Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thehappyheathen t1_iuw96pf wrote

This is actually an issue in startup culture. Weird segue, I know. There is a problem with growth when it outstrips the ability of the prevailing culture to integrate new people. I think that's what you're describing. Colorado is a small state, the population is only about 5 million or so. It's smaller, as a state, than some cities. It sounds like you're saying that for a long time, the small population of Colorado had a shared culture, including concepts like "leave no trace" in most of the backcountry. When people moved in too quickly, they outnumbered the locals and didn't have to integrate, so the environmental ethics have been lost. When I moved to Colorado, I feel like I was surrounded by a lot of people who grew up on the Front Range. They took me hiking, taught me to ski and shared their values. I feel like that's happening less now because there's too many people moving for them to get absorbed into a circle that is mostly people who have been in Colorado for years, if not their whole life.

11

Traumasaurusrecks t1_iuwkd31 wrote

Yes, you are nailing a chunk of the social parts. You write it out really well. I think the economic part adds a really insidious element to what you have above. Mostly newcomer influx can be dealt with though 'locals' by sticking together culturally while either including the new people or not (not always healthy, but eh). The other half of this is the economic/livelihood shift that literally forces poorer people to move, live beyond their resources, or become homeless (I'm ignoring the idea that everyone just gets better jobs as that is largely not a community option in my experience). Now, it is a huge systemic thing to look at, and mostly can be blamed on companies/international greed at horrifying scales. In these posts, I'm pointing out the individual contribution of people with wealth moving there, but it isn't the root, and I get it - it's a nice place. It just sucks to be not wealthy and be on the receiving end.

The increase of rent and property taxes (I know much more about the rent elements) from the early 2000s and onward basically got untenable for lower classes and moves up in wealth brackets varying from community to community. Some places priced out even the middle/upper class - like Boulder with 1,000,000$ homes on the low end. Or mountain towns where the ma and pa places must close cause they can't afford to pay help a livable wage.

In theory, the new money in the area would help everyone, but economic and government spending impacts from it are not equal across the board. Our lower income communities which were already underserved basically get no change or token amounts of service. Even in areas that receive lots of new people, often not even the schools improve as they are often sent to different highschools. Or in our school district funding was focused on already well off schools - although they did finally address the asbestos, lol. Then with gentrification comes an erasure of history of poor/minority areas (especially in this case) by renaming the place- like Five Points is now RiNo in Denver. And all this economics stuff hits minorities harder - when gentrification came to my hometown, it was the hispanic families I grew up with that had a harder time landing better jobs/paying the bills, and it's not like it was a perfect system before, but it actually got harder for many. All this to say that for lower income communities, to stay, you needed income increases or upward mobility far in excess of general income increases.

4

VonMillersExpress t1_iuxdezf wrote

Lifelong northern Front Range native. There aren’t that many of us that I run into. No idea what impact that has or has had in what you’re discussing, but whatever is happening now is different than what was happening before. But that’s not a bad thing! The old joke motto we had for Fort Collins was “Wide streets, narrow minds”. Doesn’t really apply anymore, and that’s a good thing to my mind.

2