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.
And the reason for this is country people know things are different in the city and accept this should they decide to relocate. City people, in the other hand cannot seem to grasp this concept.
"This does nothing but raise the property taxes of those that are indigenous to the immediate area, thus forcing them off the land that had been in their family for generations."
That is the reason we passed the proposition 13 in California. Our property tax is about 1.2 % of the 1985 purchase price and it went up every year by about 2-3% (of the original 1.2 %).
When the house next door sells for 3 million dollars, it has zero effect on our property tax.
When we sell our home for 3 million dollars (when pigs fly) the new owners will pay 1.2 % of the 3 million as the new property tax. The neighbors are not affected by that. It works.
20yearsinBran son, I've asked this before and I'll ask it again. Why are you there? You rather consistantly express dislike for the people in this neck-o-the-woods.
In general as a response to the overall theme of this thread, in my experience of living in nine states, three other countries and many villages and towns scattered among them, as well as a city or two, I've only ever once found "locals" to be stand-offish and distrustful. I have to believe that how you're treated as newcomers or "outsiders" is a direct reflection of how you treat the "natives."
We live south of Branson, 20+ driving miles away. It's very rural and there are local stores we patronize as well as some in Hollister and in Branson. At no time have we ever been treated with anything but welcome and friendliness. But perhaps that's because we don 't lament living here, give off disdain or disparage those who may seemingly be less educated or "cosmopolitan" than we are. We also certainly don't advocate potentially causing great physical harm or death to others.
You reap what you sow!
There's another saying- "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
In other words, if you can't get along with the locals and don't care to assimilate with them, get out.
I think city folk stink.
I came from a small town that was beautiful and ild life every where , now is a city no more wild life to be seen because the city folk were too impatient to wait for critters to cross the street.
That's not the only issue ,there are many ,but it is too upseting to get into it except to say , if your going to move some place leave the city behind and blend in .
It is not your world it is theirs .
The city people get in local governments and distroy the small towns like they did their own town they left. Greed then takes over and it not worth living there any more.
I did not lay out the rest of my opinions so you only got one part of the story although I am pretty sure you can deduce the rest. In my opinion most land should be public and for everyone to use. Hunting (other than personal for food and sustenance) should be banned. ATVs have no place in National or State parks and forests. Cattle should not be grazed on BLM land (why would a taxpayer support a program run at a loss to sustain someone's lifestyle on what is clearly not a profitable venture?). Predators like wolves and bears, coyote and mountain lions should be allowed to grow back in numbers and regulate the deer, elk and other animal populations as they always did.
it is best to have people live in high density in smaller areas and just put the rest of the land in conservation status (like National Parks) for everyone to enjoy and for species within the boundaries to be protected from business interests and "influence groups", faulty research and industry trying to push this or that.
So you believe, People should all be packed into small developed areas so nature can take back the lands. The rest of the land should be owned by the state.
Yeah, I know what you are. I would state you are the walking agenda 21 handbook but that would probably make me a conspiracy theorist.
Instead, Your an elitist people hating snob. Should have noted from all your previous posts railing against capitalism. You dislike people very much and your posts scream of controlling people and against private property. Your opinions suck.
"Hunting is bad, we don't need cows, go to the grocery store where the meat magically appears (of course it was humanly killed) LOL" Nah, you would probably outlaw meat.
NO, you don't need to lay out your opinions to clarify what you are. You are everything that rural and small town living is not about and nothing this country still stands for.
So you believe there is no need for hunting or people in areas because will just bring back the wolfs and big cats and pack people in high density cities?
Hmm, Not today nor tomorrow but have fun daydreaming of your Orwellian paradise.
I think city folk stink.
I came from a small town that was beautiful and ild life every where , now is a city no more wild life to be seen because the city folk were too impatient to wait for critters to cross the street.
That's not the only issue ,there are many ,but it is too upseting to get into it except to say , if your going to move some place leave the city behind and blend in .
It is not your world it is theirs .
