Why California Sucks

[Nemont]

This article was in the LA times. We don't need anyone else from the left coast moving to Montana!!!

Indeed, if California's population of 36 million people doubles, as expected, over the next two decades, the valley's open space will be coveted by home builders and resort developers. Demand for new homes, fueled by the renaissance of the Mammoth Lakes ski resort to the north, has already sparked a rush to build homes on the valley's handful of privately owned parcels. That, in turn, has triggered nasty squabbles between builders and environmentalists.

One development of 120 homes, for example, is slated to go up on former ranchland just north of Bishop that has been used for centuries by migrating mule deer.

Anglers grouse that a cluster of about 100 homes that recently sprang up near the DWP's Crowley Lake reservoir has destroyed the solitude of a favorite fishing destination.

One day last week, as heavy metal music blasted from a portable radio, Crowley Lake developer Lance Johnson stood on the foundation of a 2,900-square-foot home on a lot of two-thirds of an acre he hopes to sell for $840,000 and proclaimed, "Growth is good for jobs and the economy. People who don't like it ought to move to Montana."
Nearly all of Johnson's homes are being sold to residents of nearby Mammoth Lakes, a four-square-mile community where property values are skyrocketing because there is no more room to grow.

FULL STORY

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

And the irony is we hear all the people wanting to cut the forests down in Montana, drill all over the state, in order to have jobs and the growth....

 

[Washington Hunter]

The answer to the problem of too much growth is simple...BIRTH CONTROL.

 

[Nemont]

WH,

Don't look at me I have had the bullets taken out of the gun, so to speak.

Nemont

 

[Oak]

I don't understand the mentality that says all the benefits of growth outweigh any negative consequences. I think what most places have done is built a system that requires growth just to maintain what they've got. It's kind of like a dog chasing his tail...they'll never catch up.

Here's a clip from a story in the newspaper about a month ago. It talks about the issue a little bit.

In 2002, the driest year of the six-year drought, Denver Water added 9,790 taps to its system, three times more than the previous year. The region's largest water utility has approved at least 3,000 new taps every year since 1998.

Standing over his wilting flower garden, Brighton resident Warren Johnson said he is tired of water restrictions and his rising water bill, especially as more users continue to be added.

"I think it is counterintuitive," Johnson said.

But, he noted, "I don't want to stop development, because that's good, too."

Several community leaders say Johnson is right about development - growth produces the revenue that pays for new infrastructure without overtaxing the water supply or existing residents.

"In the long run, new businesses and homes are helping pay for projects that also harden the system against drought for you and me," Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer said.

For years, Aurora officials have been scrambling to make water deals to meet current demands. Meanwhile, the city continues to expand its commitments, adding more than 4,000 water taps from 2000 to 2003 - almost double what it approved in the three years before the drought.

Several experts and conservationists say such growth in the Denver area will stretch water resources too far one day. Already, demand in some water districts is outpacing supply, said Stewart Fonda, Englewood utilities director.

"There are many Brooklyn Bridges being sold to water customers right now," Fonda said. "They will find out when the water doesn't get there."

If water supplies dwindle, current customers will be the ones who pay for new water supplies, said David Goldberg, spokesman for Smart Growth America, a national coalition of groups concerned about metropolitan growth.

"At some point the question becomes: How much are people willing to pay to get water to keep growing?"

Strides in conservation

Even as Denver and surrounding cities grow, water customers are using less.

Since the drought took hold, Denver Water customers have cut consumption - from 81.2 billion gallons in 2000 to 63 billion gallons last year.

Likewise, Aurora customers have cut consumption from 19.4 million gallons in 2000 to 13.5 billion gallons last year. In 2003, Brighton increased water taps by nearly 8 percent, but consumption still dropped by the same rate.

All that savings has made it easier to support new development without tapping into reserves, growth proponents say.

But Wilmer DeLong of Aurora sees the trend differently. Residents are being asked to subsidize newcomers.

