoney economy - we think of economies as people working to do real things, manufacture stuff, get the picture. SO what do they do, they let millions upon millions of people flood across our borders, afterall our economy needs more people to expand and the baby-bummers certainly weren't making enough - so here come the waves of illegals, their overwhelming number push our economy to expand - they push our regular citizens out of neighborhods and towns, new homes are built to accomondate them, along with strip malls and everything else....people get feed up where they live, crime, degeneration of the neighborhoods, so they move -"Get me outta here - as far as I can go" --- and where do they go, well for one place - MONTANA.
The government's biggest problem is that it is deathly affraid of our economy tanking - afterall our economy is suppose to be a beacon to the world - our Dollar currency dictates and rules the world economicaly....we shoved capitalism down everyone's throat, what we say, how would we look if our economy just feel apart at the seams, and it would do exactly that without - GROWTH - Illegals flooding in,
There you have it, and I DON"T agree with any of it, not for a minute, I think it's capitalism run amuck. Ideally we'd have an economy not built on 'growth' and we'd have a stable population and not have to continually destroy where we live to make a buck and we certainly wouldn't need sprawl, which I see as a cancer on our land.
Anyway that's the short of it.

[mikeyyc]

I don't really see why everyone is bashing Californians so much. A huge portion of Montana's land is being purchased by us as recreational property. (Canadians) Much cheaper than equivalent properties in the Columbia Valley in BC, and an easy drive.

Now residential lots in Missoula are a different story, but the areas around Glacier, the Flathead valley, are prime pickings for Calgary oil money.

[jimj]

Well I got one ready to sell!

[jenzebel]

Originally Posted by orygun

I have NEVER been rewarded for having more children despite having received government assistance. Where does this myth come from anyway? And the myth of living well on welfare. Good grief. Never in my life.

Rewarded=People with children get a tax deduction for every single rug rat (dependent) they have. I get none. In addition, I have to pay for schooling children I don't have. Go figure.

Therefore, my choice to be responsible and not contribute to world overpopulation is not rewarded, those that choose to continue to have more and more children, using more and more resources are rewarded for every addition to their family. Sure it costs more to raise children, but those that had them made a choice and in making that choice, they should accept the full burden of that choice.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by jenzebel

Rewarded=People with children get a tax deduction for every single rug rat (dependent) they have. I get none. In addition, I have to pay for schooling children I don't have. Go figure.

Therefore, my choice to be responsible and not contribute to world overpopulation is not rewarded, those that choose to continue to have more and more children, using more and more resources are rewarded for every addition to their family. Sure it costs more to raise children, but those that had them made a choice and in making that choice, they should accept the full burden of that choice.

Someone paid for your education, your parents education etc. ect...So it's okay to take and not put back? Hmm, interesting.

Ain't life grand??????