The city people get in local governments and distroy the small towns like they did their own town they left. Greed then takes over and it not worth living there any more.
Speak with arguments please, not labels. It is the ranchers who shot up all the wolves and bears everywhere, NOT the city people, in the name of protecting their cattle. Did you know that the wolf (which finally started recovering in numbers after years on the federal endangered species list) was recently delisted from that status (under whose pressure? Not the "city folk") and states like Idaho, Wyoming and Montana promptly passed laws to allow an open season on the tiny population? As soon as the hunting season was open they shot up a bunch of wolves, even some that were wearing radio collars for research purposes. The ranching, hunting, gun industry lobby is stronger than you think.
You talk about greed - have you tied to buy rural property recently? It is EXPENSIVE and it sells for prices 10-20 times the norm and 10-20 times of what the locals would pay themselves for each other's land. It has made for a lot of wealthy rural folks who were land rich - now, after chunking up their spreads they are cash rich too, in a big way.
ognend, I'm more than familiar with rural land prices. I suggest you compare the price per acre for rural land to that for land in the city, and then speak about overpriced.
As for "10-20 times the norm", how do you determine what the norm is? I'll tell you how it's determined; the market determines it. Land that is overpriced won't sell; land that is not, will find a willing buyer. And how do you know what the locals would pay, and do pay, for rural land? You're in Texas, I know, which is a nondisclosure state. The tax man doesn't know what someone paid for their property, urban or rural, unless the buyer chooses to tell them, and the buyer is not required to do that.
If you can't find land for "dirt cheap" prices, that doesn't mean the land is overpriced. When talking about greed in others, you might want to go look in the mirror.
So you believe, People should all be packed into small developed areas so nature can take back the lands. The rest of the land should be owned by the state.
Yeah, I know what you are. I would state you are the walking agenda 21 handbook but that would probably make me a conspiracy theorist.
Instead, Your an elitist people hating snob. Should have noted from all your previous posts railing against capitalism. You dislike people very much and your posts scream of controlling people and against private property. Your opinions suck.
"Hunting is bad, we don't need cows, go to the grocery store where the meat magically appears (of course it was humanly killed) LOL" Nah, you would probably outlaw meat.
NO, you don't need to lay out your opinions to clarify what you are. You are everything that rural and small town living is not about and nothing this country still stands for.
So you believe there is no need for hunting or people in areas because will just bring back the wolfs and big cats and pack people in high density cities?
Hmm, Not today nor tomorrow but have fun daydreaming of your Orwellian paradise.
I don't know what Agenda 21 is but I can tell you what my motivations are: protecting the animals, Mother Nature and everything that lives in it that cannot protect itself. So yes, people are best kept in cities where they will live and multiply in high density areas and stay there. They have no business being out in the country shooting things, cutting down stuff and exploiting everything. Many a mountain has been stripped down, many an injustice committed (look at what Peabody company did to the Navajo and the Hopi over their reservation lands full of oil and coal - that's just a recent example about 30 years old), look at all the species we have destroyed. Now we act as "guardians" and you are the self proclaimed regulator of wildlife, we have to go and shoot deer to control their populations from eating up the forests and neighborhoods etc. etc. If that's a better way of life then I rest my case.
You have people moving into big cat habitat, building houses and towns and then complaining that the big cats are dangerous. Hello! Or their houses burn because they are in the middle of the forest and we have sad stories on CNN about how they "lost their memories but will be back to rebuild". Please don't be back.
Yes, I believe big cats and wolves and bears should be allowed to return. Yellowstone is a successful example and proof that it works (there was a nice National Geographic article a few years back outlining it even for the average Joe Shmoe) - as soon as the wolf population recovered the elk and deer populations went down to their NORMAL levels (which pissed off all the rabid, blood thirsty hunters since there was no more excuse in gunning the elk and deer down in the name of population control, making them look like conservationists - something they are NOT, how absurd). With the elk and deer down to normal levels, the vegetation improved and especially around water - the trees and shrubs that were eaten down had returned. With them all sorts of birds and small mammals returned.