DeLong and his neighbors say it's unfair to punish existing residents with water limits while courting new development.

"We've lived here for years, but the city has kept issuing building permits by the thousands," he said, just before the council approved twice-weekly watering limits in April. "Why doesn't the city just stop the growth, stop the expansion of the city, until we have enough water in our reservoirs and in our storage?"

The economics of growth

Tauer says that's a fair question he hears often. And his answer is simple: money.

The city needs growth to buy the water and infrastructure to prepare for more growth and future droughts. The city of 300,000 today is expected to top 600,000 residents by 2025.

"New taps add very little in terms of water demand, but they provide a lot in terms of money for new water projects that serve current residents," Tauer said.

Full Story

Oak

 

[cjcj]

All True! rapid unmanaged growth is a bad bad thing! but it seems the "power brokers" don`t care and won`t listen. I had my first opinion published today in the AZ republic [newspaper] after years of sending them an honest opinion [i toned it down] and they finally let me have a say. www.swvalleyazcentral.com 7/14
under the heading "Maryvale nice place ruined" C. Johnson Goodyear.

 

[1_pointer]

Well, it seems that those that posted on this thread are against too much growth. However, I wonder how many of us would refuse to build our house/cabin on the 40ac we might buy in the mountains?

I do know one thing, that unless we have a multiple birth on the second pregnancy my wife and I will be stopping after 2 kids. Then I join Nemont's ranks.

 

[cjcj]

Maybee we all could have a cabin on 40 ac. if there wern`t so many people competing for a limited resource.

 

[WH's OutdoorsChick]

Don’t Forget (southern California)

People don't care about the Environment
More theft, armed robbery and Murders, crack heads,
Overall Morale is down
Polluted air (smog), & water
People care more about social status then the well being of other people and nature
To much traffic
To many Illegal immigrants, who run down our cities, and take our jobs
Crazy drivers and people
Like the article said TO many Daym people
They don't care what resources they waste as long as they are comfortable

Those are some of the OTHER things wrong with southern Cali

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Like Tyler pointed out, how many would not take the cabin on 40 acres? I know I would, and in fact, I hope to do just that when I finally retire. I hope that the 40 acres (or whatever I end up with) is bounded on at least one side by National Forest.... and that I can have my private shooting range on my land.

 

[Washington Hunter]

99% of the problems in this country can be blamed on the fact that there are just too many people. Why growth is usually seen as a good thing I will never understand.

 

[MarvB]

WHOC

love ya babe! Glad to see you (re)define it as SoCal...which to those of us Northerners begins at the Yolo county line

...the rest? all too true

 

[WH's OutdoorsChick]

Love Ya To MarvB


Well I know I have spent time only as far north as Kern County. There is a HUGE difference between Southern California and Kern County..... Last I saw it was a much better place....So I guess what I am saying is North California is nothing like Southern California. I don't want Northern California getting a bad Rep

 

[Washington Hunter]

Any place with too many people is going to have problems. I think that's what is called Loving a place to death.

Wait another 50 years...northern California will be as bad as southern California is today, and Idaho/Montana/Wyoming will be as bad as western Washington. Growth will eventually ruin this entire country.

 

[WH's OutdoorsChick]

God WH....We get the Point

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Yep, Bakersfield, seat of Kern County, is a wonderful place.

 

[WH's OutdoorsChick]

We used to Go to the Kern River and had Friends of the family who had a cabin in the mountains, that is what I remember. Alot of Hiking along the river and alot of trips camping out in tents and the cabin

 

[Washington Hunter]

Well, I just think it's funny that people put the blame on a particular place as being a terrible place to live with pollution, crime, etc. when the only reason that place is such a shithole is there are too damn many people crowded into too small an area.

 

[WH's OutdoorsChick]

I understand and As I agree with you....Pretty Soon we will be like China if the population problem does not get resolved

 

[Washington Hunter]

And that is exactly how China caused the problem they are now paying for (

)