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.
That's the truth... I was born and raised in Seattle, Washington and all the Californian transplants totally screwed up the Western half of the State.
Seriously, they screwed up their own State and fled to another State... But the problem is that they tend to bring all their BS with them and oddly enough, screw up their new adopted State. Basically, a pack of locus. Destroying everything in their path and then move to another location to destroy.
There is no 'They'. No state gets screwed up by a single generation or group of people, and no state gets screwed up quickly. A state gets screwed up by repeated mistakes that come over a long period of time and are never remedied until things degenerate past the point of remedy.
No one flees a state when it's semi-functional. And the disfunction that sends a state down is often as much the forces of nature as it is the social forces of the people who live in the state.
Even at total failure, more people will still stay right where they are than flee. No state goes all to hell all over at once. Even in the worst, there are still pockets of prosperity and happiness, and they won't disappear.
Thinking there's some invisible horde of social locusts isn't reality. The reality is the horde of real insects.
People don't destroy a new place when they move. They just change the new place. With every change, someone always comes out ahead and someone else doesn't. But those changes happen anyway when there's no immigrants involved.
There are some cities in the nation that just have more natural advantages than others. Time either uses those advantages or discards them as things change. So today's advantage could be tomorrow's hindrance.
Nothing in life ever stays static and locked in the past. People will always move around or stay put.
But even the worst state can always become the best state. When someone leaves, there's always the possibility that someone better will arrive to replace the departed.
I wonder how many people in Idaho simply want to keep the state conservative/traditional and uncrowded?
If that is the case, I also wonder what would be the best strategy -- to let Californians (and possibly people from other states, too) know that they are not welcome (and possibly invite some scorn) or just keep quiet about the whole issue, if it can even be called that.
A hard question to answer. There are cities here that are actively recruiting new immigrants and cities that don't want any newcomers. The state wants more and better-paying jobs, and the people want more industrialization and less reliance on agriculture and natural resources.
Political affiliation doesn't matter that much, except to Boise. Boise is both the capital city and the largest metro, and Boise is the state's shot-caller. Boise intends to keep that for sure, but that's always been the city's intent. It's so big now that trying to wrest the shot-calling away would be next to impossible.
I don't think there's any strategy that exists that can prevent someone who wants to move here from moving here.
I also believe this issue is more on the minds of outsiders than it is on the minds of our residents.
I should also add that immigrants from Mexico began moving to California in large numbers as much as a hundred years ago, long before California became a liberal state.
Not to mention there were Mexicans who were already living there when California was annexed by the USA.
We have friends who retired from metro Denver to Boise two years ago, and they got a lot more home for their money in Boise than they would have if they bought a new home here. They are moderately conservative, and I would guess that they have net assets between one and two million, and so I would think that they would be welcome in Boise, as they will be paying quite a bit in taxes there and taking very little out.
A hard question to answer. There are cities here that are actively recruiting new immigrants and cities that don't want any newcomers. The state wants more and better-paying jobs, and the people want more industrialization and less reliance on agriculture and natural resources.
Political affiliation doesn't matter that much, except to Boise. Boise is both the capital city and the largest metro, and Boise is the state's shot-caller. Boise intends to keep that for sure, but that's always been the city's intent. It's so big now that trying to wrest the shot-calling away would be next to impossible.
I don't think there's any strategy that exists that can prevent someone who wants to move here from moving here.
I also believe this issue is more on the minds of outsiders than it is on the minds of our residents.
I can't see how something like this can be actually enforced.
I was under the impression that Boise was on par with the mid-west for cold winters, not according to weather.com though. It's cooler than I'd like but it seemed more manageable than I thought, maybe that's why some Californians are considering it as a relocation destination, in addition to the affordable real estate.
...
The most recent Treasure Valley Survey, conducted by the Idaho Policy Institute at Boise State University, does not bode well for anyone who would run this city in coming years. It was conducted in late 2018 and released in June. More than 70% of respondents said the region was growing too fast, compared with only 50% with that view in 2016.[/color][/indent][/i]
Californians have been moving to Boise and Idaho for decades, nothing new. I bet a good portion of that 70% are CA transplants lol. Also, realize that clown who ran for mayor only received over 800 votes. The two mayoral candidates who are facing off next month in the run off election are both pro-growth. This article is wreaking of hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis
We have friends who retired from metro Denver to Boise two years ago, and they got a lot more home for their money in Boise than they would have if they bought a new home here. They are moderately conservative, and I would guess that they have net assets between one and two million, and so I would think that they would be welcome in Boise, as they will be paying quite a bit in taxes there and taking very little out.
Am I wrong in thinking that?
You are not wrong in thinking that. Boise is a welcoming city, and interestingly has rather large refugee population and most people are ok with the growth. There are a few loud mouths and that seems to be who the author of that article is catering to.
Why Boise????
Why not Helena Montana or Spokane or Salt Lake? What the particular appeal of Boise? I read the complete article. It didn't address the reason for why Californians are singling out Boise as the point of arrival, just the effects it's having on the locals.
Why Boise????
Why not Helena Montana or Spokane or Salt Lake? What the particular appeal of Boise? I read the complete article. It didn't address the reason for why Californians are singling out Boise as the point of arrival, just the effects it's having on the locals.
Two words: Finger Steaks
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.
