If this thread is to continue, the post above is a sharp detour into the ditch.
Well There Goes Idaho
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
If this thread is to continue, the post above is a sharp detour into the ditch.
As publicly shared here from past elections, I've voted from either side of the aisle in MT... The steps both sides within the MT political theatre are taking to distance themselves from each other to seat themselves with their National Kool Aid service, I fear the further we spread the swing of our pendulum. This is dangerous! Unfortunate... Sad...
With respect to the topic, this political polarization will only increase the push and shove within community acceptance and reflect the State and National Political spectrum.
Again, unfortunate and sad...
Edit: oops - just saw BF's post after my post was made. See now Ben?! You've got us teetering on a closed thread.
Hopefully our posts stay reasonable.Additional edit: @MTGomer HOLY ROYAL SNAP!!! $4,500 monthly lease??? And does it appear to fill at that level?
Last edited:
I'm not in the mood for arguments about it.
OverlordBear
Well-known member
Houston this is Cape Carnaval ....We are go for lock....Lock in T Minus 5 posts and counting....4.....3....2...1....
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Even with our level of discomfort at the changes to Idaho, Montana, and other heretofore "rural" states, I think it's healthy to maintain a positive perspective and embrace the good traits of those moving into our neighborhood who, for the most part, are really good Americans, 'just looking for a better way of life.
We are truly blessed to have the freedom to move around as we do, without the devastation and conflicts we see elsewhere. It is heart wrenching to recognize the present state of the Mesopotamian valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and that region which had historically produced so much of human value to the positive aspects of our world. Contrast the conditions in that part of the world with the minor irritation at someone moving from Bakersfield to Bozeman who might not square exactly with your own personal values.
We are truly blessed to have the freedom to move around as we do, without the devastation and conflicts we see elsewhere. It is heart wrenching to recognize the present state of the Mesopotamian valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and that region which had historically produced so much of human value to the positive aspects of our world. Contrast the conditions in that part of the world with the minor irritation at someone moving from Bakersfield to Bozeman who might not square exactly with your own personal values.
C17loadclear
Active member
I have been reading the posts trying to figure out how to post my feelings on this subject...
I grew up in Northern California in a small town where you left the keys in the ignition when you went to the store and just about everyone owned a gun. It was a great place to live but has changed considerably due to “flat landers” moving there.
I currently live in NC (Air Force moved me there) and will be moving to Idaho next year when my wife retires as the mountains are calling me..
I hope that people don’t label me just because I grew up in California..
I grew up in Northern California in a small town where you left the keys in the ignition when you went to the store and just about everyone owned a gun. It was a great place to live but has changed considerably due to “flat landers” moving there.
I currently live in NC (Air Force moved me there) and will be moving to Idaho next year when my wife retires as the mountains are calling me..
I hope that people don’t label me just because I grew up in California..
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,267
Since I was a service brat as a child,, I got to call a lot of places home. My earliest memories are from Mountain Home AFB in Idaho. Lots of moves after that. One of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans is to live were we choose, more or less how we choose. No one has the standing to preclude others from living their life as they see fit.
If someone from California, Texas wherever wants to move to a state that allows them to live their life in a way that fulfills their right to pursue happiness,,,, well we fought a war against the throne to guarantee that right every citizen.
To those who get their shorts in a bunch over newcomers, I'd tell them quit your bitchin, cowboy up and fix your own wagon if you think the new neighbor's is too shiny.
If someone from California, Texas wherever wants to move to a state that allows them to live their life in a way that fulfills their right to pursue happiness,,,, well we fought a war against the throne to guarantee that right every citizen.
To those who get their shorts in a bunch over newcomers, I'd tell them quit your bitchin, cowboy up and fix your own wagon if you think the new neighbor's is too shiny.
Last edited:
Brittany Chukarman
Well-known member
Governor McCall was a man of vision. He knew what was coming and implemented land use laws protecting farm land and setting urban growth boundaries. It's helped to slow the sprawl in E. Oregon.
greatwhitebuffalo
Active member
For all the comments about Boise, do Idaho residents feel that this is widespread across the state? Or, is Boise just turning into the "wrong side of town"?
Well said. I’m sure some citizens of my current home state don’t always welcome my moderately conservative viewpoints.
Zach
Well-known member
Why? It’s not something any of us had any control over, nor did it dictate who we would evolve into as adults.
This is Montana specific, but it might be part of the reason there is more pressure on ranchette purchases, and therefore migration to other states, such as Idaho, the state mentioned by the OP.
If there is one thing that makes Montana a bit less attractive than other mountain states, it goes back to the 1994 Legislative session when the Legislature passed a law that precluded any subdivisions less than 160 acres unless it went through full country subdivision review. A deadline was given and some where grandfathered by having applied before that deadline. Most of the ranchette subdivisions we see in MT were grandfathered and a small number were actually approved.
