Bozoulian | Guest Column by Pete Talbot

Boom to Bust in Bozeman, Big Sky and Missoula?

Perhaps "central planners" could get Missoula to adopt a '5 Year Plan' followed by a 'Great Leap Forward' and concluding with a 'Cultural Revolution' demonstrating the superiority of central planning over democracy and the caos it brings. That would get Mao to smile in his grave.

This has nothing to do with Maoist communism, and any assertion suggesting such ties is ridiculous. The community planning in Bozeman sucks, and to refute this is also ridiculous. Alternative transportation needs central planning, as individual actors are not going out of their way to establish better bike access anytime soon. This argument is altogether stupid. Why on earth can people not see the potential improvements to the community that could be made through central planning of paved bike paths and trails throughout the city? The lack of foresight applied to transportation in Bozeman is outrageous. I suppose I'm just blinded by my clearly communistic leanings.

i recently visited bozeman and big sky and i couldn't help but see some similarities to the boom we've experiencing 650 miles to the south here on the front range of boulder/denver. obviously, development and growth happens. however, there is a vulgar proliferation of big box retailers and cheap sprawl housing here - and i hope it doesn't happen up your way. i can literally shop at 7-10 different lowe's and home depots within a 10-15 miles radius. ridiculous. our town's walmart (which is in fine shape) will soon be vacated so they can destroy some open land and build a super wal-mart literally 1 mile up the road. it's really sad. it seems that every few miles someone has to build something – leave no empty land undeveloped seems to be the moto around here. fight it while you can. smart growth seems to be overshadowed by financially rewarding growth - for builders and big box stores, all at the expense of the places we love. i wish i had the answer as to how to keep this in check. good luck.

Kyle, just remember what Mao said, "The socialist system will eventually replace the capitalist system; this is an objective law independent of man's will. However much the reactionaries try to hold back the wheel of history, sooner or later revolution will take place and will inevitably triumph." When this happens the People will have their bicycles and pathways.

If smart growth is overshadowed by anything it is the will of the people to live with the chaos of their choice over the selections of central planners who can't resist from growing their powers and extending their reach on multiple levels.

Great to see discussion of these issues in New West! Thanks, Pete Talbot, for the guest column.

As a fourth generation Montanan who has lived out of the state for the last decade, the growth in the cities mentioned, and in other parts of Montana is nothing less than shocking. Multi-million dollar homes in Montana? Owned by whom? No ordinary working stiff from Montana. So, for whose benefit is our home being trashed? Nope, not just for the multi-million dollar home owners. I don't think they are shopping at Home Depot or Wal-Mart.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that Montanans (both old and new) live here because they recognize the unique benefits of personal freedom and natural beauty that Montana has to offer. If that is so, isn't it to the benefit of all to work together to maintain those qualities?

Not talking about "central planning" and communism here, Craig. I'm suggesting local discussion (not name-calling) and action (individual and collective) to reclaim and protect what we all love. Seems to me like there are plenty of intelligent folks in every Montana community that could come up with solutions to these problems if they made it their business to do so. That might require, first of all, a general recognition that there isn't anyone else that's responsible for the problems or the fixes. Dare I say: "government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people?"

As Kyle observed, solutions that ultimately depend on individual action initially require a collectively agreed upon structure. To use his example, lots of folks may be willing to ride bikes, but it's largely infeasible and even dangerous to do that unless there is a collective commitment to building bike lanes.

We don't have to look to Mao's China for a model, just to our own history. My great-grandparents and grandparents worked with their neighbors to solve community problems and to maximize benefits for everyone. Whether it was harvesting together, building barns together, dancing together at the school house on Saturday nights, or taking turns serving on local school boards and county commissions....they demonstrated a commitment to each other and to the place where they lived that seems sorely missing today...at least in our larger Montana communities.

Since it is the beauty of the open space that brings people to the west; building on greenfields will eventually "kill the golden goose". If we eventually reach the point that Yogi Berra once talked about - "It's so crowded there that nobody goes there any more." than what have we done. We have literally shot ourselves in the foot and we have no one to blame but ourselves if we get to that point.

Aspen and Pitkin County have always been slow growth oriented, but simply because of the pressures on growth, even they have had to become more restrictive. Their most recent effort is truly a carrot and stick approach to the issue of growth and it looks like the future. TDRs to encourage in-fill development and development where it provides the least cost to the environment and expense to the public coffers is coming. Get on board! My guess is Mao would not approve, nor do I think Rush would approve so it must be the middle of the road wherein the rest of us reside.

