Home for sale in MV. I’ve touched on this elsewhere, and a version of the question came up in discussion under the first article on the site. But that’s probably too buried for a lot of people to have seen it. So because I know this will keep coming up, especially if I haven’t thoroughly dispensed with it, I’ll devote this post to it, using a slightly edited version of the same comments I made in discussion:

So you wanna keep people out, eh?
Somehow a “no residential growth” stance is sometimes confused with a “we don’t want anyone moving here” stance. One has little to do with the other.
If someone asks me, “You moved here not long ago from California. So what’s the deal? Now you want keep people out?!” my response is simply,

“Of course not. I have no problem with people moving here. My objection is to the building of more subdivisions. They are harmful to the town.”

Right now there are plenty of homes for sale in MV, for instance. (Would any Lisbon readers care to mention how many there are over there?) I have no problem whatsoever with someone from somewhere else coming to town and buying one. [1] My problem is with more being built.

Nor do I think any town has ever seriously acted on the stance, “Stay out; you aren’t allowed to move here.” Some have tried a few things to reduce demand for moving to their area, but their real concern has been with residential development and population growth. [2]

Towns out of balance?
People can move here without adding to the population. The problem is the building of subdivisions! People will always come and go. But it’s the development of subdivisions which will allow the population to swell to points which decimate the character of our towns. Without that development, there would simply be a balance of people moving out and people arriving. [3] With it, the arrivals far outnumber those leaving. This is because many prospective residents, tempted by the convenience of a new, immediately available, maintenance-free house, opt to buy the new subdivision homes.

Local governments have all sorts of legal options to apply to prevent developers from ruining their towns, and it’s time we started implementing them here. We really aren’t at the mercy of developers, and if everyone knows these developments don’t even help these towns financially, but instead actually hurt them, and can foresee what they will do to the character of our towns, things may start to change.

To prospective new residents of the area I say this:

Welcome! It’s nice to have you here. Now won’t you please join us in fighting new residential development?

Next up, we debunk another growth myth. And this one’s a whopper!

[1] I would add only the caveat I mentioned elsewhere on the site:

That said, I do believe the time has recently come for new home buyers to begin considering that a purchase in a newer development will only encourage further residential construction. While you may like an existing home, are you sure you want to promote the construction of even more new subdivisions? How does your home purchase affect the future of your community? It seems the choice of where to buy becomes a little more complex when we examine closely its ramifications.

[2] I remember Hunter Thompson once running for mayor of Aspen on a platform which included renaming the town “Fat City” in an effort to make it sound less attractive to people thinking of relocating there. :lol:

[3] Our towns are in little danger of population loss as experienced in some Iowa towns. As long as we nourish our economies properly, maintaining a thriving small business community, vibrant arts and academic communities, and all of our small town charm and character, there will remain plenty of people interested in settling here. (Notice how that third item is also necessary to keep tourists visiting here.) In these towns which reached maturity generations ago, the goal should be to maintain our populations within certain ideal ranges, ranges probably not far from present numbers.