This morning, during some quick, pre-fishin web browsing, I cam across this article on change in Montana. Without a doubt, the state has changed, particlarly in the Bozeman area, as it has grown and the economy has shifted away from traditional resource extraction industries.
For a decade or two, college-educated people who want to live in decent towns, fish in clean rivers and hike in high mountains have been descending on western Montana. Unlike the farmers, ranchers and miners that have traditionally run the state, they tend to be green and lean Democrat -- and they are changing the state's politics.
To the regret of many longtime Montanans, these New Westerners are getting awfully thick on the ground, especially in Gallatin County. They are building monster houses, seeding the periphery with big-box stores, and sullying the Montana that they and their birdhouse-building kids came to celebrate.
As with decline around Malta, no one has come up with a sure-fire scheme to control growth around Bozeman.
Still, once you get out of any Montana town and pick up some speed on a highway, the big sky, limitless space and staggering absence of traffic have a way of soothing a traveler. Emptiness out here has a kind of holiness. It blows away worries about sprawl in the west or decline in the east and seduces a driver, even in a rental car, into thinking of himself as a rugged individualist.
Despite the changes, Montana remains a beautiful place, and the fishing remains fabulous. Yesterday we floated the Upper Madison River. In about two hours we'll be casting onto the Yellowstone.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Why Environmental Law?
- Blogging under the Big Sky:
Perhaps the phrase might be "greener." It's hard to believe that an earth-chewing, chemical spewing mine is easier on the environment than a McMansion. As well, a McMansion, and the subdivision into which it's placed, tends to stay there; a mine, or a ranch, can easily expand and destroy more land. Granted, it's true that of a bunch of yuppies in big houses can trash the land (more people, more destruction) but I don't think you can argue that one person's big home does more damage than one person's coal mine.
Ducks Unlimited is the driving force behind wetlands preservation in this country.
I've seen firsthand who acid rain and chemical and oil spills and dumpting can destroy all of the fishing in a river.
If the democrats would jettison their gun grabbing ways, they could pick up quite a few votes from these groups, I would bet.
The assumption here is that the McMansions are owned exclusively or even mostly by "green democrats".
Any evidence on that?
If by "somewhere" you mean everywhere then the statement is correct. Most multimillionaires vote Republican -- of course, a substantial minority vote Democratic, but that is because, you know, free-thinking and reasonable people (of which most Americans, including multi-millionaires are) often have different views on how to run the country. The number of "flaming leftists" who are multimillionaires is probably countable on one hand. (But I guess by Clayton's definition, anyone with, say, Bill or Hillary Clinton's politics is a "flaming leftist" which says a lot about Clayton.) Let me be clear a "flaming leftist" in my mind is a communist, and I do not believe that even George Soros would qualify as that. (The "flaming" adjective is peculiar, and appears to reflect Clayton's obsession with homosexuality and how homosexuals have, in his mind, ruined our country and hijacked the judiciary because we now recognize that putting someone in jail for private sexual acts between consenting adults in the privacy of their home is a deprivation of liberty (i.e., their liberty interest in being free from jail) without due process of law. Oh, the horror!)
The statement below shows your utter and absolute ignorance regarding ecology and the environment in the West.
"As well, a McMansion, and the subdivision into which it's placed, tends to stay there; a mine, or a ranch, can easily expand and destroy more land."
A ranch preserves rangeland and provides a source of forage and water for wildlife.
Subdivisions cause lots of pavement to be put down, and the last time I checked the wildlife carrying capacity of pavement was zero.
The subdivision leads to loss of habitat, loss of water, and loss of wildlife migration routes because of the roads that are in subdivisions. The subdivision leads to much more loss of habitat because of the infrastructure (stores, restaurants, schools, etc.) that support it. And once a subdivision is started it also expands.
There is absolutely no doubt that the conversion of ranches to subdivisions leads to environmental degradation. The ignorance of your statement absolutely boggles the mind.
You've obviously never been to Park City, Utah.
For background, Park City was orginally a silver-mining town some 130 years ago. At its peak there were some 10,000 miners and their families living there. Eventually the mines played out in the 1950's and the town went into a decline.
About that time, some investors saw the potential for skiing. There are now three major ski resorts in the Park City area. And with the resorts came ever-wealthier people, who built ever-bigger houses higher and higher on the mountainside. The Park City/Snyderville basin area now is essentially an expensive suburb of Salt Lake City with some 50,000 inhabitants sprawled out in ritzy subdivisions like Pinebrook and Jeremy Ranch and Silver Creek.
And they are quite liberal in their politics. Park City is one of the three strongholds of the Democrat party in Utah; along with Moab and the east side of SLC they are blue islands in a red sea.