Look at the Everglades - it used to be a beautiful place teaming with wildlife, you could kayak up the waterway for weeks, camping out and enjoying the quiet. First they drained it in the name of flood control. Then the sweet water was invaded by salt water due to that. Then some idiots released the Burmese Pythons that were their pets but could no longer care for them after they turned 10+ feet in length and capable of eating their child. These snakes have now multiplied and are eating the alligator! The same snakes have nearly cleaned out the ecosystem of all small mammal. Now they are offering rewards in open hunting seasons to control the snake population. So the hunters are again the conservationist?
I can write a book thousands of pages long full of the stupidity of the people - it would clearly demonstrate that to this day we have not learned ANYTHING. Well, I stand corrected. We have learned to distort anything and make anybody on any side of the issue look good. None of that matters anyways because laws are brought by the ones who have more money to lobby the right people.
As for the rural folk, they are no different than city folk. The city folk need resources to power all their city stuff so in the name of that mountains are stripped down and rivers re-routed (Rio Grande can barely move these days and the mighty Colorado can barely reach its delta anymore). The rural folk are a different kind of a destroyer - their job is more hands on and immediate - killing wildlife etc. There is this image that the ranchers and the farmers are somehow close to nature and city people are not. BS. Most of the ranchers nowadays ride their truck to check on calves and fences. Farmers have heavy duty equipment and are all invested in subsidized mono crops. It is funny since these "big time" farmers look down on the 5 acre Community Supported Agriculture folks (or folks ala libertarian Joel Salatin) who farm multiple cultures of veggies that are much more sustainable AND look down on them as "tree huggers" and "hippies" and "liberals". Well, who is more in touch with Nature? The guy maximizing the output of his 5 acres with various, organic and sustainable crops or the idiot growing a genetically modified mono crop on a thousand acres spending thousands of gallons of poison to keep it alive, unlimited water tapped from an aquifer below (thus depleting the aquifer), thousands of gallons of fuel to seed, harvest and irrigate and depleting the soil of anything living in the process? Most ranchers out West will tell you that cattle ranching is not a sustainable business that pays well. Some years it is OK, others it is a loss or a wash. That's because the land out West was not built or meant to graze cattle! Out West it takes anywhere from 20 acres to 100 acres per HEAD of cattle. This is why the BLM and the National Forests operate programs to allow grazing the cattle on these lands (at tax payer's loss - making the ranchers who take these leases essentially handout dependents). I can see grazing cattle in Florida - the land is lush, it rains a lot, it will take an acre per head per year (in fact some of the largest cattle ranches are out in Florida). But a 20,000 acre cattle ranch in South West Texas where they get 11 inches of rain a year? Does that make economic sense to you? Or are we just trying to preserve the lifestyle of 10 people in the area? These large ranches would be better off being in conservation status or a part of a huge park protected forever. We have other industries in this country that have died in the last 50-80 years and the people had to go and get re-trained and find a new business and way of life. Didn't we used to make jeans and t-shirts here in the 50s? There is nothing special about the rancher or the large scale farmer.
By the way, look at the Big Bend area of Texas as an example. The ranchers used to hire airplanes to shoot down the eagles under the pretext of eagles eating their sheep and goats. Do you think that's smart? These are your rural folk in touch with Nature. On the USA side of the border we have wiped out all signs of predator life save for a few big cats living in the despoblado. However, the Mexicans, it seems, were more in touch with Nature than we were (and less blood thirsty I guess). Recent studies indicate that black bears and big cats are moving from North Mexico back into Texas (fueled mostly by wildfires and droughts on the Mexican side)! How long do you think this wildlife will last in Texas? My guess is someone will decide it is open season, lobby for a hunting bill and before you know it, bye-bye black bears and big cats (again).