And who the fork wants to live in Aspen? Or deal with the Roaring Fork Rush? I've been to Aspen enough times to know it's not a solution.
The thing about planning is, planning never survives contact with the enemy...and the enemy of planning just happens to be reality.
I am not impressed with amenity migration. I am tired of Pat and Larry and any number of people saying the future is the scenery. Marketing that was a devil's bargain and we are paying the piper. One consequence, which in my view was NOT the least, is that those in Montana for employment reasons -- which is how we USED to be -- are being squeezed out. And in so doing, the essence of Montana, of being a Montananan and not thinking of this place as a forking lifestyle accessory, is being killed.

Marcia, you wrote: "We don't have to look to Mao's China for a model, just to our own history. My great-grandparents and grandparents worked with their neighbors to solve community problems and to maximize benefits for everyone." I threw Mao into this as a bit of a teaser and chum on the water. I agree with you about the community aspect of coming together. What I have seen though is central planners who go under a blanket and issue imperial edicts where they only go through the motions of connecting with the people. What just happened the other day in Missoula is a good example of a community effort that was not hijacked by central planners in love with their own importance.

Craig,
Did I miss something in Missoula? What "community effort that was not hijacked by central planners" occured? Thanks.
Pete Talbot
P.S. I appreciate the reasoned responses by Marcia and many others to this ongoing discussion on Montana growth issues.

Pete, this is what I was refering to. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/07/09/news/top/news01.txt

People see change, some factors of which they find distressing (forgetting for the moment the positives like a healty economy and a good job). It's natural to look around for some way to stop the "bad".

Folks, I live in planning central, near Portland, Oregon. I can tell you, this cure is worse than the disease. It got so heavy-handed that Oregonians by initiative passed (twice, with increasing margins) a prohibition on regulatory takings by governments (only one in the country, as far as I know). This is a reaction to the ridiculous extent to which planners have gone. Of course all the governments screamed that the sky was falling, but now they have to live with it.

Whatever the solution to growth is, planning and trampling of property rights ain't it!

I suggest working with developers and trying to develop a (non-governmental) sense of aesthetics and care for the environment, in the community. Make it feel shameful to put up schlock, and give awards for good, environmentally sensitive development.

Would anyone care to refute that, ultimately, the only solution to the "growth" problem is to stop growing? I'm talking about reducing the size of the population of humans. Not just slowing population growth, but REDUCING the number of humans.

No doubt there's a lot of devil in the details. And in the interest of staying on topic, perhaps a discussion of those details would be best reserved for another time (probably wishful thinking).

But until we can simply admit that the problem is really too many people, aren't all the smart-growth, bike lanes, public transport, infill, and centrally planned and zoned tramplings of so-called property rights just stop-gap measures? Are we not fools to admit otherwise?

MacOLoonie,
I dare you to put your real name to your suggestion. But you won't.
I must raise the point that wealthy societies tend to have lower birth rates. The population around here is furthermore not a birth rate thing, but a migration phenomenon, unfortunately that migration is in turn at least partially driven by migration from places where the birth rate is kinda high, and standards of living relatively low.
And in the long term, I wonder if you are of the age where a declining birth rate will mean fewer bodies to slave away to pay the taxes to support you in style in your dotage.
Whatever....but I do have a suggestion in response to yours, and I'm putting my name to it:
You first.

dVz0ORok4Yjlt mNJ3jT4GMNem4X u98hOlA07HMOjx

.....wishful thinking.

I am well aware of the myriad implications associated with reducing human population. Please review the 2nd paragraph of my earlier post.

I am simply pointing out that the "growth" that is the main topic of the article is ultimately inseperable from the number of humans living on the land. We can temporarilly stave off the percieved ill effects of this equation by living "smarter", more efficiently, etc. And, of course, I advocate doing so to a great extent. But we cannot continue to ignore this simple but profound truth. And yet we do. And we do so, if not at our own peril, then at the peril of our (plentiful) offspring.

Incidently, anyone who implies that I am suggesting misanthropic means for achieving human population reduction is mistaken.

Will be interesting to see if Pete's prognostications come true, that is, that grow will stop in Bozeman because it's become too crowded.

Bozeman's the most heavily planned community in Montana, with the most integration of "urban infill" and "smart growth" policies into its planning, all since the late 90s. What's been the growth rate since those policies were adopted? What has the cost of a house done since those policies were implemented? Pete's doing a slight of hand to tie two unrelated subjects together.

So what's Pete's solution? He stops short of what position he actually advocates, which is to prohibit development entirely, a "no growth" policy, except for the chosen few whose political and environmental policies are in agreement with the government elite and who will be so grateful for a place to live that they perpetuate the new urbanist Tammany Hall.

