Future of St George (St. George: stores, move, cities)

[TooManyChoices]

While an illegal alien might not qualify for "welfare":
* Pregnant women and nursing mothers can qualify for WIC.
* Children receive taxpayer subsidized public education
* Mixed families (where some of the children are US citizens due to birthright citizenship) can provide access to the full spectrum of low income benefits.
* Many federal programs, including representation in congress, are based on census data and not on the number of citizens
To imply that illegal aliens aren't at least a potential drain on government spending for entitlement programs is at best misleading.

[westcoastforme]

Originally Posted by TooManyChoices

While an illegal alien might not qualify for "welfare":
* Pregnant women and nursing mothers can qualify for WIC.
* Children receive taxpayer subsidized public education
* Mixed families (where some of the children are US citizens due to birthright citizenship) can provide access to the full spectrum of low income benefits.
* Many federal programs, including representation in congress, are based on census data and not on the number of citizens
To imply that illegal aliens aren't at least a potential drain on government spending for entitlement programs is at best misleading.

Yes the liberative narrative is ALL lies

[reluctantcackalackian]

Originally Posted by cedarite

As I have said before, you could not pay me to live in St. George.

Hopefully none of you will be in for some rude and potentially expensive awakenings. But at least you can't say you weren't warned.

Will you please explain why you feel this way; it worries me. I have plans to retire to St. George solely on what I have seen and read online for the past couple of years. Of course I would not buy a home there without having first rented and lived there for several months but I am relocating from the edge of the continent in the swamp of South Carolina and that is a long way to go, having to sell my house and cars to get to a place which you depict as so so awful.

[cedarite]

Originally Posted by reluctantcackalackian

Will you please explain why you feel this way; it worries me. I have plans to retire to St. George solely on what I have seen and read online for the past couple of years. Of course I would not buy a home there without having first rented and lived there for several months but I am relocating from the edge of the continent in the swamp of South Carolina and that is a long way to go, having to sell my house and cars to get to a place which you depict as so so awful.

I am not interested in fighting online with those who believe it will be paradise based on its whiteness and perceived conservatism and those who will defend all things Utah at all cost. So I'll try to sum up a few things while expressing up front that I am not willing to fight with other posters about it. I do live in Cedar City and generally like my community. It has some of these issues too. I could go into a whole lot of detail about some of them.

The local political system is insular and favors developers over buyers. Some ways that this can create problems are as follows. You may buy a home in what you are told will stay a residential neighborhood only to find that someone with good political connections decides to put a big box store or freeway offramp right in your neighborhood. You will be dismissed as a whiner if you have a problem with this. Lots of promises are made, but there are issues from changing zoning to not disclosing unstable soil or the fact that the home is in a flood plain, etc. For instance, there is a large scale development planned for an area with intersecting flash flood corridors. Anyone who has problems is generally seen as getting what they deserve for not having done due diligence. In a way, "newcomers" are almost viewed by some as prey for some of this stuff. Shenanigans involving a large development during the last housing bubble brought down two out of state banks. Ponzis, scams and other problems are frequent and largely unpunished. If the perpetrator is well connected, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing because you are an "outsider." Culturally, you will be expected to "sit down and shut up" and those with "pioneer" ancestry who "built this place" claim a right to authority. "If you don't like it, leave" is the general response. This is the response to everything from having a helicopter pad placed near your home to suggesting conservation instead of paying billions for the Lake Powell Pipeline, which could create a huge amount of debt per resident for a relatively unstable and finite water source. Meanwhile, new developments have been unveiled with lakes, waterfront living, and plans for a water park have been unveiled. It's reckless and irrational development that is not sustainable... at least those developments that are not outright investment scams that will never be completed.

This is all aside from the fact that it is not a good fit for me personally. Big box stores, chain dining, conformity, congested traffic, etc. are not things I am interested in living around. Your mileage may vary.

[reluctantcackalackian]

Originally Posted by cedarite

I am not interested in fighting online with those who believe it will be paradise based on its whiteness and perceived conservatism and those who will defend all things Utah at all cost. So I'll try to sum up a few things while expressing up front that I am not willing to fight with other posters about it. I do live in Cedar City and generally like my community. It has some of these issues too. I could go into a whole lot of detail about some of them.

The local political system is insular and favors developers over buyers. Some ways that this can create problems are as follows. You may buy a home in what you are told will stay a residential neighborhood only to find that someone with good political connections decides to put a big box store or freeway offramp right in your neighborhood. You will be dismissed as a whiner if you have a problem with this. Lots of promises are made, but there are issues from changing zoning to not disclosing unstable soil or the fact that the home is in a flood plain, etc. For instance, there is a large scale development planned for an area with intersecting flash flood corridors. Anyone who has problems is generally seen as getting what they deserve for not having done due diligence. In a way, "newcomers" are almost viewed by some as prey for some of this stuff. Shenanigans involving a large development during the last housing bubble brought down two out of state banks. Ponzis, scams and other problems are frequent and largely unpunished. If the perpetrator is well connected, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing because you are an "outsider." Culturally, you will be expected to "sit down and shut up" and those with "pioneer" ancestry who "built this place" claim a right to authority. "If you don't like it, leave" is the general response. This is the response to everything from having a helicopter pad placed near your home to suggesting conservation instead of paying billions for the Lake Powell Pipeline, which could create a huge amount of debt per resident for a relatively unstable and finite water source. Meanwhile, new developments have been unveiled with lakes, waterfront living, and plans for a water park have been unveiled. It's reckless and irrational development that is not sustainable... at least those developments that are not outright investment scams that will never be completed.

This is all aside from the fact that it is not a good fit for me personally. Big box stores, chain dining, conformity, congested traffic, etc. are not things I am interested in living around. Your mileage may vary.

So where do you think might be a better spot, keeping the mild Winter weather and general safety in mind?

[kavm]

Could not agree more with the excellent post from Cedarite.

[westcoastforme]

Originally Posted by Thedude404

"Illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal immigrants are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal and illegal immigrants are underrepresented in the incarcerated population while natives are overrepresented."

This is a quote from a study done by the Cato Institute in 2017, a libertarian leaning research institute, NOT a liberal study.

Also, illegals paid $10.6 billion in taxes in 2010 according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

And you are correct, anchor babies do get federal aid. However, most economists see this as an investment in people for the future rather than a current drain on the taxpayer, according to the US Chamber of Commerce.

While I would agree something definitely needs to be done to stop the flow of illegals (although for the past few years there has been a net outflow), you fail to mention things like the positive effect illegals have economically on local communities. Also, you fail to mention how removing 12 million people will have a devastating effect on certain local communities.

This is a more complex issue than just "keep them out". I would expect someone of your high intelligence level to understand that.

Helllloooooo Mcfly? When comparing any population to the inner city black male 16 to 30 population. Any group looks like angels. Did you even read what I wrote?

$10.6 billion in taxes VS 135 billion in cost and 50 billion in remittances..... McFly?

Maybe we should invest in legit citizens instead of foreigners.

Its not 12 million. Probably between 20 and 30 million. Illegals. Less congestion. More jobs. Less crime. Less squalor. McFly?

Its actually rather simple.

[kcoliver]

So who are you....Biff??? So funny you used a quote from Back to the Future, we know what Biff was.

[westcoastforme]

Originally Posted by kcoliver

So who are you....Biff??? So funny you used a quote from Back to the Future, we know what Biff was.

Not biff. These responses are lacking in common sense

[Code Stemi]

Originally Posted by westcoastforme

These responses are lacking in common sense

Especially yours.