That has been my whole point in this thread - neither city or rural is better than the other (since this thread has been made to complain about the city folk, I thought I provide a different point of view).
All of the above is a great reason to have National and State parks which put lands in permanent and perpetual conservation status. It will protect the species living within their boundaries forever and offer a sanctuary from all the stupid people that are multiplying without control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhult
So you believe, People should all be packed into small developed areas so nature can take back the lands. The rest of the land should be owned by the state.
Yeah, I know what you are. I would state you are the walking agenda 21 handbook but that would probably make me a conspiracy theorist.
Instead, Your an elitist people hating snob. Should have noted from all your previous posts railing against capitalism. You dislike people very much and your posts scream of controlling people and against private property. Your opinions suck.
I am sorry, is there a requirement that I like people (very much)? I am not against private property. I am for having more public lands to protect animals and plants for generations to come. I figure, with all the people lovers such as yourself, who is left to love the animals and Mother Nature?
ognend, I'm more than familiar with rural land prices. I suggest you compare the price per acre for rural land to that for land in the city, and then speak about overpriced.
As for "10-20 times the norm", how do you determine what the norm is? I'll tell you how it's determined; the market determines it. Land that is overpriced won't sell; land that is not, will find a willing buyer. And how do you know what the locals would pay, and do pay, for rural land? You're in Texas, I know, which is a nondisclosure state. The tax man doesn't know what someone paid for their property, urban or rural, unless the buyer chooses to tell them, and the buyer is not required to do that.
If you can't find land for "dirt cheap" prices, that doesn't mean the land is overpriced. When talking about greed in others, you might want to go look in the mirror.
I have been looking at rural land all over the country for the last five years. The price of farm land and rural land in general has been going up and up and up. This is mostly due to two factors: Wall Street speculation AND the fact that a lot of rural land got developed into sub-divisions.
So, the rancher owns 2,000 acres. He sells to a developer for a handsome price. Then the developer chunks it up and sells it for much higher prices. In either case, both the rancher and the developer make a handsome profit AND inflate the price of the land since they both have to build themselves in and make a profit.
I have seen this all over the country. New Mexico (which is a poor state and with low population density) for example, prices of land have sky-rocketed in the last 20 years to levels that are unapproachable to mere mortals, even the red dirt that wont grow anything.
Have you seen the prices of land in the Texas Hill country? 5 acres of rocks for $100K? Do you think this is just inflation adjusted from 20 years ago and the local guy is selling just to recover his costs? Or is there a popularity factor involved? The locals are not immune to this, otherwise they would be selling their land for charity... This makes them no different than the folks coming in, in that respect.
I have seen a lot of crappy land for sale that was very high in price just because the place had been discovered. If they locals wanted to keep it rural or local the land would not be for sale or it would be sold to another local owner via verbal deals (I have seen this too, in some very rural areas land is not even advertised but may be for sale to the right person). Instead the land is for sale for an outrageous price and the local guy is actually hoping some green city guy comes in with no knowledge of anything so they can rip them off and laugh to the bank...
It is the ranchers who shot up all the wolves and bears everywhere, NOT the city people, in the name of protecting their cattle. Did you know that the wolf (which finally started recovering in numbers after years on the federal endangered species list) was recently delisted from that status (under whose pressure? Not the "city folk") and states like Idaho, Wyoming and Montana promptly passed laws to allow an open season on the tiny population? As soon as the hunting season was open they shot up a bunch of wolves, even some that were wearing radio collars for research purposes. The ranching, hunting, gun industry lobby is stronger than you think.
OD
No one "shot up all the wolves and bears everywhere."
In fact, we, in Wyoming, have never been without wolves. We've always had native species here. Now we have a non-native species, too.
You can read the GSO documents from the hearings that were held. More than 1100 pages of testimony and statistics from both sides. The pro-Canadian grey wolf side never proved that there were not wolves here. But, their huge and well-funded lobby (from people who don't know the country) won.
If you donated to help introduce this invasive species, you were scammed.
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.