As such, the 5, 10, 20 acre ranchettes I see in greater frequency in some states I travel to are less common in Montana. It is a lot more expensive for someone to come to Montana and buy 160 acres when they can go to places in CO, AZ, NM, ID, NV and WY and buy some of the much smaller acreages and still feel like they have their "piece of paradise." That forces folks moving to Montana to have less ranchette options than in other states and make a choice; 1) buy in town (which does drive up costs in town) 2) bite off 160+ acres and go into debt to do that even with the big cash out from selling the big city house or 3) look at smaller acreage options in other states.
Many times I am driving and see the ones that did get grandfathered in MT or I see the landscape messes in some other places I travel, and it makes me thankful for the enlightened folks of that time. Remarkably, a big part of that effort came from ranchers and farmers who stood to make money by subdividing into postage stamp patterns. By promoting that legislation and giving it the critical support it needed, these landowners left money on the table and all of us are better off for it. Part of why I always remark at the land ethic the majority of Montana landowners have.
Add to that, Montana has higher income tax rates than Wyoming, Nevada, and Idaho. Yeah, we have no sales tax, but unless you spend all of your income, a sales tax is more attractive to retirees than an income tax. If you are moving somewhere to retire, those tax issues weigh into the decision, though any of these mountain states seem like a "tax haven" to those migrating from California. Not advocating for more taxes as a means to discourage migrants from coming, but there are some aspects of Montana that make the migration less than it otherwise would be.
If there is one thing that makes Montana a bit less attractive than other mountain states, it goes back to the 1994 Legislative session when the Legislature passed a law that precluded any subdivisions less than 160 acres unless it went through full country subdivision review. A deadline was given and some where grandfathered by having applied before that deadline. Most of the ranchette subdivisions we see in MT were grandfathered and a small number were actually approved.
As such, the 5, 10, 20 acre ranchettes I see in greater frequency in some states I travel to are less common in Montana. It is a lot more expensive for someone to come to Montana and buy 160 acres when they can go to places in CO, AZ, NM, ID, NV and WY and buy some of the much smaller acreages and still feel like they have their "piece of paradise." That forces folks moving to Montana to have less ranchette options than in other states and make a choice; 1) buy in town (which does drive up costs in town) 2) bite off 160+ acres and go into debt to do that even with the big cash out from selling the big city house or 3) look at smaller acreage options in other states.
Many times I am driving and see the ones that did get grandfathered in MT or I see the landscape messes in some other places I travel, and it makes me thankful for the enlightened folks of that time. Remarkably, a big part of that effort came from ranchers and farmers who stood to make money by subdividing into postage stamp patterns. By promoting that legislation and giving it the critical support it needed, these landowners left money on the table and all of us are better off for it. Part of why I always remark at the land ethic the majority of Montana landowners have.
Add to that, Montana has higher income tax rates than Wyoming, Nevada, and Idaho. Yeah, we have no sales tax, but unless you spend all of your income, a sales tax is more attractive to retirees than an income tax. If you are moving somewhere to retire, those tax issues weigh into the decision, though any of these mountain states seem like a "tax haven" to those migrating from California. Not advocating for more taxes as a means to discourage migrants from coming, but there are some aspects of Montana that make the migration less than it otherwise would be.
Zach
Well-known member
Because folks like to broadly blame "Californians" when those folks moving to their state most likely aren't CA natives, but folks who moved there from other regions and brought those politics with them. I've met lots of folks who also moved to CO like I did from CA, but they had come from somewhere else before the lived in CA.
In the same breath, you should tell folks who use the "xth" generation tag to muzzle it since they didn't have any control over it.
Buffs35
Well-known member
But my belief has nothing to do with anyone's political leanings, I just don't like being around a lot of people. It's a overcrowding thing; unfortunately, my wife gets 51% of the vote in my household.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Last best sanctuary notwithstanding, and no matter the tribal affiliation, we are all going to inherit a polished tapered end with a steadily increasing invoice.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I'm reading the Grinnell book right now and didn't really know how close Yellowstone Park came to getting a train line put in to Cooke City. I contemplated this happening for a few minutes, and what the area would possibly look like today and am glad it didn't come to fruition. The booming growth in Boise right now is not going to be looked upon favorably in the future IMO as well.
This is going on across the nation. You have people in upstate NY that would vote to separate from downstate. PA and Mass, same deal. This transcends location and the usual generational blaming thats been going on forever, " the new generation is lazy, stupid, disrespectful ect ect"
We have come to the point where we are so tribalistic in regards to politics thats its irrational. I say irrational because if you look at contuined failure of both our polical parties over the last 60 plus years I cant see how any rational individual no matter where you fall on the ideological spectrum would conclude that either party has governed well. So why in the hell have we abandoned pragmatism, mutual repsect of each other and desire to build on commonality just to pledge our allegiance for partys who failed this country on so many levels.
If that isnt irrationality nothing is.
We have come to the point where we are so tribalistic in regards to politics thats its irrational. I say irrational because if you look at contuined failure of both our polical parties over the last 60 plus years I cant see how any rational individual no matter where you fall on the ideological spectrum would conclude that either party has governed well. So why in the hell have we abandoned pragmatism, mutual repsect of each other and desire to build on commonality just to pledge our allegiance for partys who failed this country on so many levels.
If that isnt irrationality nothing is.