I have seen all this change first hand; my wife grew up in Park City when it was a sleepy, depressed mining town. Since our marriage in 1988, I have personally witnessed cow pastures and dairy farms get turned into houses and condos. Very few traces of the mines exist anymore; what you have now can best be described as "sprawl", and it ain't very environmentally-friendly.
Yes, on a one-to-one basis, a single house isn't more damaging than a mine. But giant McMansions never exist alone; they require a support network of roads, powerlines, stores, fire stations, clinics, schools, libraries, and performing art centers until before you know it there's an entire subdivision where there once was only open space. And unlike the mines, such subdivisions will probably never "play out".
Mines can be closed and cleaned up. Grass and trees can grow back. But condos and houses and ski resorts are forever.
In the immortal words of Freud? "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
You might want to spend a few more nights in a holiday inn before attempting any more psychoanalysis.
Cheers,
TJIT
(Speaking of which, all right thinking individuals (meaning those who agree with me) interpret "flaming" to mean "obnoxiously outspoken, in your face", the same way one would differentiate between a "flaming homosexual" and one who didn't feel it necessary to remind you of that fact every thirty seconds.)
/rant off
te - Exactly.
Though I do think the fact that GWB got more small donations (<$100) than any other candidate in history is somewhat telling and is reflective of my own experiences.
Further, it is beyond dispute that his statement implying that the overwhelming majority of multimillionaires were "flaming leftists" was absurd on its face --- and it was clear he was implying an overwhelming majority by his reference to "somewhere" there are such multimillionaires -- how about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld. All are multimillionaires; none are "flaming leftists."
>growth around Bozeman.
Reporting from Bozeman ----
I doubt radically controlling the growth is even possible. The 2025 population of Bozeman is projected to be 100,000, up from about 30,000 today. The growth within Bozeman proper is controlled somewhat by zoning, but that doesn't affect the rest of the county. And, zoning has the perverse effect of reducing affordable housing, which folks here are worried about.
The combination of great outdoor activities (flyfishing, skiing, Yellowstone National Park) and the advantages of having a state university make Bozeman an attractive place to live.
A better plan would be setting up things like software development firms, nanotech research, biotech research, banking, financial services.
The transportation problem needs work - perhaps a high speed train in from SLC and LA powered by electricity from nuclear generators. At least air routes in for say $200 from LA.
Best to think of Montana as the next Switzerland.
Wildlife can be accommodated as in Yellowstone and Alaska. Best to do some historical research about the bison etc. that existed in say 1850 and strive to hit that target.
A few points of clarification.
1. The bulk of the feedlots are located in the plains states (Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas) Where the weather is milder and there is a ready supply of surplus grain to feed to the cattle. Cattle are shipped from the range in Montanna to feedlots in the plains states and will spend 3 or 4 months maximum in the feedlot. Montanna does not have and likely will never have any significant feedlots.
Apparently you did not read the rest of the thread and missed my comment that the wildlife carrying capacity of pavement is zero. Because your idea of putting research, banking, and software development companies will result in lots of subdivisions, schools, supermarkets, and the associated pavement and habitat destruction.
Your ideas get progressively worse. One of the things protecting the environment in Monatana is the difficulty getting to the area. The presence of high speed train will take away this protection and lead to even greater amounts of habitat destruction. The $200 air fare makes things worse by adding a lot of hydrocarbon pollution to the area.
Accomodating wildlife requires habitat and every single one of your ideas will lead to habitat destruction and less wildlife carrying capacity.
I'm guessing you like wildlife and you like the scenery in Monatana. But for wildlife and habitat preservation your policy suggestions are stunningly ignorant and would cause vast amounts of destruction to scenic vistas and wildlife habitat of Montanna.
I think you make wrong assumptions about carrying capacity of Montana land, and ways of making roads and rail lines that will not block migration of elk, bison, etc. Look at Alaska - there is a lot that can be done (overpasses and underpasses for wildlife, elevated alaska pipeline, thriving salmon fishery). How many bison and elk were there in 1850? A million bison? How hard would it be to fit 1 million bison in Montana, plus room for humans?
I also think you over-estimate the number of folks that could and would move to Montana or Alaska, even with sustainable development. Not everyone likes the idea of living with herds of elk and bison nearby (as in Yellowstone).
Ranching far from feedlots in tough climate is romantic but not profitable. That makes Montana say 48th in average income in the US.
If all you want to support are a few hikers and wildlife, I accept your model.
If we want to make a reasonable space for the human species, and make Montana prosperous, we need a bit more than "let's just have ranches."