Of course, doing that merely drives development to other, even more sprawling areas. If not Bozeman, then Three Forks or Livingston. If not Missoula, then down the valley.

I don't know why we see so many "I'm a xxx generation Montanan" replies as if that makes any difference in the United States of america. What makes Montana a last refuge of real americana is that it's not who your parents were, but who you are that is important. It's apparently still a revolutionary idea two hundred and thirty years after some radicals declared it so.

Urbanist Tammany Hall? I guess that will depend on the immigrant Irish from Butte taking sides in a knife fight between the greens and the developers in a Bozeman dark alley.

Aw, cheez....
The central concept of planning and zoning is that it is a manifestation of the desire of certain people to control and direct the lives of others. I don't know how many times I've seen someone move in, and then when someone ELSE moves in, they freak out. And since the freakers don't have the money to buy the property in question, all of a sudden they sink roots in a chair at the planning board hearing room. It just amazes me.
One time I was listening to this lady (a migrant from Arkansas) who had her five acres of weeds, she was opposing a gravel pit on a neighboring ranch. Never mind her foundation, and the road she drives on, came from somebody's hole, right?
So she says, "Mister Rancher, what you need to realize is that your neighbors have rights."
I'm really against having people like that controlling my life in any way, shape or form. Planning and zoning is nothing more than legalized hypocrisy.

Skinner-
I just read several of your rants, your editorials are quie prolific{{{{{tiresome}}}}}, so apparently we need to build roads everwhere, log everything and cover every remaining inch of ground with a house or a mine?

As usual, another "no name" critic. At least George and Matthew and Craig have the guts to quibble openly.
So, Carl, don't drive to work, walk a trail. Move into a soddie, and pull the fillings out of your teeth and THEN we'll talk. Ooops, can't have a soddie because that's mining and you'll need some poles across the roof. A cave, maybe?
Have a nice day.

I don't see any 'smart growth' in Bozeman, yet. We're getting closer with developments like the Village Downtown and the new Mill District condos. Building within the city limits seems preferable to plowing farm fields. Hay smells so much better than asphalt. High-rise, dense, mixed-development approaches within the city's core are the best appearing option for Bozeman from my vantage. The new mixed-use zoning category seems exciting and promising to me. It occurs to me that perhaps Bozeman has planned itself into this mess, by planning the development of sprawled-out, low level residential units on the periphery of the city's services and commercial districts. With this being the case, I make the argument that central planning for trails and paths should accompany the planning and execution of this sprawl. Perhaps our existing planning has failed us, and our environment. As it is, it seems that those in control have planned to accomodate cars, and nothing else. So, while planning is dominating our city's development, let us plan thoroughly. Meanwhile, we should worry about the outrageous price of owning a home here. Is this problem not a result of over-regulation by the government as well? How is it that the only homes available to buy and live in are these synthetic boxes that cost hundreds of thousands? This is NOT the market at work. We need alternative housing! It is not right that we, as a society, should equate home ownership with debt. The solution, from my naive and unprofessional point of view, are yurts. Has this occured to anyone else? Perhaps I neglect to consider some factors in my assertions, but they just seem like an ideal affordable solution. Similarily, I also subscribe to a somewhat radical position which is linked to the sale and development of our precious Montana farmland. It occurs to me that the selling and subdividing of farmland is a market dominated move. I suppose that with the influx of lower priced crops from South America and the resulting falling profits on the farm owners' part, the sale of their land for millions is a predictable tendency. Within the market as it is set up today, I see no solution to the problem. Again, from my entirely non-professional standpoint, I view the crux of the problem as governmental control on allowable crops. I think that if the ban on hemp cultivation were lifted, this would represent a promising crop for our fertile fields. This is a miracle crop, and the market might react very differently to this crop than as to food items (although hemp can be itself used as a food item). It can be used for countless applications, and is good for the land in terms of nutrients. Once again, I expect heavy criticism of my thesis, especially since I have no type of land usage background. I just really think that selling, paving-over and subdividing of Montana's farmland results from the government banning farmers from producing the one crop which might truly flourish in the current market and which, in turn, might allow for the retention of family ownership of farms. Please don't assume I'm just a hippy trying to swing the door open for legalized pot. These are two separate issues. I'm just an east Montanan who grew up playing on a farm, and am saddened to see this state's vast land gobbled up and subdivided because farmers have no way of keeping their heads above water in this controlled market. Its nice to see the above responses, however, which evidence the concern of 'The People', as Craig would say.